/mlpol/ - My Little Politics

>>246080
And where do you think all those desperate shitskins would go? Western countries (or at least many of our politicians) would for sure be glad to help all those "poor souls" and take them in en masse. What we truly need is an ideological shift of the common populace to be more hostile to such invaders, but this most likely would not be achievable

>>246086
Westerners are currently welcoming of shitskin invaders because for the most part they don't have to deal with them. The bluepilled libshits who want to take these people in mostly don't live in the areas where these people congregate and won't have to interact directly with them or compete with them for food/jobs/etc. If life becomes an actual existential struggle I suspect a lot of people will suddenly feel a lot less compassionate.

I think the term "climate change" is ridiculous. The climate always changes, so what? "Global Warming" is a more valid concern-term but not everywhere got warmer, oops.

The sun is going into a calm period and will put out less heat, so "global warming" won't happening to us. Recently the sun was in a high output phase which happens every few hundred years.

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep15689

>>246080
>Maybe some animal species nobody cares about would die
Many of these animal species also happen to be linchpin species for Earth's ecology that we depend on to survive. Pollinators, the supports for the global food chain and so on. Given time, life can and will adapt, the problem is that things are shifting too quickly for that to happen and we're not helping matters by taking up so much space. If enough of these species go extinct, flooding will be the least of our problems.

As it stands, humanity has already artificially exceeded what Earth's biosphere can sustain, a destabilisation of that biosphere in conjunction with the sun's reduced solar output will make agriculture much harder and much less productive for a significant amount of time, so we'll be looking at mass famine first. This isn't to say that all life on Earth will go extinct as it turns into a barren rock, but the planet is going to become a lot less populous in the next century or two.

>>246166
I don't think we've exceeded the limits of the planets biosphere, per-se. Certainly there are things we as a species could do to lighten the load we place on the environment, but to say we've destabilized the biosphere is just a little bit hyperbolic.

>>246166
Citation needed. Fear porn no longer works.

>>246172
I never said we did it, we are at least partially responsible, but we're nowhere near the only factor, let alone the major one. The fact is that Earth is naturally inclined towards a tropical climate, not a temperate one, and we just so happened to develop during an aberrant period due to the ice age. The climate isn't so much as shifting as it is resetting to the norm, and everyone thinks that means it's all going to shit since we take our current climate as normal. It'll take decades, centuries really of concerted human action to cause the kind of change everyone's harping on about. You don't just collapse an entire planet's biosphere by burning coal for a century or two. What I said about a decline in agriculture is fairly imminent, yet has simple solutions, like you know, Africa learning how to farm.That fucking continent could feed the entire planet a couple times over if it were used properly.

>>246179
>The fact is that Earth is naturally inclined towards a tropical climate, not a temperate one

Citation needed. I think you'll find the Earth is naturally inclined to be cold, dead and dark. Then sun saves us. So any discussion of natural should center on that. Turns out tho that the sun causes ice ages and heat spikes every few centuries. We should expect wild changes in weather.

I am quite certain that when hunger strikes the world will find a way to make food. Hunger is a great motivator. We don't need to pre-plan, reactions will work.

Also many of the charts above shows that civilization thrives when it hot.

>>246180
I don't need a citation, Vril, it's known that the climate before the K-T extinction event was mostly tropical and high CO2. The sun's output is not the only factor here, but our distance from it, the composition of the biosphere and a whole range of other factors all contribute to the status quo, we are one, but not anywhere near as big or as dangerous as everyone seems to think, but a factor we most certainly are, as any highly prolific species would be.

>>246080
It might surprise you to know that an Ice Age is defined by the percent of the planet's surface that is frozen, and that by that definition the planet never left an ice age. Additionally, there's an experiment you can do. Fill a cup of water with ice and then fill it to the very top - to the point that it bubbles up but doesn't spill - and then wait until the ice melts. Does the cup overflow?
>>246165
Come now, you're not this naive. Its like you're oblivious to the degree that (((groups))) will manipulate data and information, use it to propogandize, and present a false image in order to bilk masses for money, power, and a wealth of other resources that there is no legitimate justification for.
>>246172
>we as a species
There's nothing we as any degree of collective can agree to do, and the load to the environment is disproportionately being leveled by different nations who are diametrically opposed to decreasing the load.
>>246174
This
>>246179
Aside from the Africa-farming bit, you've still yet to provide citations and your position is not readily evident.

