Why cant global warming be good?

there will be more food:

co2science.org/about/position/globalwarming.php

>co2science
>Iceagenow
>legitimate sources

pick none.

Land near the equator will become too hot for agriculture. Farming yields will collapse, right in the middle of Africa's population boom. In a given country, you might have 100 million people and food for maybe half of those. Inside Africa, obvious consequences are:

>conventional war between nations over arable land and water sources
>civil unrest, collapse of society as it becomes physically impossible to feed everybody
>mass (possibly total) migration to wealthier nations, sparking more civil unrest

There'll be a knock-on effect to Europe. How this plays out depends on the timescale and political reactions:

>Europe saves as many people as possible, becomes majority African
>Europe tries to save as many people as possible, finds it impossible to move so many people in the required time, hundreds of millions starve to death
>Europe goes full far-right, but finds it impossible to stem the tide, becomes majority African
>Europe goes full far-right, manages to close the border, hundreds of millions starve to death

At the same time, land currently too cold will become prime farmland. Russia and Canada are the big winners here.

kek no one's going to pay for 4 billion niggers

No habitability, just the surface temperature if the CO2 growth stops at 720 ppm

(Way beyond the 450ppm/2C no-return-point)

youtube.com/watch?v=d8sHvhLvfBo

>land currently too cold will become prime farmland. Russia and Canada are the big winners here.
the Bearskis and Syrup Suckers might benefit down the road, agriculturally, but those new zones of good climate will be over fairly poor soils in a lot of places. it'll take decades to build up the soils...

do you think the koch brothers pay these people or are they just working on their behalf for free?

>Will they all be bad or will some also be good?
All of them will be good, to positive people: people learn from pain and suffering and even death.

anons never cease to amaze me

youtu.be/M1cMnM-UJ5U

> Lets assume humans burn ALL fossil fuels
Then we wouldn't have to worry about climate change. Our global economy, which relies exclusively on the burning of fossil fuels, would completely collapse. Think no imports, nothing plastic.

While the developing world faces climate-induced food shortages, the so-called "richer" nations will all but collapse as food is not able to be delivered to population centers.

Even if you were lucky enough to prepare independent crop plots, you would have to defend it against millions of starving city dwellers.

At the very least, martial law, the suspension of human liberties and mass executions in the streets. The streets that are still above water.

But, of course, there's nothing to worry about. Let's all go back to what Melania Trump was wearing to the Congressional speech. That will distract us while the food runs out.

It's amazing how some /pol/tards will blame the Koch brothers as overlords over everything that is not their bottom line. Paid shill, they shout.

Yet, Trump appoints Mnuchin as Secretary of the Treasury. Mnuchin, who was Executive Vice President of Goldman-Sachs, Mnuchin, who owned failed IndyMac (which settled out of court for millions for illegally foreclosed properties). And nobody bats an eye.

Trump didn't drain the swamp. He just moved the alligators in when everybody was looking the other way.

they dont even pretend anymore. they just unironically take anything their cheeto-elect tweets as a god given truth and anyone who disagrees must be put in concentration camps

We actually have examples of what would happen since most of the Jurassic had extremely high CO2 levels. We know what that does.

1. it gets really hot. Obviously. Most of the land in the tropics becomes sandy desert where nothing lives. Keep in mind this is much of the planet's landmass. So billions of people are displaced. Billions of farms destroyed.
2. Growing areas move north. So do people. Countries like the US that now produce tons of food don't anymore.
3. Sea level rises. Like a couple hundred feet. This displaces huge cities and destroys islands.
4. Climate becomes homogeneous. Monsoonal. 6 months out of the year it doesn't rain, the other 6 it does. Half the year the land is desert, the other half it's flooded. This is bad for agriculture.
5. More food! Unfortunately the food is less nutritious because adding CO2 doesn't make the soil more fertile, nor could plants increase nutrient uptake if it did. This is because of the square-cube law, nutrients are absorbed at the surface of the roots but the plant mass increases faster than the root surface area. The effect is called "nutrient dilution," and we're already seeing it.

