Slashdot Mirror


Worrying Rise in Global CO2 Forecast for 2019 (theguardian.com)

The level of climate-warming carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere is forecast to rise by a near-record amount in 2019, according to the Met Office. From a report: The increase is being fuelled by the continued burning of fossil fuels and the destruction of forests, and will be particularly high in 2019 due to an expected return towards El Nino-like conditions. This natural climate variation causes warm and dry conditions in the tropics, meaning the plant growth that removes CO2 from the air is restricted. Levels of the greenhouse gas have not been as high as today for 3-5m years, when the global temperature was 2-3C warmer and the sea level was 10-20 metres (32 to 64 feet) higher. Climate action must be increased fivefold to limit warming to the 1.5C rise above pre-industrial levels that scientists advise, according to the UN. But the past four years have been the hottest on record and global emissions are rising again after a brief pause.

191 comments

  1. I don't plan to have kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    So I don't really care

    1. Re: I don't plan to have kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I plan to have tons of children - as many as my wife can stand to push out and chase around the house. I consider myself a trophy husband with no purpose other than to increase co2 in all environments, as well as look nice, smile, and beat criminals with a baseball bat who interfere with my bitchy wife and bratty children. Oh yeah, I also make a decent lasagna and I can balance a checkbook.

    2. Re:I don't plan to have kids by whitroth · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Go stick your head in a plastic bag, and tie it tight.

      Enjoy the CO2.

    3. Re: I don't plan to have kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Donâ(TM)t worry, dozens of imported African or Central American âoerefugeesâ will have them to replace you in your home country!

    4. Re:I don't plan to have kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, surely such a witty reply will solve the very real (though hopefully minor?) problem of people who just don't give a damn because the consequences won't arrive until after they are dead.

    5. Re:I don't plan to have kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean enjoy the NaCl? Lel

    6. Re:I don't plan to have kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reworded "kill yourself" childish trolling.

      How old are you?

      Received positive moderation.

      How old are the mods?

      Slashdot continues to lose readership, market share, ad revenue, and value because of this hatred. Time to take some action.

    7. Re:I don't plan to have kids by subie · · Score: 1

      What genius thinks this selfish opinion is somehow informative? Great so you don't want to have kids and that makes you somehow more impressive than those of us who do? We need to continue to produce children just to maintain society and support those folks like you when you get older. What are you doing about the children needing to be adopted or fostered? Did that thought ever cross your mind that you can still help out? And before you go there, I adopted three boys who father had died plus I have two of my own and I'm also a foster parent to a 1 year boy that has health issues.

    8. Re:I don't plan to have kids by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      You are a dumbass circlejerking moron

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  2. They won't care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...and not a single person in power will care.

    Not a single one until it finally hits their wallet, when it will be too late.

    1. Re:They won't care by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I hope I only live long enough to be still around to see it.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:They won't care by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      I hope I only live long enough to be still around to see it.

      I for one hope I die in my sleep or in the middle of a massive orgasm before that day happens, because by the time the wealthy-and-in-charge actually sit up and take notice, things are likely to be well and rightly fucked in a way we've yet to imagine.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:They won't care by religionofpeas · · Score: 2

      I want to do die peacefully in my sleep, like my grandfather did. Not screaming in terror like his passengers.

    4. Re:They won't care by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I want to do die peacefully in my sleep, like my grandfather did. Not screaming in terror like his passengers.

      You got +1 funny, but you deserve all the pluses for insightful. That's the best metaphor one could possibly imagine for the climate crisis. You win all the internets.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  3. Re:Popcorn time! by penandpaper · · Score: 1

    Don't add butter or salt or else you lack basic altruism and you are part of the problem. If you already don't have butter or salt you need to forfeit popcorn or else you are a denialist and part of the problem.

    It's never enough.

  4. Unlikely by 110010001000 · · Score: 4, Funny

    This is extremely unlikely. The Paris accord was signed in 2016 and is against any rise of Co2 emissions.

    1. Re:Unlikely by jouassou · · Score: 1

      Co2 emissions

      Don't laugh about dicobalt emissions, that shit's poisonous...

    2. Re:Unlikely by Shotgun · · Score: 0

      But Ocasio-Cortez said the world is going to end in 12 years, so why do we all care?

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  5. Recursive Citations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Could we get a link to the actual research paper that supports these claims? The Guardian isn't exactly the most credible source.

  6. Re:What, Republican denialist traitors worry? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Could you provide citation for our President being a traitor? Not taking the piss, just trying to understand where you're coming from.

  7. Re:What, Republican denialist traitors worry? by Opportunist · · Score: 0

    Well, they sure live in their own reality, I give you that.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  8. Re:What, Republican denialist traitors worry? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The government shut down is great because fuck them and their $4.4 trillion budget. We do not need to be up everyone's asshole "militarily" - what are you some fucking fascist asshole? Our allies gave up on us a long time ago (believe me they did not respect Obama at all and played him like a fool). Yeah Trump is a dick and a narcissist and will probably get kicked out in 2021 - but he and McConnell and Grassley ass fucked the Democrats with the Supreme Court picks and frankly I am happy to finally see them grow a pair finally. Because it will be the only thing Republicans have the balls to do.

  9. Who writes this shit? by DogsBollocks · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I'm tired of it.

    1. Re:Who writes this shit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Progressives(so called)...

    2. Re:Who writes this shit? by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Who writes this shit? I'm tired of it.

      People who want to avoid a devastating future where million die due to an eternal famine while millions more flood into nations further from the equator. I think everyone is going to be tired of that very quickly. Vote for people who will do something to avoid this future and you won't have to read about it anymore.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    3. Re:Who writes this shit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Last degree I received 8 years ago had an environmental class which taught right in the textbook that experts claimed there would be famine, total collapse of small coastal nations and 50 million climate change refugees flooding western countries by 2015 if we don't do something right now.

      Yawn.

      Only so many times can the boy cry wolf.

    4. Re:Who writes this shit? by rastos1 · · Score: 1

      So what is your prediction?

    5. Re:Who writes this shit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is always fresh batch of 'believers'. Who fault is it? You. You make them, but not educate them enough. There is a reason that younger peoples are more likely to support radical idea. Give a few year, they too will look at this at a different angles.

    6. Re:Who writes this shit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do something like what? Not just "anything". None of the solutions that have been seriously entertained will avoid the most serious consequences, assuming the models are correct. The avalanche has begun; it is too late for the pebbles to vote.

