Beto: We only have ten years on earth left if we don't address climate change.

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Nov 25, 2013
32,101
11,714
136
So the poster who started a thread yesterday expressing concern that something Trump said may have been "misinterpreted" has started a thread today so that he can intentionally "misinterpret" what Democratic politicians have said.

Fascinating. So what's the ATPN consensus on this? Trolling? or just obliviousness?
Propaganda monkey.
 

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,305
994
126
Look up sunny day flooding in Miami Florida. Look at how much they have spent and are going to spend while trying to save their city. Now just think this is just one city in US. How much is it going to cost to save other cities along the coast. Now consider coastal flooding is just one component of climate change. Fires, drought, soil erosion, non-coastal floods, wars, famine, etc.

In 21 years there will be 9.8 billion people on this planet. We are facing big problems and the can can't be kicked down the road any longer. This isn't a partisan issue. This is our home and we should take care of it. We should also teach our children to take care of it.

"Leave this world a little better than you found it."

I've brought this up here before. The way our population is growing, I think most of this is feel good nonsense anyway.
 

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
12,715
3,452
136
So proven wrong, facts in face, what do we do? Double down. There aint no cure for that.
 

balloonshark

Diamond Member
Jun 5, 2008
4,251
695
126
I've brought this up here before. The way our population is growing, I think most of this is feel good nonsense anyway.
So you'll rely on science when your sick or when you want to connect to others close to the speed of light on the internet or when you need satellites to help you find your hotel at the beach but you ignore them when it comes to what is probably the most important issue of our lifetimes?

To throw our hands up and do nothing is unconscionable. This isn't about left or right. This is about the world we leave our children. I say that as someone who has no children and no plan to have any. I do kind of like my nephew though and I want to be able look him in the eye and say I did all I could to make things better.

P.S. Your side hates abortions and birth control. That's two things that can keep our population in check. Can't you do something about them if you're really concerned about population growth?
 
Last edited:
Feb 4, 2009
25,367
6,053
136
@compuwiz1 this applies to you from earlier

Do you believe Mothers, Fathers and Doctors are killing babies moments after they are born.


The President thinks so.
There is no way I’m sitting out on this cycle. The President sells fear. I’m perfectly fine with Beto selling fear.
@compuwiz1 @SlowSpyder

Still waiting guys.

Please answer if the President is spreading lies to cause fear to get votes.
 

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
12,715
3,452
136
So you'll rely on science when your sick or when you want to connect to others close to the speed of light on the internet or when you need satellites to help you find your hotel at the beach but you ignore them when it comes to what is probably the most important issue of our lifetimes?

To throw our hands up and do nothing is unconscionable. This isn't about left or right. This is about the world we leave our children. I say that as someone who has no children and no plan to have any. I do kind of like my nephew though and I want to be able look him in the eye and say I did all I could to make things better.

P.S. You side hates abortions and birth control. That's two things that can keep our population in check. Can't you do something about them if you're really concerned about population growth?
Problem for Slow is that its all about his feels, not the facts. And he is so deep in that he will never realize it himself. Game Over.
 

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
4,872
2,081
136
Liars like Slow are right-wing authoritarians, and they have adopted the Firehose of Falsehood propaganda method that their real Strongman, Putin, has been using for decades.

It doesn't fucking matter how stupid or clearly wrong they are. It's just another stream of falsehood that they spray everywhere to increase distrust among US citizens for their fellow citizens, and US institutions. Mostly because it benefits Russia and right-wing authoritarians worldwide, but also because many of them hate themselves and this country so much that the ends justify the means.

Again: right-wing authoritarians are attempting to destroy your country by any means necessary. It isn't about attempting to correct them, because they don't fucking care about the truth, this country, or anyone but themselves and their tribe.

