this post was submitted on
1,067 points (52% like it)
11,044 up votes 9,977 down votes

funny

subscribe2,520,670 readers

11,058 users here now

NEW! No gore or porn (including sexually graphic images). Other NSFW content must be tagged as such

Welcome to r/Funny:

You may only post if you are funny.

Please No:

  • posts with their sole purpose being to communicate with another redditor. Click for an Example.

  • Screenshots of reddit comment threads. Post a link with context to /r/bestof or /r/defaultgems if from a default subreddit instead.

  • Posts for the specific point of it being your reddit birthday.

  • Politics - This includes the 2012 Presidential candidates or bills in congress.

  • Rage comics - Go to /fffffffuuuuuuuuuuuu instead.

  • Memes - Go to /r/AdviceAnimals or /r/Memes instead.

  • Demotivational posters - Go to /r/Demotivational instead.

  • Pictures of just text - Make a self post instead.

  • DAE posts - Go to /r/doesanybodyelse

  • eCards - the poll result was 55.02% in favor of removal. Please submit eCards to /r/ecards

  • URL shorteners - No link shorteners (or HugeURL) in either post links or comments. They will be deleted regardless of intent.

Rehosted webcomics will be removed. Please submit a link to the original comic's site and preferably an imgur link in the comments. Do not post a link to the comic image, it must be linked to the page of the comic. (*) (*)

Need more? Check out:

Still need more? See Reddit's best / worst and offensive joke collections (warning: some of those jokes are offensive / nsfw!).


Please DO NOT post personal information. This includes anything hosted on Facebook's servers, as they can be traced to the original account holder.


If your submission appears to be banned, please don't just delete it as that makes the filter hate you! Instead please send us a message with a link to the post. We'll unban it and it should get better. Please allow 10 minutes for the post to appear before messaging moderators


The moderators of /r/funny reserve the right to moderate posts and comments at their discretion, with regard to their perception of the suitability of said posts and comments for this subreddit. Thank you for your understanding.


CSS - BritishEnglishPolice ©2011

a community for

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own! learn more ›

top 200 commentsshow 500

[–]PongApp 189 points190 points ago

I can't stop looking at the black woman. You don't realize it but she's already dead. She somehow managed to snap her own neck D:

[–]oquin70 65 points66 points ago

Can't unsee. Thanks. I'll only see that when this gets reposted again.

[–]LgnTss 43 points44 points ago

And then you'll have the top comment.

And then everyone will ask you if you're trapped in reddit.

[–]AmazingThew 13 points14 points ago

Actually, that's a person looking forwards at the presentation, with a black woman's face grafted onto the back of their head, Voldemort style.

It's pretty easy to misread; the artist should really have done a better job.

[–]typesPOOP 6 points7 points ago

She's possessed.

[–]s0m3f00l 4 points5 points ago

You ruined it for everyone!

[–]HipBeforeItWasCool 2 points3 points ago

She is just double jointed. Gosh, reddit can be so oblivious sometimes.

[–]Schmich 1 point2 points ago

Maybe she is sitting on her chair the wrong way. Would be more probable than snapping your own neck!

[–]xudoxis 364 points365 points ago

Looks like someone needs a lesson in basic economics.

The name of the game is opportunity cost. Sure we can make the world run solely off green energy, but that doesn't come without a cost. Every man hour spent researching and building green energy is an hour not researching or building something else.

Take China as an example. What is most important to them? Increasing wealth in terms of consumer/industrial goods? Or reducing their environmental impact? Obviously there is a balance(the Obama administration has been critical the Chinese government's large investment into green energy). But that balance is constantly changing.

20 years ago they were more interested in pulling their population out of poverty using cheap energy than the more expensive green energy. Today the focus has shifted toward greener energy and if the past decade is any indication will continue to shift toward the use of green energy.

[–]dontneedyourkarma 16 points17 points ago

I hate that everything you say is true. I am an automation engineer working with a company that specializes in the DCS's (distributed control systems) of solar and bioethenol power plants. We are pretty dependent on the production of these plants so it's a big dilemma for me when I know that most of the renewable energy doesn't make sense economically on the grid level.

