Just take all of the fresh water running back into the salt sea and give it to humanity. Co2 +. H2O + SUN = LIFE

because NIMBY's still think nuclear isn't safe after watching Chernobyl on HBO. edit: also, nuclear plants take *years* to plan and build, you cannot afford a single fuckup. That being said, the technology is lightyears better today. It really is a public perception issue for Americans.

@solaroid55 or idiots, remember Fukushima?

I dont really care about way people producing energy, let the free market decide. Nuclear electric price is 5-6 time higher than solar, 3-4 time higher than wind. Coal and oil receive 450 billion dollar each year in subsidies, stop feeding them and let them die, free market is the best market. Bunch of commie asking for free money.

expensive $

People in favor of the AGW hypothesis can only use anecdotal evidence because actual scientific evidence doesn't really exist.

News i saw was that Germany closed down reactors without much of a renewable initiative -- so is now dependent on Ruszian gaz

@@jaixzz US gas you mean.

@@HR-yd5ib "A total of 1,449 TWh of natural gas were imported into Germany in 2022 (1,652 TWh in 2021, or a 12.3% decrease), with the largest volumes coming from Norway (33%) and Russia with 22% (52% in 2021).9 Jan 2023"

@@jaixzz , how much Russian gas is imported by Germany now?

He's a self-admitted corrupt lobbyist - in other words - a paid liar.

Wishful thinkers? Don't you mean doomsayers making the problem far worse than it is, or making a problem when there is no problem. As Bjorn points out humanity is not on the point of extinction, death from extreme weather is but a tiny fraction of what is was yet jeff wants us to believe that right now we are living in apocalyptical times. Jeff shows the change from horse to car took 10 years in New York, true. Why? Because they were far superior. If the electric car is far superior it will happen without legislation. Bringing in legislation to force a change does not make it a goo change. Evolution brings about good change.

He earned his pay from the genocidal masters of the fossil fuel and church pedo rings..

@@justicar5 this totally negates anything he has to say

Sort of like the Darwinians, no substance or logic.

It's because the problem isn't really a problem, nor is it under humanities control.

It's not disengenuous to argue for tackling the problem of ocean acidification right now. Bjorn said: we have to ask ourselves, what is the "good stuff" that we want to leave behind for our kids? I would say that there is nothing better than a healthy earth to leave behind. The idea that we should leave behind a higher GDP, or more knowledge, rather than a healthy earth is utter foolishness in my opinion. We can afford to slow down economic progress if it means that we reduce the damage to the planet. I agree with Bjorn though that it's probably not going to happen, because we're unwilling to make that kind of "sacrifice".

Haha! I agree!

Bjorn got many things wrong. Expect 15%-25% reduction in global per capita output by 2100 with 2.5-3.0°C of global warming. www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0071-9 On our current path, the likely global temperature increase by 2100 is around 3.2°C. www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3352?foxtrotcallback=true

@@garysarela4431 what did he get wrong?

@@danieljames7984 Bjorn got many things wrong. Fossil-fuel-related emissions account for about 65% of the excess mortality rate attributable to air pollution. www.pnas.org/content/116/15/7192 @23:20 Bjorn incorrectly states 20%. Air pollution from fossil fuels are responsible for "an excess mortality rate of 3.61 (2.96-4.21) million per year" .. "a rapid phaseout of fossil-fuel-related emissions and major reductions of other anthropogenic sources are needed to save millions of lives."

@@garysarela4431 Nc Copy pasta

Agreed.

He has no cogent arguments - same as all other honest humans. He knows nothing about AGCC.

Bjorn got many things wrong. It's possible for each state to replace fossil fuel energy with entirely clean, renewable energy by 2050. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/06/150609093025.htm pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2015/EE/C5EE01283J#!divAbstract Wood Mackenzie backs up the fact: "We estimate the cost of full decarbonisation of the US power grid at US$4.5 trillion, given the current state of technology." www.woodmac.com/news/feature/deep-decarbonisation-the-multi-trillion-dollar-question/ That works out to around 1% of GDP. Putting that into perspective, the U.S. currently spends 7% of GDP on energy & around 20% of GDP on healthcare. www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2019/08/05/how-the-clean-energy-transition-could-save-more-than-it-costs/#2ed988c06c92

*@Gary Sarela* Bjorn might simply disagree with those you cite, it’s presumptuous to assume he’s wrong. Besides, he did acknowledge we could end fossil fuels in 20 years (or whatever timeframe), it’s more a question of if that’s a good goal to have. He thinks it’s not a good goal to have. We could end all fossil fuel use inside a week with a carefully considered mass extermination program using the world’s military technology. Just because a thing is possible doesn’t mean it’s good, obviously. If you want to eliminate most fossil fuels in your life I think you could do it within 20 years if you tried hard enough. I’m not interested in that goal. Cheers!

