Thread has been deleted
Last comment
2050 climate change
GeT_RiGhT | 
Italy OFFICIAL_HLTV_PLUMBER 
"Thus in 2050 human civilization will collapse due to climate change" An alarming analysis by researchers at the Australian National Center for Climate Restoration outlines a scenario in which global warming will exceed three degrees Celsius by 2050, triggering fatal alterations of the global ecosystem and colossal migrations from at least a billion people. Here's what could happen year after year A lost decade. Between 2020 and 2030 the world policy-makers blatantly underestimate the risks of climate change, losing the last chance to mobilize all the technological and economic resources available towards a single goal: to build an economy with zero emissions, trying to reduce levels of CO2, to have a realistic chance of keeping global warming well below two degrees. The last occasion is blatantly burned. The result is that in 2030, as scientists Yangyang Xu and Veerabhadran Ramanthan had warned in a scientific publication that had been debating thirteen years earlier, carbon dioxide emissions reach levels never seen in the last two million years. In the next twenty years, an attempt is made to remedy the situation, but it is too late: in 2050 global warming reaches three degrees, of which 2.4 are linked to emissions and 0.6 to the so-called "carbon feedback", the negative reaction of the planet to global warming. The year 2050 represents the beginning of the end. Most of the terrestrial ecosystems collapse, from the Arctic to the Amazon to the coral reef. 35% of the earth's surface, where 55% of the world's population lives, is hit for at least 20 days a year by lethal heat waves. 30% of the earth's surface becomes arid: the Mediterranean, western Asia, the Middle East, interma Australia and the southwest of the United States become uninhabitable. A colossal water crisis affects about two billion people, while global agriculture implodes, with 20% collapsed crops and sky-high prices, leading to at least one billion "climate refugees". Wars and famines lead to a probable end of human activity as we understand it today. Just a fictional novel? Unfortunately not: what we have read above is a well-documented scientific study by researchers from the Australian National Center for Climate Restoration, led by David Spratt and Ian Dunlop, from the sinister title “Existential climate-related security risk”. The hypothesis of the study is that there are risks of global warming not calculated by the Paris Accords and capable of posing "existential risks" to human civilization. The climate change hypotheses outlined in 2015 by the Paris Agreements, equal to an increase of three degrees by 2100, do not take into account the "long term carbon feedback" mechanism with which the planet tends to amplify climate changes in the negative sense , thus leading to a further increase in temperature. If we also consider the "carbon feedback", according to various sources, including scientists of the caliber of Yangyang Xu and Veerabhadran Ramanathan, there is a real risk of reaching three degrees of heating as early as 2050, which would rise to five degrees by 2100 The human civi would not have time to see them, since most scientists believe that a four-degree increase would destroy the world ecosystem bringing the end of civilization as we know it today. A dangerous slope in which, as Hans Joachim Schellnhuber of the Potsdam Institute notes, probably "the human species will somehow survive, but we will destroy everything we have built over the last two thousand years". The real problem, the Australian study points out, is represented by some climatic "no-return thresholds" such as the destruction of the polar ice caps and the consequent rise in sea level. Very dangerous “thresholds of no return” which, once passed, would transform climate change into a non-linear event that would be difficult to predict with the tools currently available to science. After overcoming those "points of no return" global warming would also feed itself without human action, making any late attempt to eliminate emissions unnecessary. That of the end of human civilization is a minimal but not absent risk, underlines Ramanathan, who estimates it at 5% ("and who would take a plane knowing that it has a 5% chance of crashing?", Notes the scientist). It is today that we must act, the study concludes: tomorrow it may be too late. TLDR: we're all gonna die by 2050
2019-06-27 10:46
#1
cyx | 
Germany Shadyy89 
I'm gonna be 61 yo. This would be shit bro. I dont want to work all my life.
2019-06-27 10:47
i would be 56 yo in the best period of my life, just to die miserably cause of food/Water scarcity or civil wars
2019-06-27 10:50
you wont, its not like we wont kill the 1billion to save the human race
2019-06-27 12:13
who cares?
2019-06-27 11:06
who cars?
2019-06-27 11:09
well not everyone is nihilist and i dont want 4 million MENA and indian and whatever refugees in my country. We are already multicultural enough
2019-06-27 11:41
At least Trump doesn't
2019-06-27 12:15
#80
 | 
Germany elderflowern 
+1
2019-06-27 13:05
#10
 | 
India otgps 
I'd be 53 in 2050. Hell yes to the plan. Let's fuck up the earth gamers
2019-06-27 11:10
gamers rise up
2019-06-27 11:12
who cares whats in 2050? just imagine the technology improvements from 1990 till now and now imagine what will happen till 2050.