    7. Re:Who writes this shit? by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      I think you misspelled "People who, for reasons of politics or gullibility, are considering the latest Sky-Is-Falling assertion from the Ecomarxist left (that has been peddling various flavors of precisely this kind of disaster-porn since the mid 1960s) as credible." ?

      --
      -Styopa
    8. Re:Who writes this shit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ..where million die due to an eternal famine while millions more flood into nations further from the equator.

      Then these same people should stop breeding like rabbits. I'm not responsible for their bad decision making. Period.

    9. Re:Who writes this shit? by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      Why are you asking me what you think?

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    10. Re:Who writes this shit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Famine? Do you realize we see record crop yield year over year because of more CO2? You're going to have to scare people some other way because that one isn't going to work.

    11. Re:Who writes this shit? by WhiplashII · · Score: 1

      You obviously haven't read the science...

      The equator roughly speaking stays the same. What happens is that cold areas get a little warmer.

      So net expected migration would be away from the equator because the rest of the world gets a little nicer, not because the equator gets worse. (Except for flooding, which the jury is still out on)

      --
      while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
    12. Re:Who writes this shit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are burying your head in the sand trying to avoid taking responsibility. But maybe if you're lucky you'll starve to death before you get hunted down by people who rightly blame you and those like you for what's about to happen.

    13. Re:Who writes this shit? by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      Hahahaha! Yeah, sure buddy. Talk about clueless. The tropics are projected to heat up to levels where it would be near uninhabitable.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    14. Re:Who writes this shit? by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I thought you were out of grade school based on your user#. My apologies.

      Most people past post-elementary age would understand the construction of "I think you misspelled X?" as:

      a) a rhetorical question
      b) a basic syntax where the composer is inquiring (thus the "?") if a fact is true
      c) a common passive-aggressive internet meme that criticizes something one person says by framing an alternative opinion as a trivial spelling mistake
      d) all of the above

      Next time I post a reply to you, I'll definitely try to take into account your level of education and experience on the internet, and try to keep it very simple and literal declarative sentences.

      --
      -Styopa
    15. Re:Who writes this shit? by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      Most people past post-elementary age would understand that only questions end with a question mark.

      FTFY. ;)

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    16. Re:Who writes this shit? by bazorg · · Score: 1

      So net expected migration would be away from the equator because the rest of the world gets a little nicer, not because the equator gets worse. (Except for flooding, which the jury is still out on)

      It's not just surface temperature and the weather feeling nice/not nice for people.

      With coral reefs dying out due to change in water temperature and acidity, you should expect migration away from many areas where this causes food security to be affected, independently from the distance to the equator.
      I don't know if Indonesia and the Indochina region count as "near the equator" for this conversation, but I'd say that mass migration in such populous countries will cause a lot more suffering than what happens in Australia when their summer maximum temperatures become really high.

    17. Re:Who writes this shit? by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      Most people past post-elementary age would understand the difference between a direct question and a rhetorical question.

      "Put a question mark at the end of a sentence that is, in fact, a direct question. (Sometimes writers will simply forget.) Rhetorical questions (asked when an answer is not really expected), by the way, are questions and deserve to end with a question mark: How else should we end them, after all?"
      http://guidetogrammar.org/gram...

      --
      -Styopa
    18. Re:Who writes this shit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...while millions more flood into nations further from the equator.

      So, you are saying that Trump believes climate change, but his solution is to build a wall instead of prevent it?

  10. Re:What, Republican denialist traitors worry? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    The government is shut down - Has anyone noticed?
    We're abandoning our post militarily as a country - Which side of that argument are you progressives on?
    Our allies have zero faith in our leadership - Do you have faith in their leaders?
    Our President is literally a traitor - Like literally dood.
    And you expect these goons to be worried about the atmosphere? - I only expect goons like you to be worried.

    I don't even think they breathe the same air as the rest of us in the real world. - We do, we just smell the sweetness of success while you suck in the fumes of outrage and failure.

    Fox News needs its own fucking planet, and it will suck. - You are right and it will suck for those not on it.

    Hurry Elon and develop you BFD so that you can rocket yourself and these whining progressives(so called) of this planet.

  11. Re:Popcorn time! by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Of course butter. Realy butter, from freshly squeezed cows and salt. Lots of it. In a styrofoam container that keeps the stuff warm and doesn't burn my fingers on the damn hot butter.

    Screw the world. I'm old. I don't have kids. And I'm tired of trying to teach people. I tried to inform, I was laughed at, mocked and eventually threatened. What for? It's not like I need this planet more than maybe 30 more years, if that. I'm fairly sure that it's gonna last that long. After that, why should I give a fuck anymore?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  12. Re:Popcorn time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Idiot

  13. Re:More drivel from msmash by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Converts? We're talking religion now?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  14. Re:It's time we imprison the alarmists by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    This makes it sound like you want this to happen? I'm not the only one that wants to see the world burn? Could it be?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  15. Re:What, Republican denialist traitors worry? by penandpaper · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I find it funny you only mention Fox news as if the outlets you like are paragons of truth and fact. Meanwhile, we have had wonderfully bad examples of how bad the news and "journalists" are as they do everything to push narrative over fact.

    This isn't a defense of Fox news.

  16. Re:Popcorn time! by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    Yeah, and just like back then, no humans need to survive on the planet.

    It will be paradise.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  17. Re:What, Republican denialist traitors worry? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ^^ An example of what Fox Drugs can do to an impressionable childlike mind.

  18. Re:More drivel from msmash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    She's trying to confuse us with her science witchraft! Figures and charts! Measurements!
    Next she'll try and tell us that SCIENCE is the reason we have microwaves!
    BURN THE WITCH!!!

  19. Re:California fires by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All fire is Democrat made. That's why so many Republican traitors burn in Hell, it's completely unfair and partisan. St. Peter is a leftist radical. Heaven is socialist, you wouldn't like it anyway. There's no Fox News either.

  20. WHINY FAGGOT WHINES ABOUT REALITY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NEWS AT 11

  21. Re:Popcorn time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Primates(our predecessors) were not alive 3-5 million years ago? You are a creationist then? No wonder you fall for this sort of dogma as well.

  22. Canadians are the worst offenders by FeelGood314 · · Score: 1

    We get upset at CEOs who only care about the next quarters profits but as a species we rarely look ahead more than a year. Case in point everyone knew the Grand-banks fisheries off Canada's east coast were on the verge of collapse and yet we fished them right up to the point of nearly wiping out the cod there. Canadians dump more than 22 tons of GHG per person into the atmosphere (and BTW that's not counting the rotting pine forests). We beat the Americans by over 10% and yet we are doing almost nothing. If you can't get a well educated population that actually thinks climate change is a problem to change their ways there is no hope.