@@garysarela4431 If it were cheaper it would have already happened. Companies would be undercutting fossil fuels left, right, and centre.

@@BobWidlefish Bjorn got many things wrong. Fossil-fuel-related emissions account for about 65% of the excess mortality rate attributable to air pollution. www.pnas.org/content/116/15/7192 @23:20 Bjorn incorrectly states 20%. Air pollution from fossil fuels are responsible for "an excess mortality rate of 3.61 (2.96-4.21) million per year" .. "a rapid phaseout of fossil-fuel-related emissions and major reductions of other anthropogenic sources are needed to save millions of lives." Ending fossil fuels within the next two/three decades is both astute and necessary. -Over all 50 states, converting to renewables would provide 3.9 million 40-year construction jobs and 2.0 million 40-year operation jobs for the energy facilities alone, the sum of which would outweigh the 3.9 million jobs lost in the conventional energy sector. -Converting would also eliminate 62 000 U.S. air pollution premature mortalities per year today and 46,000 in 2050, avoiding $600 bil. per year in 2050, equivalent to 3.6% of the 2014 U.S. GDP. -Converting would further eliminate $3.3 tril. per year in 2050 global warming costs to the world due to U.S. emissions. -These plans will result in each person in the U.S. in 2050 saving $260 per year in energy costs and U.S. health and global climate costs per person decreasing by $1500 per year and $8300 per year, respectively." pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2015/EE/C5EE01283J#!divAbstract

@@RevoltingPeasant123 The fossil fuel industry continues to avoid paying for the externalities of their product - you pay for climate change and healthcare costs related to pollution. Global subsidies for fossil fuels were $5.3 Trillion in 2015 or 6.5% of global GDP. www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X16304867

Exactly - in fact my great grandmother, who was a self-made wealthy entrepreneur/immigrant in the early 20th Century, was the first woman in the City of Chicago to own and drive an .... wait for it... electric motorcar.. sometime around the turn of the century. Nobody forced or paid her a subsidy to do that.

awful take, cars were lobbied into existence thru government funded programs and infrastructure packages (as well as laws passed to rip out existing train infrastructure in places like LA) to bolster the car industry. And now look where we are a century later, over-reliant on a few countries for some magical ground juice.

The World Economic Forum owns cable the the majority are plugged into.

Not too versed on history, especially the dismantling of the effective mass transit systems in almost every major city in the United States by the fledgling automotive industry to make sure growth of their monopoly was assured.

What car companies killed public transportation? None other than General Motors (a leading bus maker as well as an automobile retailer), Firestone Tire and Rubber Company, Standard Oil of California (now Chevron), and Phillips Petroleum. The streetcar system, as the theory goes, was deliberately destroyed by the companies who stood to gain the most from its demise.Dec 17, 2019

And to source lithium, copper, Rare minerals needed which are open pit mined…

yes gigafactory uses no NG or coal plants, only in the initial manufacuring of the building material and its transportation.

Also their cars use no fossil fuels to charge mainly at night when the sun doesnt shine and wind doesnt blow as hard because people go to work in the morning and charge at night.

right, and they don't use fossil fuels in the mining industry for the their Lithium and Copper needed for their batteries. Green energy is nonsense, if people really want to go green, then nuclear energy is the only viable option. And yes, there are problems with nuclear energy but we should put our minds to solving them rather than waste time with renewables

@@johng6637 of course that is the case! But after the car is built, almost no co2 is produced on a DAILY bases...which is white its essential.

The more the earths axis tilts towards the sun the more DIRECT sunlight the higher latitudes poles receive. Warming the southern hemisphere heat sink oceans and thawing the northern hemisphere frozen co2 continents. Which is why temperature rises first and co2 follows. Cause and effect. ClimateChange is has and will always be caused by the changes in the earth's axis, north star and proximity to the SUN. Collectively known as the Milankovitch cycles.