2019-06-27 11:15
current politicians don't give a flying fuck about climate change and when they will notice what's going on it will be too late also technology won't save you from a "no return point" it's like a snow avalanche
2019-06-27 11:26
#16
cyx | 
Germany Shadyy89 
There is still snow at the top of the Himalayas so global warming is a lie
2019-06-27 11:21
loooool 0/8
2019-06-27 11:23
#19
cyx | 
Germany Shadyy89 
:P
2019-06-27 11:24
It snowed in Egypt for the first time in idk how many years, global warming is a lie
2019-06-27 12:13
axaxaxax
2019-06-27 12:56
lmao 1.4 degree max since pre industrial time. industrial period way the worst and it has become way better since then and every year we get more efficient and environment friendly technology.
2019-06-27 11:30
ahahahaha good joke my friend
2019-06-27 11:32
facts
2019-06-27 11:34
destroyed with facts and logic kappa
2019-06-27 11:34
1,4 degrees in about 200 years and most of them having the worst pollution in the history. just compare pollution in 2019 with the peak of the industrial period or just believe in that "climate change". the reason its so hot atm has completely logical reasons which have nothing to do with climate change. its just brainwashing. look it up, why its hot.
2019-06-27 11:36
all politicians do is start and end wars.. why care about them? its humans who invent things
2019-06-27 12:14
#24
 | 
Sweden meistr0 
Its Ok, i wont be alive anyways )))
2019-06-27 11:33
wtf you're 80yr old?
2019-06-27 11:35
#29
 | 
Sweden meistr0 
No, in 2050 i will be 55 years old )))
2019-06-27 11:36
wtf grow up already
2019-06-27 11:37
#34
 | 
Sweden meistr0 
:O
2019-06-27 11:38
#27
 | 
Poland Astoner55 
Tbh I'm just shocked how people just don't care about our planet, they only see money, nothing else, even if it means that their kids will live in hell! Fuck them...
2019-06-27 11:34
+1 my friend, so much corruption and egoism
2019-06-27 11:36
Zzzzz more alarmist shit
2019-06-27 11:38
go vote salvini you useless sheep
2019-06-27 11:38
Go suck some biased scientist dick
2019-06-27 11:39
implying all scientists are male, nice logic, i'd rather suck a scientist pussy
2019-06-27 11:40
Science by government agencies only serve to justify spending more of your money. They are all paid to make the sheep pay up in fear.
2019-06-27 11:42
who's gonna gain money from turning off oil refineries and making electric cars?
2019-06-27 11:43
Ironically the big transport and energy industries that advocate things like carbon and other green taxes and regulations, not to mention other taxss on the rich. They know they will simply pass the cost to the consumer or pay less salaries, but smaller potential competitors will be crippled. So they can monopolize everything.
2019-06-27 11:47
calling 99% of the worlds scientists in about 13 different fields of science biased is dumb. You are dumb.
2019-06-27 11:44
+1 thank you
2019-06-27 11:44
If they are on the government payroll they are biased because their funding depends on advocating more interventions. They are not dumb, you are.
2019-06-27 11:48
Not only do you think that 99% of scientists AROUND THE WORLD are on "the government payroll" but you think that PRIVATELY funded scientists (preferably from the cato institute surely) are MORE trustworthy?
2019-06-27 11:50
Privately funded scientists are biased too, but if government is not envolved the damage they can do to my liberty is minimal compared to the guy that works for the giant mafia.
2019-06-27 11:59
What fucking damage to YOUR liberty? If anything it would limit what companies can do. And what now, is it about bias or the fact that the government would act on what the scientists say?
2019-06-27 12:03
#47
2019-06-27 12:06
Not only do generally the same people that push for green energy and higher corporate taxes push for a higher minimum wage, but also are there ways to prevent or at least fight monopolies, let alone cartels. But this has nothing to do with either one of my questions. You seem to just be rattling of talking points.
2019-06-27 12:22
Government creates monopolies and give sustainability to cartels. Your question was how it was a threat to my liberty and I just told you. If you want to be enslaved by government and giant corporate monopolies your way is the way to go.
2019-06-27 12:24
Thats bullshit if the government literally bans cartels and works to break up huge corporations. And again, you have NOT made clear how it limits any action that you would like to take but cant if the government acts against climate change. Name one thing that you cant do in such a case, then we can work with that. And you apparently cant read that I asked you a second question. Are you dishonest or just stupid?
2019-06-27 12:38
There is only one limit to pollution: private property. Pollution is an externality that exists due to poor distribution of property rights, any other measure will only end up in a tragedy of the commons. Are being deliberately slow? I literally answered your question in my comment: your way paves the way for unlimited state power. By the way there is no way to ban cartels, but there is a way to keep them going indefinitely: through regulatory capture.
2019-06-27 13:29
Good that you said that, now I am CERTAIN that you are in fact just rattling of right-wing rhetoric. Pollution exists because industrial companies have used a polluting energy system for way over a hundred years now because its economically viable for them because they dont really need to care about the long term global effects. Prove to me that what you said isnt just an incoherent unspecific mental masturbation desperately trying to shit on the government (instead of the actual polluters) without actually establishing a causal link. You have not once established how the government would become totalitarian by enacting policies against global warming. Regarding my second question. No, you have NOT answered it. Originally we were talking about your assertion that 99% of the worlds scientists are biased. At one random point you switched to talking about what the government would do based on what the scientists say and completely failed to answer my second question: "And what now, is it about bias or the fact that the government would act on what the scientists say?" I dont think you are actually thinking about anything that I ask you.