Other problems have been mentioned- half of the world's population is fed by the Haber process using fossil fuels so we can expect most people to starve.
water will be an issue, we won't have enough.
land will also be a problem, arable land will shrink.
War will be the biggest problem. It will happen. Most people will die.

human civilization may survive, but in much smaller populations with presumably much less technology. It won't be fun.

Still better than handing everything over to Soros like shillary would have.

Wrong, Trump is draining the swamp. He's been replacing the career bureaucrats who have zero clue how the real world works with businessmen who know how to keep costs down. It's about time the government learned to live within its means.

Most of the data reguarding global warming comes from west south America, honestly.

Then the research grants handed out by America...

Its not even funny.

southern europe will become more tropical in climate, so they're fucked, especially spain and greece
europe will have to build walls to save their coastal cities
this isn't counting ocean acidification and what it can do globally, hence to europe too

eventually

Temperatures can get to the point that the tropics become a dead zone. That's not good for anyone.

>europe will have to build walls to save their coastal cities
Would it be possible to close off the mediterranean sea?

No worries then unless it's a way that does not comprise humans.

>le soros boogeyman

>It's about time the government learned to live within its means.
>proposes massive tax cuts for big corporations while increasing spending
enjoy getting cucked by the plutocrats

you two really just proving point desu senpai

Even if global warming is real and caused by humans, there is no evidence that action to prevent it would be less harmful than the supposed warming itself. Destroying your own economy through inherently inefficient government intervention is a massive cost, and likely outweighs any downside of increased temperature.

You employ a thief to catch a thief, obviously.

Lowering rates can increase total tax receipts as a result of greater economic growth. Boosting GDP growth back up to 4-5% per year would more than make up for lowering the overall tax rate.

Yup, it even happened once, but then the water evaporated and turned the land around it into desert.

Where can I apply for a position on Arc B? Because it begins to look like it provides the better outlook in the mid-term, possibly even better survivability.

Artificially? Not really. To close off the strait of Gibraltar would require a wall 900 meters tall and 14 kilometers long. We have no way of building something that big that is capable of holding back that much water. The tectonic plates would need to close up again in order to do the trick.

The real reason people try and deny climate change or pretend it'll be good is because they view it as a threat to their way of life. This is why in America it's such a hard sell. We don't want to get rid of our cars, get rid of suburbia, get rid of the American dream of owning a home with a white picket fence and a two car garage.

We don't want to own up to the idea that something we base our culture on is killing people. It would be much easier if the science were wrong.

Well it's not wrong. Tough luck.

Even if the science is right, that's no reason to trust government regulation to solve anything. If the cure is worse than the disease, you're better off doing nothing.

> proposes massive tax cuts for big corporations while increasing spending
Typical leftist lies. The tax cuts that are being proposed lower everyone's taxes. And only the military is seeing an increase in spending, everything else is cutting cut back to more reasonable levels.

...

What a shit system Trump created. And you really have to be retarded to even like Trump's plan.

Suppose you are a working class american and you see you will safe 6.78$. Isn't that great. But wait a minute...

While I am working my ass off and saving only 6.78$ why is my fucking boss, the fucking millionaire, saving 393.24 dollars. Why is he saving even more than me? What the fuck? I need that money more than him. He is already a fucking millionaire.

I would support Trump's plan if only the order of those savings were flipped. As in, the 20k earner saves 393.24 dollars, the 55k earner saves 173.88 and so on.

Holy shit. If you are a poor person you have to be retarded to support someone who is simply giving you two extra peanuts while at the same time giving billionaires what will amount to basically another free mansion after a couple of years. Fuck that shit.

>cure is worse than the disease because muh government gets power
You realize we live in a mixed-economy?
Big bad socialist bogey man wont hurt m9 we've already got socialism in our economy

one has healthcare $100/month

other has to pay $1500/month

You're getting $6.78 more because your labor isn't worth much in the first place. The labor of a 250k earner, however, is worth far more. He gets more because he earned it.