    1. Re:Canadians are the worst offenders by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 1

      We get upset at CEOs who only care about the next quarters profits but as a species we rarely look ahead more than a year. Case in point everyone knew the Grand-banks fisheries off Canada's east coast were on the verge of collapse and yet we fished them right up to the point of nearly wiping out the cod there. Canadians dump more than 22 tons of GHG per person into the atmosphere (and BTW that's not counting the rotting pine forests). We beat the Americans by over 10% and yet we are doing almost nothing. If you can't get a well educated population that actually thinks climate change is a problem to change their ways there is no hope.

      I get that fishing could be stopped but I don't see what the proposed solution to rotting pine forests is. In fact I hadn't heard of the problem but when I researched a few minutes what I think you're refering to is a beetle infestation. But it looks like that is not going to be a problem soon as found here: https://phys.org/news/2016-04-...

    2. Re:Canadians are the worst offenders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For a guy who logs in as "FeelGood314", you sure spew out a lot of self-hatred. Fuck you for spreading that, and fuck those tired old stats your ilk keeps bringing up.

      The scam of *that* claim is that when we (Canadians) extract a barrel of oil from the ground and sell it to an American distillery, they process it into fuel, they send it to an American gas station, an American puts it into his car, drives around, and sends that CO2 back in the atmosphere...then this is apparently *Canada's* fault and counts against *us*. This is BS of the highest order. The *American* had the need to pollute with his gas guzzler and is the one who should be punished. If we were to cut our own throat and stop our own oil industry, other countries would be more than happy to step in and provide for the demand.

      The "fact" that Canada supposedly produces 2% of the world's CO2 emissions, despite representing much, MUCH less than 2% of the world's population, is BULLSHIT and has to be recognized and called out as such. Go after those who have the demand and pollute with impunity, not those who provide the supply. If the demand was reduced or eliminated altogether, *we* would have no reason to dig up that oil.

    3. Re:Canadians are the worst offenders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have millions of square kilometers of forests (look at the northern part of most provinces), which all act to sequester carbon. Sure, wood rots when trees eventually die, but overall, we're much better off with those forests around than without. I don't get what you're suggesting we do otherwise.

    4. Re:Canadians are the worst offenders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And that doesn't light up your bulb on the global warming solution? Extra carbon, store them in form that can be reused as energy in the future. Keyword: store. CO2 is not a pollutant, it is a form of energy storage, raw material. Find a way to use it, someone who want to make money will take over ... bitching about it is pointless.

    5. Re:Canadians are the worst offenders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't argue, both parties are at fault. It is like the addict and the drug dealer.

  23. WHINY FAGGOT WHINES ABOUT REALITY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NEWS AT 11

  24. Re:Popcorn time! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    Go easy on the salt. Remember your blood pressure.

    It's not like I need this planet more than maybe 30 more years, if that. I'm fairly sure that it's gonna last that long. After that, why should I give a fuck anymore?

    Haven't you heard? We're approaching the singularity when our consciousness will be uploaded to a Roomba, and then we'll live forever.

    [And let me save you all some time: Yes, it is appropriate that my consciousness is uploaded to a Roomba because I suck.]

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  25. How does industry become accountable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's literally nothing I can do about these problems except try to push for change through governments that are 100% controlled by big industry.

    I'm sick of these stories because there's literally nothing I can do about it. Period.

    1. Re:How does industry become accountable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can change your lifestyle. I changed mine in a direction to greatly reduce the impact it has.

      You can get other people that you know to change their lifestyles.

      One of the most important things you can do is not have a lot of kids. The fewer the better.

  26. Stop Being Resistant to Change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Change is inevitable. Global warming is only a problem to people who do not want to have to change. If sea levels rise, move. If the temperature is too high for you, move.

    When life throws change at you, quit being such a whiney baby and deal with it.

    1. Re:Stop Being Resistant to Change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Waits for the "Whiny Faggot Wines About Reality"-bot to post a reply.

  27. Re:News for Nerds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    When the seas rise 20 meters and put all of the nerd habitat known as silicon valley under water then it is news for nerd - learn to swim or learn to stop making shit up.

  28. More nuclear power please. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I will believe that the governments of the world are taking global warming seriously when they start building nuclear power plants like they did in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. There is no power source that is lower in carbon per energy produced except perhaps hydroelectricity. There is nothing safer than nuclear power based on deaths per energy produced.

    Don't tell me that nuclear power is too expensive because the governments of the world are certainly willing to spend gobs of money on worthless wind, solar, and other "green" energy. They are also certainly willing to spend gobs of money fighting over the scraps of carbon left on the table.

    In my mind there is no global warming threat because the powers that be don't seem to be acting like it is one. Actions speak louder than words. If they want to talk about how "the science is settled" then they need to read a book on the merits of nuclear power.

    We know the question but nobody seems to like the answer. Makes me think that the government is less interested in solving the problem and is more interested in dragging this out as long as they can, that way they can use this as an excuse for things that people might not otherwise allow. Well, people might not otherwise allow nuclear power but at some point they will. It's not like people don't know nuclear power exists, it powers a large part of the USA and perhaps an even larger part of its military.

    After they allow nuclear power then they need to find another bogeyman to frighten the masses with I guess. What will that be? Alien invasion?

    1. Re:More nuclear power please. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Global warming" and "climate change" are merely pretenses for governments and globalists to implement the redistribution of wealth, leading to socialism. Green is the new red.

    2. Re:More nuclear power please. by Phillip2 · · Score: 1

      "Don't tell me that nuclear power is too expensive because the governments of the world are certainly willing to spend gobs of money on worthless wind, solar, and other "green" energy. They are also certainly willing to spend gobs of money fighting over the scraps of carbon left on the table."

      Green energy is not worthless. And the idea that it is heavily subsidised is out of date -- Coal, for example, in the US is subsidised and most of it would not be viable without.

      You are right about nuclear power in other ways, I think. There is a case for it. But, it's probalby too late now. Nuclear power plants take a long time develop and much of the energy grid is being re-worked so not require single large sources (i.e. make it better for renewables).

    3. Re:More nuclear power please. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Republicanism" and "Conservatism" are pretenses for individual freedom and personal responsibility. The things people who need daddy government to tell them what to do oppose.

    4. Re:More nuclear power please. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The UK has made eight sites available for nuclear plants. Four were under construction or were being planned, but the companies have pulled out of constructing all but one.

    5. Re:More nuclear power please. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet some conservatives are often unhappy if you express your individual freedom to not be straight or retain the same gender as you had at birth.

    6. Re:More nuclear power please. by sfcat · · Score: 1

      Green energy is not worthless. And the idea that it is heavily subsidised is out of date -- Coal, for example, in the US is subsidised and most of it would not be viable without.

      You are right about nuclear power in other ways, I think. There is a case for it. But, it's probalby too late now. Nuclear power plants take a long time develop and much of the energy grid is being re-worked so not require single large sources (i.e. make it better for renewables).

      Guess we are all dead then. Green energy isn't worthless...there is just far too little of it and its always in the wrong place at the wrong time. The reason folks argue for nuclear is that its the only solution that scales. If you are confused about this fact, do some math and see what it would take to make even an 80% renewable power generation. Then remember that there is another problem called fuel production that is just as big as electricity and can ONLY be solved with nuclear. That's why when folks push solar, wind and tidal we just yawn and roll our eyes. Because those are just feel good solutions that don't actually do anything to reduce GHG emissions. Folks usually do the right thing about trying everything else. Just let me know when you are tired of doing the wrong (well useless anyway) things because you are only making things worse until you do.

      --
      "Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
    7. Re:More nuclear power please. by Phillip2 · · Score: 1

      Maybe. But, green energy production has grown massively and consistently out performs expectations for its growth. Nuclear technology has not. It's difficult to argue that it scales; theoretically, yes, but in practice no.

  29. Re:What, Republican denialist traitors worry? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, you can't provide any citations. Got it.

  30. Re:Popcorn time! by penandpaper · · Score: 1

    mmmmmm butter. *homer drool*

    I understand the sentiment. I am not so far as to say "screw the world" but I am tired of being shamed for "not trying hard enough" because I only do what I can afford or ridiculed for not having the same fervor as the AC's spamming vitriol. If that means screw the world then fuck it. Screw the world.

  31. Re:Hoax hoax hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, just the thermometer data.

  32. Re:Canadians are the typical offenders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's the oil-money-controlled government cabalists, not the people denying reality.. At least half the people can see the damage. Even Canada has retarded head-in-ass conservatism disease though. It's a puppet state, face it. Not a Democracy.

  33. Re: Popcorn time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Expecting any sort of intellectual consistency from these people is a waste of time.

  34. Do you have a sibling? by goombah99 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Your genes are elsewhere in the world even if you don't reproduce. If you have a sibling then they have about half your genes, and if they have two kids most of those pass along. If you have two siblings then the fraction of you out there is even higher. And one can go back up the ladder, looking at cousins.

    So basically you are all out there and statistically at least half your genes are in someone if you have a lot of family.

    You are therefore unnecessary as a vessel for the genes to keep going. But if you feel you have an obligation to your genes then you should care about the planet.

    In fact the same logic applies to people with kids. Personally they themselves will die. Only their genes go on. So why should anyone care about the planet if you don't??

    Not having kids is not any basis for your logic

    The headline on the article is misleading. there is nothing more worrying about this year than last year. The rate of emissions is doing whatever it was doing last year (going up, going down, staying the same...). All that changed is a temporary fluctuation in one of the sink tems is low this year. But this is just a normal environmental fluctuation not the driver term.

    So yes one should be interested in emission rates and their long term impact but worrying about next year is not something one needs to place any different concern on.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:Do you have a sibling? by goombah99 · · Score: 1

      meant to say 1/4

      --
      Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    2. Re:Do you have a sibling? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So we don't have souls and only genes?

    3. Re:Do you have a sibling? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So we don't have souls and only genes?

      It's like whether there is a God; there is sufficient evidence to suggest there is a god, whilst there is sufficient against such a grandiose, parental figure(s). If there is, He's doing a mild job of playing it hands off since there are plenty who claim to commune with Him whilst permitting incalculable human suffering.

    4. Re:Do you have a sibling? by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      You share most of your genes with every random stranger.

    5. Re:Do you have a sibling? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not having kids is not any basis for your logic

      Sure it is. The problem is that phrase is simply another way of saying "there is no one on this planet that I care about other than myself, so why should I care about an event that won't happen until I am dead?", and you seem to be trying to make it out to be more than that.

    6. Re:Do you have a sibling? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not having kids either. Unlike my neighbor with the 7 kids (which collectively create more CO2 that I could in a lifetime).

      Just because someone may share my genes is non-sequitur. I have no personal ties so I JUST DON'T FUCKING CARE.

      If people actually gave a shit about C02 and global warming they would stop having children, which by the way, is the main contributor to all of the worlds problems. Until people recognize this I will continue to live my life without worry. Not my problem, nor can I do anything to stop it anyway.

  35. Re:News for Nerds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And just how do you think we'll deal with this horrendous mess -- including both reducing CO2 emissions and adapting to horrors like sea level rise -- without technology? Are you expecting someone to unveil a magic wand we can wave to roll back this shit show?

  36. Re:What, Republican denialist traitors worry? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Highest ratings of all news channel.

  37. Re:What, Republican denialist traitors worry? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Roger Stone is preparing to give them as we speak. Also you aren't an American obviously. Real Americans don't fall for Putin gags like Drumpftards do. Enjoy your Brexit, mate.

  38. Alarming rise in emmisions. by Charcharodon · · Score: 0
    Talk to China...ours (US) are going down.

    I'm looking forward to my property values going up as the beach will be much closer with a 30ft increase.

    1. Re:Alarming rise in emmisions. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Wrong, ours are not going down, the rate of increase is slowing. I'm looking forward to harvesting the fresh water from your skull like a coconut. Ahh, dystopia, the life Republicans truly deserve.

    2. Re:Alarming rise in emmisions. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I'm looking forward to my property values going up as the beach will be much closer with a 30ft increase.

      The problem is that it won't conveniently stop there; I think you'll find that the beach will start way past your backyard.

    3. Re:Alarming rise in emmisions. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You may want a bit of a fact check there skull drinker
      A simple google search shows that yes, the US levels are in fact going down in both gross tonnage and in per capita numbers.
      The only dystopia I see here is a liberal's doom and gloom that is all somebody else's fault, most likely a conservative's.
      As my neighbor says, "There isn't a problem on earth that I don't blame the GOP for."

    4. Re:Alarming rise in emmisions. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A simple google search requires reading comprehension. Parent poster does not have that ability.