With subsidies, the average price the consumer will pay per kWh is 13 cents vs. energy from fossil fuels (with subsidies) which is between 2-6 cents depending on the fuel source.

[–]ktappe 16 points17 points ago

Fossil fuels will not always be the same price they are today. And you can't develop alternative energy technologies overnight; you need to plan ahead, even if it's not in your current economic interest.

[–]dontneedyourkarma 8 points9 points ago

I think for efficiency needs and to meet the increasing power demands, we need to take a serious look at Nuclear for the future.

[–]w2a3t4 6 points7 points ago

I know that most of the renewable energy doesn't make sense economically on the grid level.

This is true if you're only looking at today. But new renewables installations today fuel a market that by 2020 projects solar power to be cheaper than coal. Today's investment is necessary to bring down the price–as manufacturers produce more panels, they better learn how to cut costs; they're also producing more volume. Think of Henry Ford: producing one car on an assembly line is MASSIVELY expensive. Producing millions makes the price of one much cheaper.

[–]dontneedyourkarma 5 points6 points ago

Relying on an energy source that cannot produce 24/7 and cannot meet peak loads is not a good investment. Also if you are going to invest in solar as a generation source for public consumption you should consider solar thermal over the pv panels.

[–][deleted] 16 points17 points ago

This was my first reaction. Really glad to see it on the top, considering I expected a much more hostile climate on this topic.

[–]The_game_is_over 47 points48 points ago

Came here to say this. Well not this because I'm not as articulate but this idea in shorter form and confusing.

[–]ibanez5150 54 points55 points ago

[–]Buhdahl 8 points9 points ago

How does it work?

[–]TheHistoryChannel 10 points11 points ago

I know how...

[–]FirePhantom101 7 points8 points ago

Sorry the History Channel, but Pawn Stars doesn't count as economics.

...or history for that matter.

[–]Squaseghost 9 points10 points ago

But it's made every day!

[–]theboss121 1 point2 points ago

People always say this but Pawn Stars is just Antiques Roadshow for a younger crowd, there's a decent amount of random history in there.

[–]failcheck 0 points1 point ago

Magnets.

[–]EvilSockPuppet 2 points3 points ago

I'm glad xudoxis said it then.

[–]phenomite1 0 points1 point ago

I'm on your boat bro.

[–]Lj27 25 points26 points ago

It's about priorities. Why do western countries concern themselves with GDP when it really should be GNH (gross national happiness).? In other words, money doesn't necessarily equal a better life

Edit: please folks, if you have no idea what it is just google it. I promise it's a real thing

Some key quantitative indicators: 1- economic wellness 2- environmental wellness 3- physical wellness 4- mental wellness 5- workplace wellness 6- social wellness 7- political wellness

There are many ways to gauge each category and it takes a more holistic approach to determine what we think of as a well rounded or "happy" society

[–]NoMoreNicksLeft 20 points21 points ago

How do you measure happiness?

[–]OMGWTFROFLOL 37 points38 points ago

Just look for the happiness icon in the top left corner of your screen.

[–]MWozz 13 points14 points ago

It's really easy, just build a bunch of plantations and everyone'll be happy

[–]anon72c 15 points16 points ago

A Colosseum for every city!

[–]stevo42 1 point2 points ago

As a Christian, this scares me.

[–]are_you_trolling 0 points1 point ago

In the name of reddit, GTFO and go to r/athe... wait, I see what you did there...

[–]Phant0mX 0 points1 point ago

With our current political climate, I'd be more worried if you were poor.

[–]N0V0w3ls 10 points11 points ago

Construct the Notre Dame wonder. +10 happiness

[–]verendum 1 point2 points ago

it seems that America has already adopted police state , 3 happiness for every court house . in order words , a butt load .

[–]aesu 8 points9 points ago

Economic freedom; social mobility; crime rates; drug use; mental illness diagnosis and medication consumption; physical health; education; suicide rate; life expectancy; and of course, self reported metrics like social trust; self reported happiness; etc...

Many ways.