The more the axis of the earth tilts towards the sun the more DIRECT sunlight the higher latitudes poles receive. Warming the southern hemisphere heat sink oceans and thawing the northern hemisphere frozen co2 continents. Which is why temperature rises first and co2 follows. Cause and effect. Warner oceans means more severe weather events. Just energy. ClimateChange is has and will always be caused by the Milankovitch cycles. Planets are affected by planet things. EARTH is a closed loop that self regulates co2 with LIFE.

@@gregorybyrne2453 that explains why we seen a c6 hurricane that hasn't happened yet

Hurricanes need a temperature shear, if it was global warming hurricanes should be decreasing. EG, why is September the peak of hurricane season and not August if it was simply temperature.

@@nustada those c6 hurricanes that have yet to be seen happened in September?

Banning fossil fuels would be like banning the sun. Fossil fuels are nothing but trapped energy from the sun. Earth is a closed loop that self regulates co2 with LIFE.

so basically starve them

@@buzzlaw One week without food is no risk for health if you are not already starved. It can be healthy.

In the cold too. They’d have to use wood burning fireplaces to keep warm & only natural fibers to wear. No plastics at all.

@@Windsweptzariel wood burning stoves create more pollution than gas lol

Why would you accuse him of greed? Isnt he just advocating the morality of the anti-industrialist? Maybe he authentically wants to send himself and others back to the stone age.

He got one billion dollars for battery research and the energy density hasn't changed in at least 15 years. I wonder what is commission was on that billion. $$$$$

You are correct we need more men like him.

It’s called hysteria

@@paulmcgreevy3011 Another name for it is “ Mass Formation Psychosis “ Collective Hysteria.

There is a way to normalize hurricane frequency, size, and power; its called "Accumulated Cyclone Energy". This derived value can be tracked globally (Atlantic + Pacific). The accumulated energy per year has been effectively flat (+/- variability) since 1972. The data says that hurricane storm season have not significantly changed. The number of Category 5 hurricanes are also tracked. It also hasn't changed in decades. Increasing storm intensity and quantity has, so far, been a failed prediction.

Speed of a hurricane forward movment is not a function of its streaghth where did you read that from? Trade winds push hurricanes and they are slowing down because the Arctic is loosing not only loosing its ice, but the temperature difference between the Arctic and Equator is shrinking and that is causing a global slow down of global wind speeds. Jet stream is also slowing down and that is dangerous! Hurricane Harvey is a example as it dropped 50 inches of rain in one location! not over 100 miles! it was moving at only 5 mph.

@@climeaware4814 you should probably reread what I wrote. I am criticizing the person for thinking that forward movement is an indication of hurricane strength.

@@ForzaJersey Dude once i heard the facts on nuclear; i was like "wait what?". We gotta accept the fact that the left wants devolution so things they think are bad, are good for people who want growth.

Marxist want population reduction ............................. cheap nuclear would do the opposite. Then there is the cold hard reality nuclear tech cannot be allowed to proliferate outside of first world developed countries. A certain religion comes to mind when speaking of why nuclear should not be widespread.

@@AKlover if your talking about islam. The worst of them want caliphate on earth which means there needs to be an earth to conquer. They are just as bound to mutually assured destruction as any other faith/affinity group.

Not disagreeing with you but lying about co2 causing ClimateChange is not the way to go about it. Especially when you consider the climate cycles of our water planet are continental glaciers brought on by Global tsunami's every 13 k years when the Precession of the north star aligns the equator with the solar orbital plane and the gravitational pull of the SUN pulls tsunami's around the planet East to west because the planet spins west to east. Milankovitch cycles have always caused ClimateChange and always will. Planets are affected by planet things like changes in the tilt of earths axis, north star and proximity to the SUN. The source of all energy in our solar system. Collectively known as the Milankovitch cycles.

@@gregorybyrne2453 i have not heard any lying about co2 in order to push the discourse towards nuclear. Hydro carbons are cool with me. But i do think nuclear is the next step.

Why are they siding with Jeff?

@@lukegibson9410 Mass psychosis?

@@lukegibson9410 I know someone who isn't worried about global warming…Obama. OHH & all the banks doing 30yr. mortgage loans for waterfront properties ! Hmm 🤔 *INSERT BIG EYE-ROLL HERE*

It's not a "real debate" though ! .. both of these bozos are pushing the manmade climate change BS agenda

@@lukegibson9410 Because those who are not in the climate hysteria camp don't get a megaphone and billions of dollars of research money.

You need intellectuals of that caliber in the governments to have those. 😁

@@The.world.has.gone.crazy...fr

He is a shameless alarmist if you ask me,panic does noone good,to go zero fossil fuels in 20 years is will kill way more than it saves...nuclear power phasing out fossil fuels over a responsible period of time.

Unfortunately he has some of his facts very wrong. To think that batteries aren't an issue anymore is complete nonsense. The only thing batteries currently do is smooth out the transition between wind or solar (intermittent) to natural gas or nuclear. In California for example, where the largest battery systems currently reside, it wouldn't be able to supply more than a couple minutes of power.

@@kurtispealo454 agree,the people are building castles in the sky while the problem remains..its not like most of them will suffer anyway.

Hunter is IS a Crisis I monitor Global Temperatures in 198 countries and also from 3,000 Ago floats in the Ocean. Ocean temps are reaching 31-32 c or 91F near the northern part of Vietnam. The Dead Sea sees 35C these are HOTTER then a Jacuzzi

I believe fossil fuels should be abandoned, yet we cannot; people will die from not having air conditioning, or they will freeze to death without adequate heat. Then, there's the industrial uses that most know nothing about, since oil is necessary for industrial use. In reality, it's quite simple: we will need energy fueled resources and are nowhere near not needing them.

Insain lol

*insane

Richard Wolff was worse but I feel you

actually the opposite. He is only looking at maybe the rest of his own life and not considering a longer term future. He claims we can just adapt, but this is not possible.

@@seandepagnier why not? We've always adapted through worse climate change in the past. The historical information is all against your claim we can't adapt, and we will have to anyway. We've adapted through 120m sea level rise in the last 20k years, why can't we adapt to 30 cm in the next century?

​@@KingComputerSydneyWe face far more than 30cm of sea level rise, but this is not the issue: there is nothing historical about the rate of changes in the planetary systems going on today. You say we will have to adapt, then the first step to adapting is to cut emissions. Americans emit more than 20 times more than people in many countries, the obvious solution is to cut the high energy wasteful lifestyle out.

@@seandepagnier You must not have studied the history of climate change very thoroughly. The current rate of change is has been exceeded numerous times in the past, and it on par for this stage in the cycle. Cut emissions of what, CO2? That won't have any noticeable effect. The rate of human CO2 additions are a minor warming driver and only add a beneficial amount from previous levels over 5000ppm when life flourished on earth. The plants a loving it. I don't know why you want to starve the plants and stop making the planet greener. We should try to get CO2 up to 1000ppm, but never will.

​@@KingComputerSydney It is true the earth is greening for the last few decades. I do not deny the truth as others and I expect the same from you. Due mostly to reforestation efforts in china and the melting ice caps and crop yields. This is a positive thing, however evidence shows the soil is drying from higher temperatures and the trend will not continue without additional measures. These measures should be seriously considered to promote the greening trend but no one seems to discuss them. There are bounds in water, nitrogen, and other minerals that will prevent the trend from continuing. meanwhile, amazon, congo and indonesia rainforests are all browning. "The annual rate of increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide over the past 60 years is about 100 times faster than previous natural increases, such as those that occurred at the end of the last ice age 11,000-17,000 years ago. " -- www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide Why not give evidence for when the rate of change was exceeded in the past as you have claimed? The total amount of co2 is not so much the problem as the rate of change is a shock to ecosystems as it is happening 100 times faster than in the past. We end up with far fewer species and as a result are in a mass extinction event. The populations of wildlife has decreased 60% in 40 years. If 1000ppm is really better (and humans have never lived in such a world) we need to do it over a 10,000 year time span in a controlled manner. Furthermore, many (most) use of CO2 is used inefficiently and for wasteful purposes to do things we dont even need (like cars and planes) that even without emissions make people lazy and weak, and spoil the world through globalization as well as spreading viruses around. The excessive use of energy is a negative effect on society even if it were free. If fusion power ever came to be, the abundant energy would be abused and cause many new problems we dont have to worry about today. The combustion engine is maybe 30% efficient, in most cases much worse. Future tech could allow 80-90% efficiency. Wouldnt it make sense to save the oil for now until the technology can use most of the energy rather than waste most of it as today?

You are a true scientist , by believing what you have experienced and not some unproven theory. ( no sarcasm meant, )

@@taucetii3412 Evidence is a huge part of science. While theory and hypothesis are also parts, they are very small parts that can only rely on proof and evidence to take the next step.