    5. Re:Alarming rise in emmisions. by Charcharodon · · Score: 1

      Sounds good to me. I'm a scuba diver and boater. I'd love to have some ocean front property in Missouri.

  39. Re:What, Republican denialist traitors worry? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "Literally". You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means.

  40. Nuclaer inherently = raising taxes on the rich by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nuclear power is a long term solution requiring massive investment. Renewable energy is a short term immediate solution requiring minimal investment. Guess which one wins in a complete-market system? Yep, renewables.

    Ask the UK as 8 of their 13 nuke projects are shuttered due to costs nobody wants to pay for, as the US stores hundreds of thousands of spent fuel rods in unsafe concrete pools waiting for a disaster.

    If you want nuclear, fine. Pay for it up front if serious.

    1. Re:Nuclaer inherently = raising taxes on the rich by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want nuclear, fine. Pay for it up front if serious.

      As far as I can tell there are plenty of people in the USA willing to take that option. The problem is that the US federal government will not issue a license to operate at any price. This is not a problem of physics, economics, public safety, or anything else you can think of except politics. This is a political problem and it must be solved by voting out the knuckleheads in congress that are denying the science and will not allow nuclear power plants to be built.

      Oh, and it's the same problem with the spent fuel rods, that's political too. Those fuel rods are a valuable resource and we need to do our best to exploit it. We can use those fuel rods to power the next generation of nuclear power, as well as mine for valuable isotopes for industry, medicine, and science. NASA is desperate for many isotopes but the government is unwilling to allow the building of the reactors needed to meet their demands for deep space missions. We lost a lot of money for a lack of the right isotopes to power probes sent to Mars and beyond.

      We can pay now or pay later. Either way the future is nuclear power. I guess there's another option, we regress to subsistence farming and moving at the speed horses can carry us.

  41. Re:Popcorn time! by Charcharodon · · Score: 1
    All of my Roomba's died an early death. Maybe 5 years was the longest lived one.

    So don't count living much past the warranty.

  42. Re: Worrying Rise in Global CO2 Forecast for 2019 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Wolf!!!"

  43. Re: News for Nerds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Listen buddy, the only people worried about the shit show are the people making a shit show out of who knows what. The rest of the show is not a shit show at all, so if you give up on the idea that your shit is the billion dollar shit, at least in this universe, and get the fuck out of the way like the piece of literal shit you are, then we would all see that the shit show claims and desperation might be really just the machinations of a few shit heads.

  44. Re:News for Nerds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How is this tech news again?

    Without tech, CO2 would still be a pre-industrial levels. Tech created the problem. Tech is measuring the problem. Tech will solve the problem (maybe, or perhaps create an even bigger problem).

  45. mitigate or adapt by hdyoung · · Score: 0

    When presented with a problem, you either address the problem or tolerate it and adapt somehow. Im my opinion, climate-deniers have won this battle. We're well past the point of addressing the problem. The consequences are gonna hit, and our species is gonna have to adapt

  46. Nuclear option by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    China accounts for 25% of greenhouse gases.

    Current multi-decade plans to transition to solar/wind energy have not been able to halt the increase in greenhouse gases, much less reverse them. We don't have the luxury of waiting decades for unproven solutions to fix this problem. Full-scale nuclear bombardment of China can be conducted immediately.

    Nuking China would virtually eliminate their greenhouse gas output. There would also be the additional benefit of reduced global temperatures from a mild nuclear winter scenario. Slowing of the remaining global economy would further reduce greenhouse gases.

    The window of opportunity to fix runaway climate change is rapidly closing. All options have to be on the table. The very survival of the Earth is at stake.

  47. Re: News for Nerds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Listen faggot, you can hear Putin's heartbeat in your mouth as you suck his cock.

  48. Nerds != tech by DogDude · · Score: 2

    "Nerds" like all sorts of things other than "tech". I'm a biology nerd, and I find "tech" about as interesting as watching paint dry. This is news for me, thanks.

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
  49. Re:Popcorn time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like when rapid warming caused 99% animal die off and took millions of years to correct?

  50. Re:Popcorn time! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Sorry, misread that. I thought it's the usual 300 million year argument. Yes, in the Pliocene it was actually a bit warmer too. And the sea levels were about 15 meters higher.

    Well, nothing to worry here, I'm located well above that. Hope so are you. Sucks for the couple hundred millions who ain't, but, hey, as the Pliocene shows, we don't need 8 billion people to survive as a species, so who cares, right?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  51. Re:Well they have Chutzpah by Mashiki · · Score: 1, Informative

    Sad thing is the crazy people who actually worry about this don't realize they are the butt of a colossal joke and actually get upset when you try to explain it to them.

    What's funny, and I live in the great lakes area is that a few years ago they were going on about how the lakes were going to dry up and the water levels of the lakes had never been so low! They had been lower several times and in some cases for decades. Few years later, you had the same people screaming that it was global warming that caused the lakes to not freeze over - instead of a "stuck" high pressure system. Few years later it was so cold that we still had ice on the lakes in June and July, that was only a couple of years ago.

    --
    Om, nomnomnom...
  52. Re:Popcorn time! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Who wants to live forever? Seriously, it takes the joy out of it.

    If I knew I live forever, I'd kill myself.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  53. Forests burning??? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

    Okay, I can see where putting fossilized carbon back into the atmosphere is a bad thing. Hence the drive to reduce burning of coal, oil, and natural gas (well, except that noone is pushing for that to stop, they're cheering it on).

    But getting excited about burning wood, which was NOT fossilized carbon, but carbon removed over the last few decades????

    C'mon guys. If AGW fanatics want to be taken seriously, at least stick to the science - which is all about putting fossilized carbon back into circulation.....

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  54. All roads... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...lead to co2 production I guarantee it

  55. Re:News for Nerds by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How is this tech news again?

    I understand its an important issue, but tech related it is not.

    Slashdot is "news for nerds and things that matter". Climate change matters.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
  56. STOP MAKING BABIES by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is it so freaking hard for you all too understand. STOP MAKING SO MANY BABIES. Less people = less consumption = less pollution. Its not the first world making all these babies.. but feeding the rest of the world that IS making all these babies creates excess pollution. pretty simple.

  57. Remember Comrade by Crashmarik · · Score: 1, Informative

    Zat is weather not climate change. Da ?

    1. Re:Remember Comrade by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Sure thing, that's what they keep telling everyone. Of course if they were really serious, they'd be pushing to modernize parts of the world where slash & burn farming is still the norm.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    2. Re:Remember Comrade by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every time bad weather is blamed on climate change, but good "weather [is] not climate change", another batch of people become disillusioned and stop believing in global warming.