The only thing worth doing is identifying the actual truth that exists in objective, observable reality, and then call out the right-wing propaganda scumfuck.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meghan54 and dank69
Feb 4, 2009
25,367
6,053
136
Master Beto is a moron, spreading fear. Do any of you think the world will end in 10 years?
They are examples of fear mongering used by alarmists before. The subject of the OP was alarmist fear mongering for votes.
Still waiting guys, is the President using fear to get votes?


@compuwiz1 this applies to you from earlier

Do you believe Mothers, Fathers and Doctors are killing babies moments after they are born.


The President thinks so.
There is no way I’m sitting out on this cycle. The President sells fear. I’m perfectly fine with Beto selling fear.
 
Feb 4, 2009
25,367
6,053
136
@compuwiz1 this applies to you from earlier

Do you believe Mothers, Fathers and Doctors are killing babies moments after they are born.


The President thinks so.
There is no way I’m sitting out on this cycle. The President sells fear. I’m perfectly fine with Beto selling fear.
Hey guys @compuwiz1 @SlowSpyder you guys both stated Beto is using fear to get votes.

In the clip above is the President using fear to get votes or does he believe Parents & Doctors conspire to kill new born children?
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
28,549
7,673
136
Hey guys @compuwiz1 @SlowSpyder you guys both stated Beto is using fear to get votes.

In the clip above is the President using fear to get votes or does he believe Parents & Doctors conspire to kill new born children?
Obviously, the Trump decoder ring translates that stuff so you know, when he's speaking literally or figuratively, or at all, you only hear ebil Dems.
 
Feb 4, 2009
25,367
6,053
136
Obviously, the Trump decoder ring translates that stuff so you know, when he's speaking literally or figuratively, or at all, you only hear ebil Dems.
I’m thinking it’s simply the President is trolling people like us. Beto can’t troll.

Mr. Ceezwiz, please post a reminder to the despicable duo on Saturday or Sunday if possible.
I have a busy agenda this weekend and I need to know what they think
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
28,899
2,623
126
In 21 years there will be 9.8 billion people on this planet.
To be fair, the problem is the fact that there "will be" 9.8 billion people.
And we only encourage more people to come here rather than protect ourselves and our LIMITED resources.

If someone cares about pollution, and our environment, the LAST thing they'd want is more people. In the world, or our nation.
 

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,298
1,201
126
Well he might be wrong and it 15 years or so. And he's wrong if he says we'll destroy the Earth. Lifeless perhaps and that will take longer to happen than 10 years. Ultimately is we don't act the sixth great extinction event will turn into the second Great Dying, but that might not start until 10 years and day or so.

Your ignorance isn't surprising
Do you have a peer reviewed paper backing that assertion? Google Scholar can be used to search for this information.