[–]Lj27 5 points6 points ago

There are qualitative and quantitative measures. Read more here

[–]chinagreenelvis 0 points1 point ago

By weighing how much weed I have left.

[–]table4chairs 0 points1 point ago

Roseto is a pretty good example of happiness.

[–]The_Unreal 32 points33 points ago

I'd much rather live in a society that is maximally free than one that is someone else's definition of maximally happy.

[–]OneBigBug 7 points8 points ago

You really need to define your terms for that to mean anything at all.

What freedoms do you think people are suggesting be removed? Anything that's going to effect national happiness metrics is going to be budget allocation, not regulation. No one talking about advocating policy that is responsible for GNH is touching your guns.

What definition of happiness do you think is going to be unsuited to you as laid out by the points Lj27 made? Do you not like being able to afford things you want? Breathing clean air? Being healthy? Having a workplace that is safe and not demanding you do things that do yourself harm? Having a workplace to begin with? Having good relationships with other people? Feeling represented by your government?

edit: Grammar

[–]P1r4nha 19 points20 points ago

TIL freedom means high GDP and wasting resources

[–]The_Unreal 4 points5 points ago

For some it might. The question is, are you willing to persuade them, and what will you do about those you can't persuade?

[–]OneBigBug 2 points3 points ago

It's simple: Everything is bound by the rules of economics regardless of governmental policy or taxation. Economics exists independent of government at a very basic level. You persuade them by shifting the profit incentive away from the default (essentially arbitrary economic rule) of doing whatever is possible regardless to cost to the environment and on to doing things responsibly.

If people want to continue wasting resources, they are absolutely free to do so. It's just going to be extremely unprofitable for them.

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points ago

Over 100+ nations are truly free. Freedom should not be the sole determinant of a 'great nation' - there are probably better terms for that.

[–]ktappe 2 points3 points ago

This this THIS. The countries that don't make profit & wealth their #1 priority are happier (shown by countless studies/surveys.)

[–]oracle989 0 points1 point ago

I enjoy money. Money makes me happy.

[–]lobehold 3 points4 points ago

Well, it's not objective, it's subjective.

Therefore, if I make you unhappy, that makes me more happy in comparison.

And it's SOOO much easier to ruin your day than to brighten up mine.

[–]atomicoption 0 points1 point ago

Happiness is something each individual has to obtain for themselves. There's nothing government can do to directly give everyone happiness. However high personal GDP removes barriers to obtaining happiness.

[–]Libertarian-Centrist 0 points1 point ago

So as energy costs rise, sustainable energy will become more economically feasible?

Sounds like this is the sort of problem that will solve itself...

[–]MeloJelo 15 points16 points ago

Every man hour spent researching and building green energy is an hour not researching or building something else.

Yes, of course. But if you're researching something beneficial that will do a lot of good and benefit other sectors and other research in the long run in a variety of ways (e.g., making energy cheaper, access to it more stable, reducing pollution, etc.), you're still doing good.

So if it's a hoax, and you're doing something good, even if the thing you're doing might be equally as good as other things or maybe not quite as good as a few other things, why is that a problem?

[–]atomicoption 44 points45 points ago

The point is that green research may not be as beneficial as something else. And the direct mandates/regulations are known to be quite harmful economically.

[–]emsharas 18 points19 points ago

Like continuing to subsidize oil? Like making money? Yes, I get the point, curing cancer and sending people to Mars might be more beneficial, but I still think making the world more green ranks quite high.

[–]59383405987 6 points7 points ago

While investing to make the world greener might rank quite high, the point is that it probably ranks substantially lower if climate change is a hoax. So if we disregard climate change and do the same investment in green energy no matter what, we'd be missing better opportunities if climate change is really a hoax. So the cartoon's argument, insofar as it would support green energy investments whether or not climate change is real, is bad.

[–]emsharas 3 points4 points ago

Yes, this is true. However, we can't just disregard climate change even if it's a hoax, because there's a chance that it's true. I think it's a good way to make actual changes. Maybe there are better ways to allocate our resources, but without a catalyst they will never be realized. At least 'going green' is still better than our current situation.