      We get these scientific predictions of drought, floods, crop losses, hurricane strength, hurricane number, on and on they go. We are told we are anti-science if we do not believe. Then the predictions don't come true and suddenly evidence against the scientific claims don't matter. The models are updated and they have another go.

      That is not science. Global warming science is not science until they start willingly admitting failure when predictions are not correct without massive error bars and uncertainty levels even the soft sciences would laugh at.

    3. Re:Remember Comrade by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Zat is weather not climate change. Da ?

      Except now every blizzard, every fire, every heat wave, every cold spell, every tornado, every typhoon, and basically all the other undesirable weather is because of climate change.

      Only good weather is just weather.

    4. Re:Remember Comrade by WhiplashII · · Score: 1

      This - go and read the original IPCC reports. They are online, you can download them for yourself.

      Almost every prediction made has been falsified. The temperature is nowhere near what they predicted, way outside the 99% confidence interval. And yet they are right this time?

      Let me know when they are consistently right. At this point, they will need to make a lot of correct predictions in a row - after all, random chance should make them right half the time anyway.

      --
      while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
    5. Re:Remember Comrade by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      The temperature is nowhere near what they predicted
      Strange, are that the reports from this web site: https://www.ipcc.ch/reports/ ??
      Or are you talking about a different IPCC?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  58. IPCC = Totally discredited liars. Junk Science. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No one believes a word the IPCC says or their personal agenda. Fudging numbers, straight lying, threatening people's careers if they don't tow the line.

    Enjoy your hockey stick graph, you cock smoking tea-baggers.

  59. Re:More drivel from msmash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Climate change alarmism became a religion several years ago. In science, hypotheses are supposed to change based on data. When data starts being changed to match a hypothesis then it becomes a religion.

  60. Re:News for Nerds by kackle · · Score: 1

    I always took it as "This is the news that nerds would find interesting, that is, this is the 'stuff' that matters (to them)." Otherwise, it's just news, no?

  61. Re:News for Nerds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Citation needed. I haven't seen that mentioned anywhere on the site in years.

  62. Re:What, Republican denialist traitors worry? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're a pathetic brainwashed clown suffering terribly from Trump Derangement Syndrome. Not a single indictment by the Mueller witch hunt team has anything to do with the "Russian collusion" hoax.

  63. Re:News for Nerds by Rolgar · · Score: 1

    It seems that there is a significant amount of debate about environmental science, if various scientists have credibility, public policy about what can and ought to be done that can be discussed. Some of us find it interesting, and want to hear what other Slashdotters have to say.

    If you read the headline and don't think it should be on Slashdot, don't click, and that will send a message to the admins that people don't want to read these. If you comment, they will see it show up in the number of comments and that will give them reason to create more client stories. If you can't stop from clicking, then setup a way for you to not see climate stories on your Slashdot feed (I'm sure some RSS readers can filter the words you want excluded, so you only see the stories you find interesting.)

  64. Worried? Not for "the planet" I hope... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Levels of the greenhouse gas have not been as high as today for 3-5m years, when the global temperature was 2-3C warmer and the sea level was 10-20 metres (32 to 64 feet) higher

    [Channeling George Carlin]
    So everything was higher, 3-5m years ago, than it is today, and "the planet" survived that just fine, thank you very much; in fact this is one of those periods during which the excess CO2 caused fauna/flora to thrive the most--ever.

    Can we please *stop* saying the "action" that's being called for is to "save the planet", and instead be honest about it and say it's to save our own sorry asses? But then, if politicians/the media were to do so, I suspect a lot of people would just decide to screw it, we don't deserve this place to live.

  65. Re:What, Republican denialist traitors worry? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No need for ambivalence, it *doesn't* mean what the poster thinks it means.

  66. Re: What, Republican denialist traitors worry? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck you!

  67. Re:News for Nerds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Climate matters as much as black lives.

  68. Correlation is not causation by eminencja · · Score: 1

    Is the temperature rising because of the rising CO2 level or is it vice versa - the CO2 level is rising because of the rising temperature? Why would the temperature be rising? Well - because of the sun activity... Where is the CO2 coming from? The oceans release it as the temperature rises. I heard the above theory I and am genuinely interested - prove it wrong.

    1. Re:Correlation is not causation by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      Sun activity is actually fairly low. The most recent peak was in the 80's, and it's dropped a bit since then. In the same time, temperature has gone up rather dramatically.

      Where is the CO2 coming from? The oceans release it as the temperature rise

      And where did all the CO2 from fossil fuel burning end up ?

      Here's an exercise for you: find the numbers for total amount of oil, coal, and gas that the world has used in the last century. For each of those, calculate how much CO2 is produced by burning them. Add up, and compare total CO2 with increase in atmosphere.

    2. Re:Correlation is not causation by eminencja · · Score: 2

      Here's an exercise for you: find the numbers for total amount of oil, coal, and gas that the world has used ..

      We couldn't have scripted it better. Here is your question answered by a Nobel laureate in physics.

      https://youtu.be/SXxHfb66ZgM?t=1428

  69. Re:News for Nerds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Slashdot is "news for nerds and things that matter". Climate change matters.

    Climate change is leftist politics. All the big companies are eat up with leftist politics, that's why it matters to them big tech do-nuffins.

  70. Pablum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. Framing and weasel words: "worrying rise in CO2..." Who is worried? And why should we care about their opinion?
    2. Things that literally haven't happened: "...forecast for 2019" So "some people" can see the future? And why should we care about their forecast?
    3. No solutions: nowhere in there does it give a list of things to do to solve the problem so that "worrying" is reduced.

    Boy oh boy! I guess we all better start tearing our hair out and praying to the scientists to save us from the calamity that will surely befall us if we don't have enough faith in their prophesy!

  71. Re:What, Republican denialist traitors worry? by Shotgun · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Not only can it not provide a citation, we've now learned that before Hillary used the Russian collusion script against Trump, it was used against McCain in the 2008 election. The retards didn't even bother to change the name of most of the players.

    --
    Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
    Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  72. Give it a rest by Shotgun · · Score: 0

    Stop all the alarmism. It doesn't matter anymore. Acosio-Cortez has already told us that the world is going to end in 12 years, so what's the point. Live it up people. Party like it's 2029.

    --
    Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
    Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    1. Re:Give it a rest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop all the alarmism. It doesn't matter anymore. Acosio-Cortez has already told us that the world is going to end in 12 years, so what's the point. Live it up people. Party like it's 2029.