I found the abstract from this paper interesting:
I review the literature on the economic impacts of climate change, an externality that is unprecedentedly large, complex, and uncertain. Only 14 estimates of the total damage cost of climate change have been published, a research effort that is in sharp contrast to the urgency of the public debate and the proposed expenditure on greenhouse gas emission reduction. These estimates show that climate change initially improves economic welfare. However, these benefits are sunk. Impacts would be predominantly negative later in the century. Global average impacts would be comparable to the welfare loss of a few percent of income, but substantially higher in poor countries. Still, the impact of climate change over a century is comparable to economic growth over a few years. There are over 200 estimates of the marginal damage cost of carbon dioxide emissions. The uncertainty about the social cost of carbon is large and right-skewed. For a standard discount rate, the expected value is $50/tC, which is much lower than the price of carbon in the European Union but much higher than the price of carbon elsewhere. Current estimates of the damage costs of climate change are incomplete, with positive and negative biases. Most important among the missing impacts are the indirect effects of climate change on economic development; large-scale biodiversity loss; low-probability, high-impact scenarios; the impact of climate change on violent conflict; and the impacts of climate change beyond 2100. From a welfare perspective, the impact of climate change is problematic because population is endogenous, and because policy analyses should separate impatience, risk aversion, and inequity aversion between and within countries.
This relatively recently published paper predicts some negative impact but nothing in the ballpark of your assertion.
Agricultural production is sensitive to weather and thus directly affected by climate change. Plausible estimates of these climate change impacts require combined use of climate, crop, and economic models. Results from previous studies vary substantially due to differences in models, scenarios, and data. This paper is part of a collective effort to systematically integrate these three types of models. We focus on the economic component of the assessment, investigating how nine global economic models of agriculture represent endogenous responses to seven standardized climate change scenarios produced by two climate and five crop models. These responses include adjustments in yields, area, consumption, and international trade. We apply biophysical shocks derived from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s representative concentration pathway with end-of-century radiative forcing of 8.5 W/m2. The mean biophysical yield effect with no incremental CO2 fertilization is a 17% reduction globally by 2050 relative to a scenario with unchanging climate. Endogenous economic responses reduce yield loss to 11%, increase area of major crops by 11%, and reduce consumption by 3%. Agricultural production, cropland area, trade, and prices show the greatest degree of variability in response to climate change, and consumption the lowest. The sources of these differences include model structure and specification; in particular, model assumptions about ease of land use conversion, intensification, and trade. This study identifies where models disagree on the relative responses to climate shocks and highlights research activities needed to improve the representation of agricultural adaptation responses to climate change.
Here is the abstract from another peer reviewed paper that appears to directly contradict your assertion:
When crop yield results are introduced to the BLS world food trade system model, the combined model and scenario experiments demonstrate that the world, for the most part, appears to be able to continue to feed itself under the SRES scenarios during the rest of this century. However, this outcome is achieved through production in the developed countries (which mostly benefit from climate change) compensating for declines projected, for the most part, for developing nations. While global production appears stable, regional differences in crop production are likely to grow stronger through time, leading to a significant polarisation of effects, with substantial increases in prices and risk of hunger amongst the poorer nations, especially under scenarios of greater inequality (A1FI and A2).
Here is the google scholar search I used to find the abstracts referenced above.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,50&q=climate+change+effects&btnG=&oq=climate+change+e

I am genuinely curious where all of the end of world predictions are coming from. If this is coming from the peer reviewed literature I would be interested in reading it.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,641
4,059
126
Do you have a peer reviewed paper backing that assertion? Google Scholar can be used to search for this information.

I found the abstract from this paper interesting:


This relatively recently published paper predicts some negative impact but nothing in the ballpark of your assertion.


Here is the abstract from another peer reviewed paper that appears to directly contradict your assertion:


Here is the google scholar search I used to find the abstracts referenced above.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,50&q=climate+change+effects&btnG=&oq=climate+change+e

I am genuinely curious where all of the end of world predictions are coming from. If this is coming from the peer reviewed literature I would be interested in reading it.
You are citing data papers going as far back as 2004. Three significant things you are missing are corrected data that shows an increase in warming, that the heat content of the oceans is far greater than was known, and permafrost melt which is greatest in Siberia that releases vast quantities of methane, a gas that is 87 times more potent than CO2, IIRC.

I've posted information prior to this post that goes into more detail, but the concern is at what point does the rate of positive feedback become self-perpetuating and therefore beyond the power of humanity to stop. That's likely to occur in the 2030's to 2040's. Once the seas warm enough the main planetary oxygen producers die off and O2 falls to levels few higher organisms can endure and it doesn't stop there.
 
Feb 4, 2009
25,367
6,053
136
@compuwiz1 this applies to you from earlier

Do you believe Mothers, Fathers and Doctors are killing babies moments after they are born.


The President thinks so.
There is no way I’m sitting out on this cycle. The President sells fear. I’m perfectly fine with Beto selling fear.
@SlowSpyder @compuwiz1 @imported_tajmahal

The three of you stated or implied Beto is using fear for votes (which I sort of agree with but that’s a different topic)
Is the President using fear for votes or does he believe Parents & Doctors are conspiring to kill new born babies?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY