The Gargantuan Lie That Is Collapsing the Climate

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Aug 08, 2026, 11:48 AM UTC

K0balt wrote: post #135

ericmay wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, because (and I'm being a bit flippant) I sure as hell am not giving up my gas stove while billionaires fly around in private jets and MAGA guys are coal-rolling in their F-250s... It seems to me that carbon capture technology plus renewables and nuclear + dream energy (fission) will be the future but we're probably not going to go off of fossil fuels much, which will necessitate in part the need to suck this…

CO2 capture and planetary albedo management are going to be the only way. For cO2 capture to be meaningful, we need to increase our planetary energy production by 2 or 3x so we can put that energy into sequestration, and obviously those gains cannot be based on fossil fuels. Albedo management is much faster to roll out, but will have a lot of pushback because it will also create locally undesirable outcomes. The tipp…

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Aug 08, 2026, 11:54 AM UTC

ffsm8 wrote: post #104

chicken-stew wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thermal systems are slow. On the planetary scale of pump and dump heat the lag is something like 30 years. So the change you’re experiencing today is the effect of what was exhausted in the 90s. What we’re getting in 2050 is already locked in.

I don't disagree but I feel like this comment chain kinda implies taking action today would actually meaningfully change the trajectory too... It really doesn't. Climate change is a global problem. It would need a global solution, and everyone should know that that's beyond unlikely to appear... So the only thing you can do is reduce local pollution - which is meaningful in it's way (better quality of life), but has…

Post by b112 » Sat, Aug 08, 2026, 12:55 PM UTC

yorwba wrote: post #194

b112 wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are entirely different reasons. War. Make a people's land unliveable, and make it so they cannot grow crops any more, and those people will come for your land. Imagine if 1B people decide to move to where another 1B people live, but are still struggling with climate change? Barely making it by? So I agree with your point, 100%. You are right in the direct mortality. But also felt a tangential point of "secondar…

Nowadays, a farmer who can't grow crops anymore doesn't necessarily have to find a farm elsewhere, but could also move to a nearby city and work in a factory. That option is enticing enough for many that they'll choose it even when their farm is doing fine. Agricultural employment is generally on a downward trend. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.AGR.EMPL.ZS?most_rec... You may wonder where that city is going…

Post by FeloniousHam » Sat, Aug 08, 2026, 1:29 PM UTC

antisthenes wrote: post #131

FeloniousHam wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Another factor is that rich oil and gas people figured out they could just buy the media. Who is this "media"? Is this the same "media" that Trump and his dullards claim is so corrupt and contrary to The Truth? Are you influenced by this "media"? I don't read The Guardian or Jacobin, but I'm occasionally exposed to their headlines and they are certainly reporting on climate change. Are they part of the "media"? The…

> Is this the same "media" that Trump and his dullards claim is so corrupt and contrary to The Truth? Are you influenced by this "media"? I don't read The Guardian or Jacobin, but I'm occasionally exposed to their headlines and they are certainly reporting on climate change. Are they part of the "media"? This would have any meaning behind it if e.g. Jacobin had the same reach and viewership as Fox News. But it doesn'…

Post by tejohnso » Sat, Aug 08, 2026, 1:32 PM UTC

square_usual wrote: post #163

tejohnso wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The report does include a >50% human mortality extreme category and the author of the article is referring to a separate report suggesting 3°C is much more likely than expected. I think it's pretty reasonable to think that an extreme climate would cause extreme mortality. The report is pretty confusing to digest. But because you think that particular consequence is overstated in the article, you're suggesting that th…

> I think it's pretty reasonable to think that an extreme climate would cause extreme mortality. No, it's not reasonable. They're using the same label, but there's no evidence showing that.