> I need that money more than him.
Doesn't matter. "To each according to his needs" is bullshit and always has been. If you really want to make more money, you should work harder and cultivate more useful skills.

Every-time this is tried it fails. Every-time you still hear this rhetoric.

The fact of the matter is corporations don't simply reinvest their increased profits into the global economy. Look at Apple, they have hundreds of billions squirreled away in tax havens that they can't even touch themselves for fear of paying tax on it.

And anyway, it's a retarded thing to suggest, that lowering the cost of operation for massive billion dollar corporations is a good thing while we defund agencies like the EPA and increase military spending (which was already exorbitantly high). The swamp wasn't drained, it simply got a more contaminated orange tinge with Trump.

Obamacare caused healthcare costs to increase, not decrease. So under the dims you're paying more in taxes AND paying more for healthcare, whereas under Trump's plan you're paying less taxes and paying less for healthcare.

>You're getting $6.78 more because your labor isn't worth much in the first place.

Nice way to cultivate the next communist revolution.

>Hey workers. Fuck you and your labor. You are not worth anything to us.

>The labor of a 250k earner, however, is worth far more. He gets more because he earned it.

Sure, this may be true, but why not help poor people too?

>If you really want to make more money, you should work harder and cultivate more useful skills.

It is hard to cultivate more useful skills when you are already poor. Skills don't grow on trees, they come from teaching facilities. Trade schools, universities, etc. The only way someone can afford to go these is one of two:

1) That person is financially stable
or
2) That person receives the education for free

And by fucking poor people, you are denying 1). And by not electing Bernie Sanders, you are denying 2). So you are talking about a fantasy world where everyone is able to just go and get more skills when in reality the system is way more complicated.

> Skills don't grow on trees, they come from teaching facilities. Trade schools, universities, etc.
> implying you need any of those things to learn new skills

The internet contains all the information you need, freely available to everyone. This idea that skills are hard to come by without money is outdated tripe used by the lazy to excuse their own deficiencies.

>people are poor because they're lazy

>get 7$ more biweekly which is basically meaningless
>your boss who probably makes WAY more than 250,000$ gets a percentage cut too which is also meaningless to him but which significantly impact tax revenue and government services

Why don't tax brackets have more layers than that?

250,000 as the cutting off point is retarded.

>He gets more because he earned it.
He earned it at your expense though. He doesn't do more work, or better work, he simply exploits other people's labor who have no real choice. Most people don't choose to be poor, your argument doesn't hold up against basic logic. Basic logic says that we're a society, and that the millions of people who you say don't do anything of value are acting like civilized society...and not murdering the few people who exploit all of them. Meanwhile those people are not acting in accordance with the society which benefits them (keeps them not murdered) and exploits said people. In a society you pay your fair share.

>all we need is more skills

universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20151208175803561

>Poor people are lazy again

I only have so many anime reaction images onii-chan. Try not to use them all

>The internet contains all the information you need, freely available to everyone.

>No free internet in the US

Whoooooooops.

I suppose you are also a filthy socialist, proposing government funded high speed internet for everyone, right? Great comrad, lets go out together and campaign!

Also. I suppose that by saying this you mean that you never went to university and are a completely self-made self-studied professional who learned everything for the internet.

I mean, you wouldn't tell poor people to just learn from the internet when you are at a university paid for by daddy's money right? You wouldn't do that. No one would do that. That is so contradictory, right?

> Look at Apple, they have hundreds of billions squirreled away in tax havens that they can't even touch themselves for fear of paying tax on it.
Because corporate taxes in the US are insanely high, so high that no reasonable person would subject themselves to that. Lowering taxes would bring that money back into the country and lead to massive growth, increasing total revenue.

> while we defund agencies like the EPA
The EPA is nothing but a weight around the economy's neck. What good does it do? Just look at Flint, the EPA did absolutely nothing to prevent that. So why should we pay for government bureaucracy that does nothing useful? At least military spending creates good paying manufacturing jobs. The EPA just gets in the way with useless regulation blocking people from starting new businesses and hurting existing ones.

