Yes or No: “climate change” is the most existential threat facing mankind

burt williams wrote:

No

Greatest scientific hoax EVER.

Nuclear war is the greatest existential threat at the moment and is getting worse all the time with conflicts between the US/Europe and China/Russia becoming more bellicose every day.

Overfishing is a more immediate existential threat, although a lot has been done over the past two decades to help some critical fisheries recover. But if overfishing goes unchecked, critical fisheries could collapse and cause countries that rely on seafood as their main source of protein to move to meat, poultry and pork, which would send prices through the roof and cause famine in many parts of the world.

Global warming is an existential threat, but not as immediate as the prior two.

No

Adequate water supply is the most existential threat to civilized nations. It's tied to climate change to some degree, but more greatly influenced by greedy, selfish morons.

Humans are overrated anyway. Fungi and ants will eventually form a symbiotic relationship that will ultimately evolve to the next dominant species.

No. Let's go Brandon.

It absolutely is, no question at this point. Anyone who denies this is living in a fantasy.

It's sad that Americans' penchant for radical individualism means that many of us have to reject even the premise of a crisis demanding collective action.

And it's deeply confounding that we Americans have also come to believe, perhaps because of our two-party politics, that there must always be two sides to every "issue." If "one side" says that global warming is an emergency, there simply must be another, equally legitimate side, that says it isn't. This knee-jerk both-siderism isn't a form of wisdom or intelligence as some pretend, but rather a form of ignorance and idiocy by choice. It's easier to shrug in ambivalence than to be intellectually rigorous.

There is no room or time for debate about the existence and danger of global climate change; you're with humanity or you're against it. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh and arrogant, but I'm living climate change here in the west: lengthening dry and fire seasons, shrinking snow-pack (and earlier and more rapid and damaging snow-melt, even in years when the snow-pack is robust); dwindling reservoirs; drying aquifers. Global-warming deniers are dooming this region--and, eventually, their own--to a wretched, accelerating death.

You may think you have the luxury of denying the crisis of global warming because you think it isn't affecting you where you live. First of all, you're likely wrong. And second, there's an expression you should keep in mind: "Just because it isn't happening here, doesn't mean it isn't happening."

Anyway and again: Yes. Global warming is the existential crisis in our species' history.

No. Democrats are the most existential threat.

No. Not really. Global warming isn't going to directly kill anyone. Sure it's going to cause a lot of other problems that will, but the human species will adapt and survive.

Over consumption and over population are at the root of many of these problems. It's really hard to solve a problem like that though. Nature has a way of dealing with issues like that in other species but we're so smart that we can continue to dominate.

No.

It seems very obvious that one must understand the natural variability and scale of climate change before creating any public policy trying to affect it. The vast vast majority of people do not have an overall sense of it, just anecdotes and snapshots. Perhaps the best place to start is with this graph. Study it for a couple weeks and then let's talk.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation.jpg

A rise of ~8C over a few millions years wiped out 83% of all genera on the planet during the P-T extinction. It's hard to believe people are just assuming we will be ok with 2-4C rise in a few hundred.

Also is it somewhat hilarious that the Shelby defender is also a climate change denier. What are his thoughts on COVID deaths and vaccine efficacy?

Nope it's not. The answer is Liberalism poses the biggest threat. The censoring/controlling of information, subtly and slowly stripping away peoples basic human rights, inciting division and chaos so they have something to save us from. We are in big trouble. Too many sheep eat it right up. The Liberals know it's all essentially a numbers game for them. Problem is, they can essentially buy support and votes with free handouts and financial incentives. Theyll get it back through taxes and repeat the cycle. Time to wake up.

burt williams wrote:

No

No,

I'd say:

1. Nuclear War

2. Asteroid

3. Biological Warfare

4. Civil War

5. Socialism/Marxism

6. Lack of Access to cheap reliable Energy

7. Water Crisis

8. Hyper Inflation

9. Government-issued currency/social credit scores

10. Government-run healthcare

Are all much bigger threats to humanity than climate change.

One way or another, mankind is the most existential threat facing mankind.

So, sure, if we mess up the climate, we threaten our existence.

moultonk wrote:

No.

It seems very obvious that one must understand the natural variability and scale of climate change before creating any public policy trying to affect it. The vast vast majority of people do not have an overall sense of it, just anecdotes and snapshots. Perhaps the best place to start is with this graph. Study it for a couple weeks and then let's talk.

Citizen Runner wrote:

moultonk wrote:

No.

It seems very obvious that one must understand the natural variability and scale of climate change before creating any public policy trying to affect it. The vast vast majority of people do not have an overall sense of it, just anecdotes and snapshots. Perhaps the best place to start is with this graph. Study it for a couple weeks and then let's talk.

https://southstcafe.neocities.org/Vosto_420ky_and_current.PNG

As a "casual follower" of the climate science, that is one of the scariest graphs I have ever seen.

Former Never Trumper wrote:

burt williams wrote:

No

No,

I'd say:

1. Nuclear War

2. Asteroid

3. Biological Warfare

4. Civil War

5. Socialism/Marxism

6. Lack of Access to cheap reliable Energy

7. Water Crisis

8. Hyper Inflation

9. Government-issued currency/social credit scores

10. Government-run healthcare

Are all much bigger threats to humanity than climate change.

Not to change the topic too much but much of your list does not make sense.

1) Nuclear war is a very real existential threat

2) Probability is WAY lower than most people comprehend for an asteroid collision capable of wiping out the human species.. It has been 65 million years since the last existence-threatening collision. It is likely to be just as long until the next one. As such, "Asteroid" belongs way, WAY down on the list.

3) Biological warfare is a real existential threat

4) Civil war is nasty but does not constitute an existential threat. Should not be on the list at all

5) Socialism/Marxism is nasty but does not constitute an existential threat. Should not be on the list at all

6) Lack of Access to cheap reliable energy does not constitute an existential threat. Should not be on the list at all

7) Water Crisis is a subset of Climate change. Should not be on the list at all

8) Hyper Inflation is nasty but does not constitute an existential threat. Should not be on the list at all

9) Government-issued currency/social credit scores? You must be joking

10) Government-run healthcare? You must be joking

Citizen Runner wrote:

moultonk wrote:

No.

It seems very obvious that one must understand the natural variability and scale of climate change before creating any public policy trying to affect it. The vast vast majority of people do not have an overall sense of it, just anecdotes and snapshots. Perhaps the best place to start is with this graph. Study it for a couple weeks and then let's talk.

https://southstcafe.neocities.org/Vosto_420ky_and_current.PNG

WTF -- the OP here conveniently left out the data the inverts their argument entirely? You can't trust anyone these days.

What is 'existential threat'?

Kill all humans?

End of modern civilization (i.e. back to pre-industrial revolution tech?)

66% of humans dead but maintain modern tech?

Something like a random gamma ray burst cooking the planet until everyone is dead would be truly existential.

A supervolcano or massive asteroid could end modern civilization if the resulting winter lasts for many years. Nuclear war is on this level.

Climate change is probably slightly down the scale of those two, just because the time-scale is marginally slower. It probably wouldn't end civilization, but several billion people dying of famine over a decade or three certainly makes it extremely serious.