2019-06-27 13:31
Obviously im talking about both things. Scientists are employed by government to support the preconceived notion that the state needs to intervene even more on peoples freedom. Your sheep mind cant grasp that simple fact. The government becomes more totalitarian the more they can tell what people can and cannot do, specially when it comes to the most important factor of our lives: the economy. Its not that they dont need to care about long term effects, its because they can pass the cost of pollution towards tax payers by throwing their trash in public places and in the nature. And that happens precisely because those places are public.
2019-06-27 13:36
Not only do you need to prove that every single government around the world does exactly that and its not enough if you just assert that by default every government wants to gain more control because that is YOUR assertion that is maybe handy-dandy in right-wing theories but simply unfounded and NOT EVEN PROVABLE, let alone factual. Especially considering that government officials would (and have) gain shittons more money by appealing to the big oil and industry complexes of the world. Coz that is exactly whats happening. And lets say that the last point is correct: What exactly is the supposed solution? Privatize rivers, forests and the fucking air space above company factories?
2019-06-27 13:44
They ARE appealing to those big companies, read #47 again, holy shit. If you care about the environment, privatize every squared millimeter of this Earth.
2019-06-27 13:47
Oh SURE the big evil green energy and transport corporations vs the small oil and industrial start-ups. Poor oil companies (and saudi-arabia) they barely have any lobbying power. Geez, you are so right. "If you care about the environment, privatize every squared millimeter of this Earth." Elaborate.
2019-06-27 14:02
While they expand and pollute more, they lobby for politically correct taxes that cripple competition while trying to avoid taxation themselves. That's how it goes. All big, not only oil, companies benefit from increases in taxation because they can easily pass on the cost to the consumers or down the chain of factors of production, while potential competitors that don't have their market share are crippled in their growth. Because it avoids the tragedy of the commons. The best way to economize resources its when people bear the full blunt of their actions. And private property incentivizes just that, plus creates a market mechanism to solve problems of externalities such as pollution. In fact, If it came true we could have another situation: too many barriers to pollution. Just look at how people take care of their own houses, private parks and even private islands are basically clean, while they have no qualms about throwing their junk in the street on in nature. Look at how publicly owned places are polluted and how basically every natural disaster happened in them caused by governments and giant companies. If you want a clean planet privatize everything.
2019-06-27 15:08
You're quite dumb :/ It's sad from a european fellow In 2050 your children will be crying asking you what you were doing to let this disaster happen
2019-06-27 12:21
2050 your children will be discussing with the alarmists children how the world will end in 2100
2019-06-27 12:21
I really hope so Unfortunately science doesn't hope, it states facts And scientists who say otherwise are : - a minority - always biaised and paid by private companies to defend their interests
2019-06-27 12:25
Science state facts, scientists interpret those facts and politicians push for policies. Stop being so naive. Btw im not a climate change denier if thats what you are implying.
2019-06-27 12:27
#44
 | 
North America Techno_Lover 
They said that about 2000, 2010, 2020, 2030, 2040 my god we could go on forever.
2019-06-27 11:45
did they though?
2019-06-27 11:50
They did
2019-06-27 12:08
No one did LUL
2019-06-27 12:18
Spoiler : they didn't
2019-06-27 12:18
Expected from Politics always lie cuz of money
2019-06-27 12:25
remember 2012 omegalul
2019-06-27 12:45
#78
KRIMZ | 
Romania moetxxx 
yeah
2019-06-27 13:03
They also said the world was round and that want believed for quite some time either rofl. Your argument has no basis in logic or reason, just how you feel
2019-06-27 13:39
Bronze age collaspe 2.0
2019-06-27 11:46
#48
 | 
Finland siloquez 
Thank God it's your kids ERA then. I'm dead by then I guess X ~ D
2019-06-27 11:47
Nothing we do in the west matters when china is still shoveling coal anyway.
2019-06-27 12:14
who cares?
2019-06-27 12:16
ppl worry about climate change, yet make children and then complain that they will have a shitty life lul
2019-06-27 13:03
#79
KRIMZ | 
Romania moetxxx 
who tf trust this? global warming doesnt even exist, in romania clime is same maybe a little cold than it usually was, it all about the air waves who are travelling throught the world i think global warming was only invent to stop china to be #1 power in the world far from sua russia etc.
2019-06-27 13:05
xinhuanet.com/english/2018-12/01/c_13764.. (first google result about chinese scientist about global warming)
2019-06-27 13:30
wtf dude how are you so woke?
2019-06-27 13:32
#86
 | 
Poland mamba99999 
We survived the black plague, but we'll die when the temperature is 2 degrees higher? Global warming is the biggest scam in history of mankind.
2019-06-27 13:35
+1
2019-06-27 13:50
who cares nothing of this actually matters , enjoy the time u have left and give the best to gather good adventures and memories with ur loved ones.
2019-06-27 13:41
Login or register to add your comment to the discussion.