No, the real question is how to keep the earth from being cooked by greenhouse gases, not in 500 million years, but actually in a few decades. This article borders on climate change denial.
How the hell is it climate change denial for someone to speak at all of a completely different problem from that of human-caused climate change? It is possible to be interested in and worried about different things simultaneously.
Absurdly intolerant claims like yours border on similarity to a hysterical, religious fervor against the idea of praying to any other god.
Apologies for being rude, but these kind of answers are exactly the type of answers that sre not helping solving things at all and are counterreactive. This article is not denying anything. Its telling something entirely different. Also it tries to give a slightly different look on things than usual.
If anything such sentiment is actively harmful to the topic, since claiming it's bordering on climate denial, borders on censorship to me.
Even though I believe climate change is real, I could see how it would irk me against the whole movement when it's the only thing you are allowed to talk about.
The post in its first paragraph literally brings up how we are actively harming the planet with carbon emissions, so it's not even that they didn't mention it or went against it.
Given that CO2 emissions have only ever increased, it seems like everything hurts more than helps the fight against climate change. For what it’s worth, I’m reasonably convinced that the answer is 1980 and that, like a lethal dose of radiation, the damage is done and now we merely wait for the effects to take hold fully.
So basically every country on earth has recorded the hottest temps and highest average temps ever recorded on the last few years, often breaking the record from the year before.
Climate change is real and we need to move away from destroying the environment. Maybe even resort to artificial mitigations at some point.
There's not much evidence on either direction about how irreversible it is or how doomed we are. And claiming there is is dishonest, and hurts the efforts to make real changes for the sake of scoring ideological points.
There's definite evidence about the irreversibility like the release of trapped CO2 in ice that accumulated over tens of thousands of years. Riding of sea levels will also take much more time to reverse than it took to happen. Technically it's all reversible as the world will see another ice age at some point but on a human scale it's not going to be.
Maybe people are just tired from the same old alarmism which is then used to introduce more and more limitations and never touches the biggest offenders. Sure, introduce the next tax, lovely. Hope Nestle doesn't get touched.
The measures against climate change have been so weak until now that I don't think we can even talk about limitations yet. At least there's some equality here I guess, nobody doesn't do anything.
The measures against climate change has been weak precisely because of alarmism.
If everything is going to shit anyways, why throw resources into a black hole fixing it today? Check how many headlines have been saying inevitable, point of no return, etc etc for several decades.
Another aspect of this is overfitting on metrics like CO2 emissions, that's how you get hot garbage like carbon offsets that allow the worst offenders to keep operating like they have always been.
You live in a parallel world, the vast majority of the mainstream news out there are outright climate change deniers funded by billionaires and the few ones who don't cannot even relay the whole truth for being accused of "alarmism".
The reason nobody does anything about climate change is because it threatens their wealth, not because it's a catastrophe.
In my 'parallel world', it does seem like the mainstream media publishes articles every week or so (for the last decade or so) about how we are at the point of no return for climate change. And all of it is preserved in this wonderful searchable web of articles that ensures one does not have to speculate about what was published.
Maybe search on the web, who knows, it could turn out that you too live in the same world!
As an example, there's been some pretty deadly heatwave feuled by climate changed recently for example both in Sub-Saharan africa and south east asia and I'm sure nobody is really aware of it.
Turns out the "alarmist" as you call them were right all along and the current events are following pretty much the worst case scenarios.
What if in 50 years it turns out alarmists were right, and there's nothing could be done? Anti-alarmists will say "oopsie, we were wrong, you were right, now we see". But it won't help.
Imagine there's a huge asteroid comes at Earth, but it will strike only in 100 years. Alarmists start screaming that we need to act NOW, but anti-alarmists would be like "oh come on, you're screaming it for the last 44 years, please stop".
Pascal's wager doesn't require much effort on behalf of the user, though. The idea is the benefits far outweigh the downsides. So should we just try to have a cleaner earth with the benefit of subverting this dangerous thing if it does exist?
The clincher here is that most of the greenhouse gasses come from giant corporations. As non-billionaire individuals, we don't have to personally give anything up. All we have to do is get those corporations to stop polluting simply because it's more profitable in the short term.
I don't think the article is climate change denial but if it's true that the Sun is getting hotter then man-made global warming will not be significant comparing to that.
Let's try to fix the things that hurt us on a human scale, with the technological and social stability that nets us we're in a much better place to tackle problems way further down the line.
No human society has lasted even a fraction of those 500 million years so anything we do now to beat that is going to be moot anyway
It would be interesting to measure the environmental cost, which is substantial, against the benefits: 40 minutes instead of 50 from Tokyo to Nagoya, 67 minutes instead of 90 from Tokyo to Osaka. Is this reduction in travel time worth consuming 3 to 4 times the energy?
Tokyo to Nagoya now is about 95-100 minutes: 50 minutes is the time difference, not the current duration. It's a little over twice as fast.
I also imagine that like the (cancelled) HS2 in the UK, a major driver is not only faster journeys (though HS2 was a much more marginal time saving, certainly not half) but relieving capacity on the existing "stopping" line, which has 365 trains a day, 450,000 daily passengers and is the busiest high speed line in the world.
This misses the main benefit of HS2 which is making the network as a whole more efficient by eliminating bottlenecks. When people say ‘we should improve regional rail services’, they ignore that HS2 is what that looks like. And, frankly, if HS2 doesn’t reach Euston, it’s nearly cancelled for many Londoners due to the inconvenience.
What bottleneck between London and Birmingham exists that is making my journeys from York to Leeds so fraught ?
Are you trying to convince me that HS2 is worth my tax £s because it’ll make TPE services better ??
No more capital expenditure should be allocated to London bound rail services until the northern corridor line (Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, York, Hull) has been substantially upgraded or replaced.
I agree that the segment north of Birmingham was important for removing bottlenecks, including those that affect services from London. That is precisely why I think it makes little sense to regard HS2 as meaningfully cancelled only for those in the northeast. The cancellation is a problem for everybody.
I do love it when HS2 is sold as the solution to all rail congestion everywhere in the UK. Absolutely hilarious that in fact a separate rail upgrade project is underway between Manchester and York, unrelated to HS2
reply