>>246184
I see more data for the suns variability (pic http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/pdf/1877MmSSI...6P..85. ) and it's relation to solar output rather than Earth closeness. A search online for the later shows very little and nothing of substance for the later.

I am currently researching the suns ability to ramp up and then toss metal so I have some familiarity with the sun and it's moods. >>>/vx/116089 →

As for the equator being lush in the past, I agree.

>>246080
>"zoomers"
You what nigger? The climate change meme is as old as the '70s.
Secondly, anyone who plays into the generation meme is either a moron, or in marketing. While useful at times, it's always a stretch and suggests normalfaggotry of the person who plays into it, and secondly, the modern 4gag lexicon is utter AIDS. Anyone who unironically uses the word "zoomer" likely has an IQ around the same as a dindu, and should probably fuck off back to reddit or twitter or gab or whatever the fuck you faggots use.

>>246080
>florida gone
>east coast gone
And nothing of value was lost.

>>246080
Honestly at this point I am utterly convinced that the global elite are a death cult. They present higher CO2 concentrations and temperatures as apocalyptic. However what would result from both together? We'd see more vibrant plant growth and longer growing seasons. Their doomsday scenario is a flourishing of life on this planet.

>>246250
Thanks for this post, allow me to extend on this into complete conspiritard territory.

Facts (as best as I can determine):

1) The sun is going into a cooling period >>246165
2) The "global elite" are pushing for more cooling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greta_Thunberg note the mention of "global warming"
3) You've stated that heat causes flourishing and charts show the same historically for civilizations >>246174 which invalidates the primary global warming concern. Cooling harms civilizations.

Logic suggests they want to double down on cooling because it damages us. My guess is that the elites need a purge of the public now and then when their farmyard is overrun with too many plebeians trouble makers, us https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_vests_movement . I recall the Russiagate hysteria as seeming like the want to start a war with Russia for the same purpose. I recall the stories of elites buying bunkers and traveling to Antarctica and NZ. It makes sense therefore that elite management of the human farm would be aligned with death cults, by intent, or mere similarity of outcome, or even just working with useful idiots. It dovetails well with the notions that power corrupts and sociopaths seek power.

The facts aren't consistent with good or honest intent. And the use of children for propaganda fits with dishonesty also, but could just as well be human gullibility, which is ubiquitous. Gullibility is an asset to sociopaths.

The best argument for human made global warming is >>246177 pic#2. It used to be on wikipedia but now is absent. I don't know why. But even with that we are in such a complex system that I doubt we can account for every factor. For example our solar system bobs up and down in the galactic plane which affects cosmic rays reaching us that affects cloud cover. https://www.sciencealert.com/cosmic-rays-could-influence-cloud-cover-on-earth It is very difficult for me to imagine that we can extract out with precision the exact causes of climate change, let alone put blame on us only.

Further I disagree with the hubris that we are stewards of the planet, and the hubris that we have the capacity to steward the planet. Both seem to be the height of arrogance to me. And it is even worse if governments want to tax more to do that, which is likely, impossible. It just looks like more farming of the human herd.

I further disagree that the climate needs to be held static. We don't have the capacity to hold back all of the feed back loops of the Earth, Sun and galaxy. Species dying out and being replaced is normal not exceptional.

>>246275
There's also a push to popularize and replace our power plants with unreliable alternatives. I fucking guarantee you that the pictured nuke plant has a smaller impact on the local environment than the massive farm of bird manglers.