[–]Broken_Alethiometer 0 points1 point ago

Exactly! If climate change is a hoax, going green would just make healthier children, give us sustainable energy, cleaner air and water, and cleaner places to live world wide!

I mean, THAT'S not worth the extra cost at all...

[–]atomicoption 1 point2 points ago

Of course we shouldn't subsidize oil either. The status quo is retarded, but replacing one retarded thing with another isn't helpful.

[–]emsharas 0 points1 point ago

Making energy cheaper and more clean is far from 'retarded', especially if subsidizing oil is our standard for what is 'retarded'. As I said in another post, the status quo will remain unless there is a catalyst (i.e. climate change) to motivate change. Sure there may be things even more beneficial than making the earth more green, but they will never be realized without a changing force. Thus, making these proposed changes is still by far a better alternative to the current status quo.

[–]SCOldboy 8 points9 points ago

No economist agrees with subsidizing oil, or subsidizing anything for that matter.

Making things green isn't really that helpful if it costs more than the alternative and isn't really preventing any long-term environmental issues.

[–][deleted] 20 points21 points ago

No economist agrees with subsidizing oil, or anything for that matter.

This is entirely false. Most economists would say that anything with positive externalities should be subsidized.

[–]YetiQ 4 points5 points ago

I think you meant "isn't really preventing any short-term environmental issues." But, I still disagree. Edit: sweet edit, bro.

[–]ribagi 6 points7 points ago

Not to mention that some green stuff in the pass have been a complete flop and have, in fact, wasted more energy then intended.

[–]ktappe 1 point2 points ago

And some green initiatives have been fantastically successful. Some failures <> all failures.

[–]enhyr 1 point2 points ago

How exactly are you measuring how beneficial an action is? In terms of dollars?

[–]atomicoption 3 points4 points ago

There are lots of ways to measure "beneficial" and yes, dollars are one of the better methods.

[–]Dioskilos 1 point2 points ago

Exactly. I think all these explanations are really just trying to point something out about this picture that should be glaringly obvious to everybody: This is a retarded simplification of the complexities involved in addressing climate change.

[–]sfurules 1 point2 points ago

I think a lot of the concern (one which I hold as well), is that there are groups on both sides that stand to benefit HUGELY. Once large sums of money are involved (and asinine things like carbon credits and taxes on me personally) I think people have a right to start questioning motives.

[–]alclarkey 1 point2 points ago

If green energy is such a great benefit to man, it would cost less. But it doesn't. If it did, I would certainly jump on the green energy bandwagon, but for right now green energy means less gas in my vehicle and less food on my table. Not much of a benefit if you ask me.

[–]shit_flavored_turds 5 points6 points ago

So if it's a hoax, and you're doing something good, even if the thing you're doing might be equally as good as other things or maybe not quite as good as a few other things, why is that a problem?

Post this to r/atheism with ambiguous context and watch it get downvoted into oblivion.

[–]Polyether 5 points6 points ago

As it should, since it doesn't belong there.

[–]cartisdm 6 points7 points ago

I think he means in terms of believing in God. If it's all a hoax, who cares. No harm, no foul.

[–]Vanabrus 4 points5 points ago

Yeah, until someone suicide bombs someone for their God.

[–]oracle989 1 point2 points ago

Ecoterrorism.

[–]Freeside1 0 points1 point ago

Because if it's a hoax, science will be seen more as a political tool than as a way to find truth. Science in practice needs to be honest or else when there's actually an asteroid heading for Earth, Bruce Willis won't help us because, hey, they might just be trying to trick us into building a big rocket.

[–]bostonpowers 7 points8 points ago

To me, the point is that the longer we wait to address it, the greater the costs are going to be.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points ago

This may not be true. Many believe that higher temperatures will have a net benefit to humanity. The best thing to do may be nothing, for the time being.

[–]enhyr 4 points5 points ago

That depends on how much you value future generations' quality of life. If you don't, then feel free to emit as many GHGs as you want, since you probably won't see the most catastrophic effects of climate change in your lifetime.