>hurr durr the government can't do anything right
And yet at the same time you trust the FDA to ensure your food isn't poison, and it isn't. To manage roads, the water supply, etc... The government does countless things right and the average citizen depends on that every single day but still comes out like a retard and says the government is incompetent. I mean, we have the best military in the world don't we? Everyone likes to say that, guess what...the military is a part of the government.

>Why don't tax brackets have more layers than that?
>250,000 as the cutting off point is retarded.
Having brackets in the first place is retarded. A simple flat tax can raise more than enough revenue to run a properly sized government without any of the inane complexity of the current tax code.

> And yet at the same time you trust the FDA to ensure your food isn't poison
I wouldn't trust the FDA to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. They're practically the poster child for worthless, obstructive bureaucrats.

>Because corporate taxes in the US are insanely high, so high that no reasonable person would subject themselves to that. Lowering taxes would bring that money back into the country and lead to massive growth, increasing total revenue.
Wrong, they are insanely low in shitholes like Ireland and so they obviously go their because we don't penalize them for it. If you want to sell your 800$ piece of shit that costs 100$ to make in America, you need to pay American tax rates. We should forbid them from selling their product here if they don't want to pay their taxes instead of setting up some phony 1 room headquarters in random shitholes around the world to dodge their responsibility while still doing business in other countries. Trump said a similar thing about putting tariffs on car companies moving to Mexico, and guess what? They came around. This needs to be applied everywhere.

>he EPA is nothing but a weight around the economy's neck. What good does it do? Just look at Flint, the EPA did absolutely nothing to prevent that. So why should we pay for government bureaucracy that does nothing useful? At least military spending creates good paying manufacturing jobs. The EPA just gets in the way with useless regulation blocking people from starting new businesses and hurting existing ones.

Completely WRONG.
>popsci.com/america-before-epa-photos
The difference between New York City's air before and after the EPA is measurable, and it is massive.

Also, the EPA couldn't do anything in Flint, they have limited governance, and that was up to the local government. You're suggesting the EPA doesn't have enough power so we need to remove it? What kind of logic is that? Shouldn't we EXPAND instead?

>I wouldn't trust the FDA to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. They're practically the poster child for worthless, obstructive bureaucrats.
You can say that, without citing any evidence at all or a source like you just did, but salmonella rates for example in the US, speak for themselves. Regulation works, deal with it. You trust them every single day you buy meat at the supermarket.

>The EPA is nothing but a weight around the economy's neck. What good does it do? Just look at Flint, the EPA did absolutely nothing to prevent that. So why should we pay for government bureaucracy that does nothing useful? At least military spending creates good paying manufacturing jobs. The EPA just gets in the way with useless regulation blocking people from starting new businesses and hurting existing ones.

Are you joking? NYC used to be like China with all its smog.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1966_New_York_City_smog

The success of the E.P.A is extremely well documented, the acidification of our lakes and the contamination of our air has all gone down significantly since its introduction.

You're wrongly attributing Prairie change to regulation, rather than the natural advancement of American industry and technology

>Shouldn't we EXPAND instead?
This so fucking hard. You dumb fucks have no idea the shit that's in your water supply

>You're wrongly attributing Prairie change to regulation, rather than the natural advancement of American industry and technology
What the hell is 'prairie' change?

And by natural advancement you mean regulated? How can it be natural if it's under under regulation? HAhaha....user, that's a contradiction you know!

> The difference between New York City's air before and after the EPA is measurable, and it is massive.
> implying making jew york's air better is a good thing
The more of them who die from shitty city air, the better. Urban areas are already overpopulated shitholes that have been trying to dominate the country by breeding more voters. A little population control is just what the doctor ordered. Read up on Malthus. Without something to keep their numbers in check, the unproductives will breed out of control.