Sea level rise is the least of our worries

On top of that, most of the regional conflicts he attributes to water conflict have little or nothing to water shortage at all; e.g. Kashmir (India and Pakistan laid claim to it at their inception), Syria (the revolution was an outgrowth of the Arab Spring because there's an oppressive dictator), Arizona (out of control urban expansion into the DESERT), China (natural geographical water issues coupled with hydroelectric projects, and they slaughtered nearly all of their swine herds sure to disease and are trying desperately to rapidly rebuild them). His opening argument is painfully absent of any historical or current geopolitical contexts and facts.

Scott, co2 of any kind "Coal Oil and NG" are all contributing record levels of co2 into the atmphere. 198 countries contribute 37 billion tons of co2 on a anual basis.

@@climeaware4814 And NG is the lesser of those fuels. So you prefer chasing imaginary fuels to real solutions. This is how Germany ended up burning coal.

@@scottfranco1962 Yes I am aware of that. But no co2 is better way to go. The sun provides far more heating and power ability per square foot then all fossil fuels. Germany needs to find other ways to get away from Russian oil and ng.

@@climeaware4814 NG makes the ideal backup for solar and wind when the sun is not shining and the wind is not blowing. There are compact NG power generation plants that can be turned on in a moments notice. The other sources of backup like nuclear and pumped hydrostorage both have been targeted by the greens. This is not rational.

@@scottfranco1962 Yes I fully understand but at the same time, do you relize in the last two decades the RATE of temperature change on Earth? I have been monatoring the temperatures word wide and countries are starting to go uninhabitable! Kuwait and Southern Saudi Arabia are now seeing temptresses of 50C and other areas of the middle east are close to reaching those temperatures. The Arctic is warming at 2-3 times faster then the rest of the planet. It is caused the Jet Stream to slow down, to become fractured and deadly heat waves are occurring much sooner in the season and are more deadly to wild life. If a NG power plant can pump the co2 back into the crust I have no issue with that model.

indeed, don't try telling these useful idiots that. they work for their NWO totalitarian masters. they can't regulate the sun or water vapor, but regulating the output of human activity like co2 allows them to control those humans and their activities. never mind the fact that manmade co2 has close to zilch in affecting climate or temperature. how can you implement global totalitarian control without a good crisis to give them more power?

While solar activity was down the planet kept rapidly heating. Solar activity on the rise now :)

Earth is a closed loop that self regulates co2 with LIFE. Energy is neither created nor destroyed. On this planet. All energy comes from the sun. Milankovitch cycles cause climate change

You think open pit copper and lithium mining will bring back species? Another issue that isn’t solved by globalists agenda unless you go with the mass depopulation genocide they think is necessary. Lomborg addresses it by showing even if we went along with the “green” agenda it barely makes a difference in its supposed goal

I agree with the nuclear solution. Technology is there, and it is safer and cleaner than people think. Wind and solar has failed in many parts of the world (spain, germany, california, etc). I think there is a place for wind and solar, but they cannot be considered the solution. CO2 is not a a death sentence for the environment per se, but the excess amount is. A mix of nuclear, wind, electric would make CO2 manageable. There are bigger problems that could soon be irreversible. Plastics , industrial waste, drugs and other things polluting fresh and sea water will kill us faster.

There is no technical issue with nuclear, only political.

indeed, oil and natural gas aren't actually "fossil fuels" to begin with, they aren't created from dead biomatter, they are formed from the high pressure and temperatures at the mantle-crust boundary and are as close to a "renewable" form of energy as we're going to get. the climate alarmism is equally bullshit, as its entirely driven by solar cycles and cloud formation, co2 has very little input.

these are MMT folks. printing = wealth

Dont worry we just spent 7 trillion in Covid relief, that we just snapped our fingers and created.

Way less than the forever wars cost,

He was eating onion while he was admire his solar panels on top of his house.

He should be in the cherry business. he's a good picker

I got the impression that essentially that was what was done? The before numbers didn't add to a hundred, the after numbers almost did.

