Let me preface this by stating that I'm not a climate change denier, I believe in anthropogenic climate change

Let me preface this by stating that I'm not a climate change denier, I believe in anthropogenic climate change.

But I have a slight suspicion that the risks have been overblown for propaganda purposes. In the medieval period there was a warm period that lasted 300 years - things got so toasty that you could grow grapes in England. Either way, the world didn't end up in Armageddon then, if anything the warm weather was a huge boost to farming and populations. Furthermore, the Medieval warming period shows that we can at least survive through the harsher weather - is it so unreasonable that we'd be able to find a technological solution if it was indeed so dire?

Why is it that in this cycle of warming people are portraying it as a doomsday situation? Am I missing something here?

Something about it being quicker than normal but i genuinely couldnt care less about the prospects of third worlders who would be affected. It would unironically be better for the world if they drowned.

bump

Climate change is over exaggerated by media and scientists for financial gain.

>grapes in England
England =/= global

If the world does warm then it benefits those in colder regions, which tend to be mostly Whites and Asians. Those groups also happen to be the highest IQ groups of humans, while the lowest IQ groups tend to be in the hotter regions.
It's just a thought though.

You know what happened right after the medieval warm period? The Little Ice Age.

this
the real problem is the pollution caused by
factories and the oil industry

meant this

Yeah it's rather unreasonable to think that we could find a technological solution to climate change due to the fact of how huge of a problem it is. While we are able to alter the earths climate globally it takes a while for that alteration to take place. So there is no immediate technological solution but possibly a technological solution that would take years or decades to reverse human caused climate alteration

Well, Technically we could cause a pretty swift change in climate to cool things down if we used nukes to fill the atmosphere with dust temporarily, which would cause cooling, and could potentially cause a runaway cooling effect by having all the snow and ice reflect light away.

Yeah, I thought about the nuclear option too. But didn't think about it in my reply because while the fastest current solution it would be vastly unpopular. But yeah thanks for pointing that out :)

Yeah, it would be very counter-productive, since it would also kill off most crops and kill off a large chunk of the human population.

>Am I missing something here?

Geographic shifts in parasite and disease cycles for crops, livestock and humans. I've brought it up several times in climate change threads with studies but no one wants to talk about it despite it being a real serious issue that no one in the media mentions until it's too late.

I personally wouldn't mind if a large chunk of the population was wiped out, it would helpful in the short-term at least.

The medieval warm period was not global, there were much fewer humans that were not as dependent on global infrastructure and ecosystems as we are now, we've already surpassed the medieval warming period's temperature, and global warming isn't simply bad because it's hot, it's bad because it's rapid.

>Either way, the world didn't end up in Armageddon then
No one's saying global warming will end the world, just that it will be extremely costly. And again, saying that the medieval warming period was good for farming is irrelevant since current global warming is not the same in degree or speed.

> is it so unreasonable that we'd be able to find a technological solution if it was indeed so dire?
There is a technological solution, replace fossil fuels with nuclear and renewables.

Any questions?

How do we get the over 1 Billion Indians and over 1 Billion Chinese to actually give a shit about it?

globalization

So by conquering them and forcing them to do what we say? Because otherwise they sure as hell aren't going to do it willingly.

They don't have to, they're not the ones who control energy infrastructure and law.

Do you know what globalization is?

>How do we get the over 1 Billion Indians and over 1 Billion Chinese to actually give a shit about it?
Start by setting a good example. China and India aren't going to listen to preaching by the USA when their own per-capita emissions are vastly larger.