>rather than the natural advancement of American industry and technology
You just moved your smog to China
what a tremendous advancement

>Why cant global warming be good?
It is good. The weak will die and the strong will survive. The free market will decide who is strong and who is weak. The billions of people who will be brutalized and killed by war and starvation were simply too stupid and lazy to not get killed, they wan to die.

>Read up on Malthus
>Malthusians still exist
>current year
You have to totally lack any understanding of modern food production or science to think some 18th century cleric's thoughts on the matter are relevant at all. The United States alone can produce enough food to feed the entire world several times over, the problem is food distribution not production, we've solved hunger a long time ago.

[citation needed]

and no, fox news doesn't count,
wikipedia would be nice, as they list their references

>NYC
>not literally the best of America
I understand you want retarded inbred hicks who live a hundred miles from civilization in either direction to vote along your lines of ignorance user, but come on. New York is awesome.

> New York is awesome.
It's shitlib central, full of idiot millennials who want to import even more shitskins. Nuking it would do the whole country a favor.

Malthus is even more relevant now than it was in the 1700s. Now the poor are allowed to vote, and of course they vote for the dims and their promises to give them even more free stuff. Allowing them to continue breeding out of control gives them even more votes with which to get more free stuff and breed even more, driving the country to bankruptcy.

> the acidification of our lakes and the contamination of our air has all gone down significantly since its introduction.
Your mistake is in assuming that the EPA did any of that. They didn't, industry improving technology did. EPA just took credit because that's what bureaucrats do.

not to mention it smells like shit

the 250k guy gets 250k because someone thinks his work is worth that much. Fine, no problem.

The question is why should he be additionally rewarded by the state with a low tax rate? why shouldn't he pay more because HE gets more out of the infrastructure and still has more left after taxes than the poor guy?

because idiots have been brainwashed by oligarchs into being concerned for the well being of said oligarchs against their own interest

> internet, freely available to everyone

Where is that? I don't know a single country with free data plans. Next, who pays for the computer? Finally, look up how many people are cut off from electricity every year. I suppose your PC runs on air?

> The question is why should he be additionally rewarded by the state with a low tax rate
The rich already pay a higher tax rate. Really, it would be better if everyone just paid the same flat percentage of their income.

> why shouldn't he pay more because HE gets more out of the infrastructure and still has more left after taxes than the poor guy?
Lolwut? The poor get way more from the government than the rich do. Just look at all of the free stuff that the government hands out to the poor. If anyone should pay a bigger percentage (which is dumb, everyone should pay the same percentage) it should be the poor because they are more reliant on government than anyone else.

>industry and technology
>natural

Fucking everyone and their dog has a smart phone these days, even the supposedly "poor" people.

>The poor get way more from the government than the rich do.
This makes zero sense unless you have brain damage. Take road maintainence for example, a staple of tax spending.
>own a business
>suddenly roads are hugely good for you
>hurr durr that homeless guy over there benefits more from the public service of roads than you do, even though it allows you to conduct your business and make millions

> industry improving technology did
And exactly why did industr improve? Out of their good hearts or because regulation?
Remember that poisoning the river is cheaper with your waste than keeping it clean, so shareholders can sue you if you waste money on a treatment plant that isn't mandated.

>Lolwut? The poor get way more from the government than the rich do. Just look at all of the free stuff that the government hands out to the poor. If anyone should pay a bigger percentage (which is dumb, everyone should pay the same percentage) it should be the poor because they are more reliant on government than anyone else.
>be rich by fundamentally siphoning money from community
>community doesn't band together and take you from your bed at night with pitchforks and tortures because the government affords them a pittance to live on despite your exploitation
>the government basically subsidizes your evil and keeps you safe while barely allowing the poor to subsist
>they benefit so much more than you
what

this is econ 101

government spending on the public contributes to corporations and business owners in a massive way

>And exactly why did industr improve? Out of their good hearts or because regulation?
>Remember that poisoning the river is cheaper with your waste than keeping it clean, so shareholders can sue you if you waste money on a treatment plant that isn't mandated.