No one ever bothers to consider how the planets going to need to warm quite a bit before it becomes a negative instead of a general positive for human civilization for it to be warmer. Warmer climate causes evaporation and that provides fresh water run off and fill ground water aquifers, available drinking water exceeding the entire humans populations needs in excessive use cases is a pretty good thing and it is far easier to channel liquid water then frozen water. It will mostly get warmer on the far northern and far southern regions of the planet and in all relative to our perception of the degree or two claimed by an average of a few close source climate models ran for a century from now the fewer people who live in the regions will have minimal impact as when it's more then a few degrees below freezing a few degrees in typical current temperatures changes nothing that matters and is going to be entirely subjective 'feels' as there isn't anything changing enough at any general chemical process effecting such as water freeze point at sea level with a degree or two change. Whats frozen is still frozen and the chemistry for the environment is essentially exactly the same as it is 1-2 degree cooler and will be until specific thresh holds of temperature start to alter the chemistry for common elements and molecules of biological and ecological processes.. A lot of energy is needed to survive just 100 or so miles north of the US Canada border, where it will be necessary to import energy from a distance on wire or burn a fuel almost constantly for every occupied space. No one is walking around in shorts and a T shirt and sleeping on the sofa with the windows all open all night all year round in these regions. Slightly warming the planet will actually probably be massively beneficial to a significant portion of the population while at best offsets a minimal area of land that is currently occupied and developed and inhabited giving 100 years of time for the populations effect to move anywhere on earth that is slightly higher relative to sea levels or plan for and build infrastructure projects that deal with such changes. I bet with 100 years to work with and a government budget to address we could literally jack up the entire Manhattan island of new York 25 feet, hell we could move the damn buildings off the island and place the whole city back from the ocean a building at a time, piece by piece.

I have to watch that I never understood the electoral college

JT, since 1860 or the Start of the Industrial Revolution total co2 output was then, 006 billion tons of co2. Today it is 36 billion tons of co2. co2.earth explains the graphs. Humans are REVERSING all that carbon that was stored by plant life that made life extinction on earth and re releasing it back into the atmphere. 55 million years ago was the last Carbon Emissions mass extinction.

@@climeaware4814 plants will evolve, as life does, to balance the levels. They grow bigger to absorb more.

@@JTStonne That is again, a ignorant comment. Earth is slowly growing more uninhabitable. Terrestrial land that is normally more arid is seeing less and less rain during LaNina Cycles "its called Positive Indian Ocean Dipole" in the Indian ocean. Horn of Africa has not had any moisture in several years! 55 million years ago co2 levels were so extremely high that all wilf life that would escape earth that was turning into a deadly oven did and migrated into the Arctic. The Arctic was full of Tropical Pants and Alligators. In the Bellingham Washington Chuckenut formation is petrified Tropical Palm Fronds and Tracks left behind by Alligators.

@@climeaware4814 there was a time when all continents were attached, Pangea, so of course there was tropical life. Why do you think there was a period where trees and plants grew unusually big?

If you’re talking about the greatest good for the greatest amount of good then it’s affordable, reliable and plentiful energy and fossil fuels are the only one that can fit that bill. The quality of life only rises with fossil fuel use.

Energy is neither created nor destroyed. On this planet. All energy comes from the sun, including gravitational pull. The best we can do is capture utilize the captured sun's energy. Earth is a 4.5 billion year old closed loop that self regulates co2 with LIFE. Dinosaurs didn't live of off the little bit of co2 unthawed released right now.

Co2 is a Strawman. ClimateChange is real and caused by the changes in the earth's axis, north star and proximity to the SUN. The source of all energy in our solar system. Earth is a 4.5 billion year old closed loop that self regulates co2 with LIFE.

@@gregorybyrne2453 i’m very interested in what you’re talking about right now, as i’m pretty uneducated on climate change. could you link some sources ab this? thank you

🤣

Amen...just wish more were in positions of power instead of the corrupt 'lifetime' politicians running the show, making their own families rich.

Definitely sounds good in theory but the fact is we aren't even close to there yet

@@paulthomas963 That is part of it. Neo-Malthusians, whether or not they realize that’s what they are, might counter that with something like, the accuracy of our predictions have not borne out so far, but just wait, the cataclysms are still just around the corner. I don’t buy it. The fallacy in their argument seems to be their continual underestimation of the human capacity to expand the resource base through trust and collaborative effort. The anti-Malthusians, in turn, sometimes underestimate the human capacity to lose faith in the ongoing validity of a synergistic ethos and turn to zero sum outlooks.

We do not have a great track record for creating food and individuals long term health. This is about as whimsical an idea as going 100% green on energy.

the climate scientists (you know, the one's with the PhDs) and the climate models fucking KNOW this numbnuts.