      Yes. Not 11 years, not 13 years, but 12 years!.

      And don't even try to argue with that. It's scientific!

  73. They never cared - except to scare for power. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 2

    ...and not a single person in power will care.

    They never believed it - neither the ones that claim to nor the ones that claim not to.

    If those who claimed to believe it really did believe it, they'd be working to abort pro-natalist policies, which raise the world population (creating more users of fossil-fuel energy) and other policies that move people to places with higher standards of living (where each uses far more energy and fossil-fuels).

    Instead they're encouraging the migration of masses of low-income voters from Mexico, and prefer to let part of the government be shut down for months to allowing a wall be built to slow them. And the biggest "educator"/propagandist for the global warming claim is a billionaire from an oil-rich family who made more on his own by starting a "carbon credit exchange", taking a percentage of the added costs to global businesses imposed by the new anti-carbon laws he helped pass.

    Those who claim not to believe it say it's a massive power grab that hurts their constituents, donors, and own pocketbooks.

    Meanwhile, among the general public, since scientific research has become attached to moral claims, power politics, and enormous economic gains and lossess, real believers and real skeptics will not believe any further research supporting the other's view. The skeptics have seen enough fudged data, peer-review capture, and selective funding of doom-finders by the powers-that-be with more power to be gained, that they don't believe any research or analysis suggesting ever-increasing doom scenarios. The believers reject any research or analysis suggesting the problem may not be as big as claimed, or exist at all, or even be headed in the opposite direction.

    The issue has become a shibboleth - a group identifier and virtue signal. Nobody will be convinced by more science, because with the claims that it's "settled" they can't separate real science from fake science well enough to trust it to change their current ideas.

    So we won't find out whether it's right until it happens.

    A pity, really. If there IS an eco-catastrophe on its way, we'll just have to live through it and patch it after the fact (or die trying), when we MIGHT have done something useful in advance. (On the other hand, if there isn't one coming, maybe we won't impoverish and enslave ourselves making useless motions to solve a non-problem.)

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  74. China and third world pollution needs to be cut by ITRambo · · Score: 1

    The West can put pressure on China, India and third world countries by building energy efficient, non-polluting mega-factories in the West that are open to any company that currently outsources manufacturing. There are ways we can reduce CO2. This is one of them. Yes, it will take long term planning. That's something that lazy corporate boards and CEO's don't like doing.

  75. Ever wonder where itâ(TM)s all coming from? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have a look for yourself: https://www.windy.com/-CO-concentration-cosc?cosc,19.643,103.096,3

  76. bring it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only way to really know who is right about global warming is pump out more CO2 and lets see what happens. And let's get on to 10 billion people. Only way to know for sure if we are overpopulated or not. Tired of the endless debate.

  77. Re:What, Republican denialist traitors worry? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What was that? I couldn't quite hear you with you and Trump both having one of Putin's balls in your mouths.

  78. Re:Popcorn time! by fat_mike · · Score: 1

    I love you.

  79. Dry? Wet? Depends where on the earth. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    98% of scientists say GW is real, but afaik only 8-12% think it is caused by man. Search for the graph
              "Late Pleistocene: Atmospheric CO2 and the Glacial cycles"
    and you will see we are right about where we should be in the cyclical GW graph.

  80. ~0.05% by volume by js290 · · Score: 0
    Isn't CO2 ~0.05% of atmospheric gases by volume?

    The idea that a change in concentration of a minor trace gas like #CO2 could boost the kinetic energy of the lower troposphere to cause 2-mile thick continental ice sheets (like the ones we had 20 Ky ago) to melt is BEYOND LUDICROUS! Its the greatest INSULT to human intelligence pic.twitter.com/JswlQGxeLi

    — Ned Nikolov, Ph.D. (@NikolovScience) January 18, 2019

    --
    "Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
    1. Re:~0.05% by volume by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Yeah. Sad that a Forestry PhD from my Alma Mater can be such an idiot. However, as the saying goes, when the GPA->F for engineering, they go to Forestry/Business.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    2. Re:~0.05% by volume by js290 · · Score: 1

      "Ecology... Nature is only model we have that has survived climate change with sheer, total, utter neglect..." http://bit.ly/1ohVqpE

      --
      "Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
    3. Re:~0.05% by volume by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you are agreeing that CO2 doesn't cause warming?
      Would put your continuing neglect of America's role in causing the problem into the proper context.

  81. The Earths' failsafe plan by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Oh, not to worry, climate-change deniers, religious types, greedy bastards, and whoever else effectively doesn't give a fuck about what happens to the Earth, it's got it's own failsafe plan to save itself: the die-back of the Human species. You people keep going the way all of you are going, and at some point there won't be enough resources to sustain everyone, and there will be a massive die-back of our species, along with the fall of our civilization -- likely hastened by the wars that you'll fight over what usable land and resources are left. So, eventually, the Earth will survive and recover -- but we'll either not be here to see it, or there'll be only a fraction of us left. I won't be here to see that happen, none of us will, but I almost wish I would be just to see the look on the religious zealots' faces when they realize that Zombie Jesus ain't coming to 'take them home' and that they have to live with the mess they've made of things...

    ...or, you can all stop being idiots about this and stop fucking everything up, starting now. Your choice.

    1. Re:The Earths' failsafe plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and there will be a massive die-back of our species

      It's called a pandemic.
      Not if, but when.

    2. Re:The Earths' failsafe plan by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      You are a blithering alarmist circle-jerking imbecile

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    3. Re:The Earths' failsafe plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eat a bag of dicks fucktard.

  82. Re:Popcorn time! by fatwilbur · · Score: 1
    I read a good article this morning that somewhat aligns to your point, that global warming has become overhyped fearmongering: At Davos, the world is aflame. Everywhere else, things are awesome.

    Among some of the great excerpts:

    Despite the fact that human life expectancy has risen, diseases have been eliminated, terrorism deaths have declined, income distribution has risen, and the world is a better place than it ever has been, a sense of dystopian doom pervades Davos.

    Unfortunately, reasonable analysis and critique like this is labelled as "far right", "denier", and from a "conservative rag" even here in Canada. Even those willing to admit they have a point will say "yeah things are great now, but the point is climate change will destroy our future!". One of the most interesting things I found researching some history here is there is ALWAYS a doomsday scenario our population is preoccupied with, this one is just a bit more heavy due to fast information sharing via the internet. People are always scared, news at 11. We have identified an issue and will slowly resolve it, driven by technology, and neither the world nor humanity will end. People talking about future or even current climate change disaster are scared, irrational humans, or trying to score political points, nothing more.