>mfw Trump literally just repealed legisltation to allow coal companies to dump their waste in water again
>vox.com/2017/2/2/14488448/stream-protection-rule
natural industrial improvement everyone

The rich get to use the same infrastructure that the poor do, while the poor get the benefit of that infrastructure plus housing, healthcare, food stamps, and a ton of other welfare programs providing basically everything for them. The poor get more from the government than the rich.

>The rich get to use the same infrastructure that the poor do,
Yes, but they also benefit from it more.
>while the poor get the benefit of that infrastructure plus housing, healthcare, food stamps, and a ton of other welfare programs providing basically everything for them.
The rich also benefit from this, as all of this govt spending on the poor comes back to the rich since the poor need to use this aid to buy things from the rich
>The poor get more from the government than the rich.
completely untrue, see above, learn to read, etc...

The rich guy uses an infrastructure that creates a job that pays 250k (assuming that's for going to work). The poor guy gets almost nothing out of that infrastructure, even if some stuff twards his basic needs is free. The rich guy uses disproportionately more of the infrastructure to get to 250k, so tax him more.

>The rich get to use the same infrastructure that the poor do
But do they get to use it as much? I don't own millions of delivery trucks the way Amazon does, is it reasonable to say I use the road as much as Amazon does? Obviously not, so Amazon gets more out of road maintenance taxes, which they dodged, and leave the cost to the average citizen -- who they then sell shit to using those same roads. It's simple abuse, corporations cheat, and then try to convince people they're the lucky ones.

> "Guys! Businessmen are totally heartless and will do anything for a little bit of money no matter how evil!"
Liberals always trot this out to justify more government regulation, ignoring that government is far more likely to fuck you over than a business. Businesses at least are upfront about wanting to make money. Governments want control "for your own good." I'll take a selfish but all around reasonable businessman over a government utopian any day.

>Guys! Businessmen are totally heartless and will do anything for a little bit of money no matter how evil!"
But they are
snopes.com/2017/02/06/dump-coal-waste-into-streams/

lmao at you user

there's nothing reasonable about polluting local water supplies because it will be cheaper and raise your stock a fraction of a percent

idiot

fucking idiot. your boss being rich is not why you are poor. you are poor because you are worth very little. your boss is worth a lot. you don't get 'what you need'. that's communism. you get what you EARN.

> post story from snopes
> call someone else an idiot
40 keks

> there's nothing reasonable about polluting local water supplies because it will be cheaper and raise your stock a fraction of a percent
And the government will just as happily do that and fuck you over in ten more ways. Just look at Venezuela. That's the sort of thing that leftist dogma gets you. A starving, rundown shithole.

Businesses have never polluted water, or the environment in general.
Such pollution has never resulted in reduced quality of life, disease, cancer, death etc.

Fuck off, leftist.

Stay in China for a year or so and see if you still think that's a ridiculous statement. The entire country is a massive testament to the perils of unregulated business and corrupt, irresponsible government, a polluted hellhole where you can literally get away with murder as long as you grease the right wheels.

This is what the hardcore laissez-faire Republicans genuinely want a MAGA US to look like, hence their hard-on for crony-friendly dictators like Putin. And you still think handing over the country to people who got rich by not giving a shit is a good idea?

wow obvious lame troll

>what was the Exxon Valdez oil spill
>what was the Deepwater Horizon explosion
>what is Minamata disease
>what was the Sandoz chemical spill
>what are Chinese 'cancer villages'

Private industry and agriculture is THE main cause of water pollution anywhere you go in the world, because only they have enough money to make the government look the other way, and enough pull to force them to subsidise their activities and spin damage control when things (literally) blow up.

Heal thyself, you stinking shill. You're more Goyim than any 'leftist' you've put down in your life.

>global warming is real and human caused
Stopped reading there

and who is gonna employ somebody who has no formal education and "learned the stuff on the internet"?

this place is under the bridge of the internet where most trolls and tollas reside

Is that really so hard? Just dump a lot of sand or whatever in gibralta strait