They also bitch and moan in the media about heat waves and casualties from heat stroke. They wouldn't fucking shut up here in the states about the heat wave in Europe. But they don't talk about how extreme cold is a greater threat to life for the young and elderly than extreme heat. They don't broadcast all the people who freeze to death because they can't afford the overpriced "green energy" or because the grid experienced brown outs and blackouts because "green energy" production couldn't meet demand.

I will disagree though that we don't have the capacity to act as a major influencer of our planet's climate. At least in regards to making it colder. That's relatively easy. We'd just need to seed the upper atmosphere with particulates to inhibit the amount of sunlight that reaches the surface. That's the source of the nuclear winter concerns since projections of an all out nuclear assault amongst the nuclear powers would result in enough dust being kicked up to send us into a non-stop winter.

IMO the big giveaway that the manmade climate change scare is nothing but a scam is that the proposed solutions are a series of wealth redistribution schemes instead of some kind of geoengineerng project.

>>246287
https://www.rt.com/uk/470185-uk-deaths-cold-homes/
Solar panels with >20% capture/transmission ratios are banned under military secrecy laws, nearly the same for wind/water turbines. 5th generation "kettle" reactors, current generation pebble bed reactors, and thorium reactors are 98% safer than the piece of shit 3rd generation exposed-rod nuclear reactors. Too safe to cause meltdowns, zero risk of 'explosions' or 'extreme weather related damage'. Would only require staff of <50 to keep fully maintained at 2% cost to build, 3% cost to maintain.

>>246287
Yes these are from cuckshill sources, yet still validated.
https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-solar-bird-deaths-20160831-snap-story.html
https://www.desertsun.com/story/tech/science/energy/2016/08/17/how-many-birds-killed-solar-farms/88868372/
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/11/death-calif-solar-farms-71-species-bird-found-enti/

>>246287
Another interesting one
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/17/if-renewables-are-so-great-for-the-environment-why-do-they-keep-destroying-it/

>>246293
>>246292
It just goes to show how most environmental activists are either emotionally driven drones that regurgitate their gospel, or shills for some other interest. Nuclear, even "those piece of shit 3rd Gen reactors," basically solve their environmental concerns by cleanly producing vast sums of electricity within a tiny footprint. If they were rational thinkers then they'd be championing nuclear energy instead of trying to kill it.

>>246296
Succinctly agreed. Solar, wind, tidal are beyond pathetic, that is unless the gag orders and secrecy laws are removed to allow the first a greater than 20% capture/transmission rate. Laughably of the nuclear reactors that have failed, suffered meltdowns, been mysteriously sabotaged, are 3rd gen under union control. Three Mile was one of the safer 3rd gens until it too suffered a mysterious incident. All 1st/2nd gens revised into 3rd gen though inherent problems were never solved. Hanford is a perfect example of flat out incompetence, union politics, shekels flowing into every pocket, and radioactive waste on the order of unknown millions of tons dumped into the local ecosystem.

>>246316
Operation Popeye.

>>246186
>Fill a cup of water with ice and then fill it to the very top - to the point that it bubbles up but doesn't spill - and then wait until the ice melts. Does the cup overflow?

I think the problem with that analogy is that it works differently when ice is sitting on top of a land mass.

The first half of this video provides a rare insight into the problems that state-of-the-art climate models are facing.

https://media.ccc.de/v/36c3-11155-mathematical_diseases_in_climate_models_and_how_to_cure_them

Doesnt it boggles your mind that no one seems to associate the movement of the magnetic field and the solar minimun with climate change?
It's like we aren't living on the same world!
It is impossible to stop the climate from changing as it is not our fault but a natural process. And if in any ways we did manage to screw up the magnetic field guess what, buying organic tomatoes aint gonna do shit 'bout it.

> Ocean acidification does not impair the behaviour of coral reef fishes

>Together, our findings indicate that the reported effects of ocean acidification on the behaviour of coral reef fishes are not reproducible, suggesting that behavioural perturbations will not be a major consequence for coral reef fishes in high CO2 oceans.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1903-y

But alas, the fearmongering about High-CO2 oceans has already done its damage.