  83. Re:News for Nerds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's still in the Terms of Use kiddo.

    https://slashdotmedia.com/terms-of-use/

  84. Time to get serious by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 2

    And end all fossil fuel depreciation, exemptions, exclusions, and subsidies.

    Everywhere.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:Time to get serious by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      And that will do NOTHING in time.
      We need a combination of Solar, Wind, Hydro, Geo-thermal, and Nuke power.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    2. Re:Time to get serious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Abort Americans, it's the only way.

      The planet will thank you.

  85. Re:News for Nerds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The worst plausible estimates put sea-level rise at less than a meter by the end of the century. That is the worst case scenario.

    Oh no! People with homes I could never afford and contribute more to global warming than a dozen people in my tax bracket might loose a portion of their beach.

    Fuck em.

  86. Re:News for Nerds by bob4u2c · · Score: 1
    That's not what the meta description tag of the main page says:

    Slashdot: News for nerds, stuff that matters. Timely news source for technology related news with a heavy slant towards Linux and Open Source issues.

    In recent years it seems the site owners want to bury this and instead are bent on turning this into a national enquirer.

  87. Re:News for Nerds by chiefcrash · · Score: 1

    How is this tech news again?

    I understand its an important issue, but tech related it is not.

    Slashdot is "news for nerds and things that matter". Climate change matters.

    But it's an AND statement. Let's look at the truth table:

    (news for nerds) AND (things that matter) == ??? (FALSE) AND (TRUE) == FALSE

    --
    Show me on the 1st Amendment bobblehead where the moderator touched you...
  88. WHINY FAGGOT WHINES ABOUT REALITY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NEWS AT 11, FAGGOT!

    WHINE MOAR

  89. Re:Well they have Chutzpah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You have record cold Niagara falls is frozen https://www.accuweather.com/en...

    Very first paragraph: "It's that time of year when the Niagara Falls transform into a majestic winter wonderland. - sure sounds like that's unusual. NOT!

    Record Snowfalls https://www.miamiherald.com/la...

    55 years - for that day. Of course the temperature was actually above average for that day, too. Warmer, with more precipitation - gee, what does that sound like?

    Power outages in Europe from the snow https://www.express.co.uk/news...

    Funny how the BBC video in that article mentions nothing of what the headline claims. Odd, ehh?

    Meanwhile we have record heat in Australia, and a sunny 40F in Anchorage, Alaska.

  90. Re:Popcorn time! by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

    Don't add butter or salt or else you ... or else you mask the flavour of the freshly popped corn. If you don't know what I'm talking about then you need to buy fresh corn, pop it and eat it right away.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  91. Re: What, Republican denialist traitors worry? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He wasn't wedded to it, princess.

  92. Yeah. So not going to be fixed by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    China is adding 256+ GW of new coal plants to China and another 256+ GW of coal plants to other nations.
    India continues to climb.
    America climbed a bit this year, and will go down after this, but, the question is, how much?

    Amongst all this, are the far lefites that continue to give green lights to China's massive expansion and then at the same time, does all they can to stop the one real solution, which is the use of Nuclear power.
    Until ppl take this SERIOUSLY and understand that REAL SOLUTIONS ARE NEEDED to bring down ALL NATION'S EMISSIONS, it really does not matter.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  93. You shouldn't be taken seriously WindBourne by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You must be the least credible, least serious person around.

    You constantly tell us how America is green, but you are amongst the worst of the worst. China and Europe could double their CO2 output and still be cleaner than you per person. You keep pretending you are clean, just because you happen to have less people.

    America climbed a bit this year, and will go down after this, but, the question is, how much?

    Your predictions here WindBourne are as worthless as ever. You were told constantly for close on a year, that American CO2 was increasing, but you kept predicting it would go down over and over like a broken record.

    You are always wrong ! You constantly lie and make shit up to make America look good or China bad. Who pays you to be this wrong and ill-informed?

  94. can't even spell 'off' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a total loser.

  95. You clearly have no understanding at all. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    after all, random chance should make them right half the time anyway.

    This one statement alone is enough for everyone to know you are totally clueless and not worth bothering about.

  96. Re:Popcorn time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    AGW = annoying gullible whiners

  97. Re:Popcorn time! by alongley · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's lazy to say that the world and humanity will not end (literally no one is suggesting the world will end, and the worst predictions do not predict humanity will end). It's also lazy to say that reasonable analysis is labelled as far right. The quote you posted can't be debated.

    Taken to their logical conclusion, increasing population, increasing CO2 output, increasing pollution, and environmental change suggest that sometime soon things are going to reach a tipping point in the broadest sense, financial, socioeconomic, environmental. This is reasonable analysis that also can not be debated and should not be labelled left or right. Saying "I believe a future technology we have no hint of now is going to emerge soon enough to be able to have enough of an impact on this problem to materially affect the current trajectory" is the ultimate laziness. Renewables/nextgen nuclear seem at best to be able to take a bite out of current output not take a bite out of atmospheric CO2. And keep in mind we need that tech now, not in 50 years. Citation welcome, but please don't cite something lame.

    But for me it really comes down to the hard fact that we are borrowing against the future for our present. The morality of what we're doing is incontrovertibly bad. I would not want to be my own grandchild, I would be freakin pissed at how selfish and lazy my grandparent had been. Granted humanity has always done this, but our ability to consume and pollute has grown exponentially.

    --
    How do I edit my sig.
  98. Not fixed, as you keep denying what the cause is. by CaffeinatedBacon · · Score: 1

    What a surprise, the American apologist blames China to deflect attention away from America.

    Americans are so much more dirty than Chinese it's not even close.
    China could literally burn twice as much coal just to spite you, and their per person CO2 would still be less than yours.
    Just put it all in a big pile and set it on fire. Just for fun. They would still be cleaner than you.

    You already know this of course. Just as you already know America is far far worse than just about every country in the world when it comes to CO2 pollution.

  99. I see almost straight line by mapkinase · · Score: 1

    From 1960 to now.

    Have in mind that in 1950 we produced as much CO2 by burning as we breath out now.

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  100. China and India are main contributors by mapkinase · · Score: 1

    China and India are main contributors to increase emissions in 2010s. While the Western world actually stabilized emissions, the emissions from these two skyrocketed due to economic boom.

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  101. Re:Popcorn time! by penandpaper · · Score: 1

    mmmmm popcorn