[–]luparb 11 points12 points ago

yea fuck the planet it's too expensive to save it

[–]Battered_Saint 7 points8 points ago

The planet will survive: it's will we?

[–]mebd 2 points3 points ago

You're missing the point. If I take up smoking, I could smoke 6 packs a day and it's still not certain that I'll ever get lung cancer. But no one here would argue it's a waste of time to try to quit smoking simply because you're not guaranteed to get cancer.

And even if what you say is directly on point, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager. The opportunity costs of working towards a cleaner planet are de minimus went put against what happens if we're wrong. Do you want to risk a $10 loaf of bread, or the extinction of all life on Earth as we know it.

[–]elustran 2 points3 points ago

Actually, I think you're missing the point a bit...

Pascal's Wager isn't really valid in the first place, because you might wind up praying to the wrong god anyway and not make your way into Valhalla/Nirvana/Heaven/Elysium/whatever. There might even be a deity out there who only lets in souls of people who remained skeptical their whole lives. It should really be called Pascal's Cognitive Dissonance because all it really allowed him to continue giving lip-service to god while maintaining otherwise dissonant philosophies... Either that or Pascal's Chickening Out.

Drawing back to this example, if climate change is overstated, maybe the money invested in expensive renewable energy could have been put into other life-saving or life-improving technologies, like agricultural or sanitation improvements. I'm not saying that's the case, but that's where the opposite view is coming from.

It's also the reason why this comic is stupid and reflects a tremendous misunderstanding of other people's views - green technology only makes the world a better place if climate change and pollution have an effect, so if someone doubts the evidence of climate change, it logically follows that all this money spent on expensive energy sources is getting wasted.

The stupidity comes in not believing the overwhelming evidence for climate change, not in thinking green technologies are a waste of money - the second part is a logical conclusion, although it's incorrect because it's drawn from a false premise.

If you want to win hearts and minds, you goddamn better understand them before you try.

[–]HaricotNoir 16 points17 points ago

He wasn't trying to suggest that Pascal's Wager (god vs. no god) is valid, he's referring to the Decision Theory aspect of Pascal's Wager, not Pascal's Wager itself.

In other words, the decision matrix for a "Pascal's Wager" of environmentalism is like this:

             climate change is real |  climate change is a "hoax"
            ------------------------------------------------------
           |     infinite loss      |                             |
 do nothing|(humanity dies / Earth  |        no change            |
           |     becomes Venus)     |                             |
            ------------------------------------------------------
           |     infinite gain      |      finite, temporary      |
take action|    (humanity lives)    |   financial/economic loss   |
           |                        |                             |
            ------------------------------------------------------

Since humanity has zero effect on the x-axis side (whether or not climate change is a real phenomenon), we as humans can only choose between the y-axis options (do we try and live more sustainable/green/minimally polluting lives?). Pascal's Wager is interesting in this case because the cost/payoff matrix is the same regardless of climate change evidence, of which many (especially conservatives) dismiss as a conspiracy. So you can deny the evidence, but it doesn't change the payoff.

So yes, there is a cost associated with investing in our green survival - but the payoff of humanity (and earth) living on is an infinite value in comparison to "Hey I got rich even though I destroyed the rainforest and now subsequent generations live in a dystopian wasteland, that is if the Earth still can even support life at all."

I get the rationale about agricultural or sanitation improvements being a better usage of money if climate change does not occur - but as outlined in the lower-right decision box, it's still a finite loss of value compared to infinite gain.

[–]elustran 6 points7 points ago

That's a hyperbolic decision matrix, though.

There is still issue with pascal's wager because the decision matrix is incorrect. If you take action, you experience finite, temporary economic loss anyway because what you've chosen to do is more expensive. If you don't do anything, you experience 'no change', which would mean continued economic growth.

I don't think anybody is seriously suggesting that the Earth will boil into a Venus based on current levels of climate change. Most claims are that a few degrees of extra heat will wreak havoc with life on Earth, including humanity.

The problem with presenting decision matrices which propose situation with infinite loss is that there are far too many possibilities that people could propose which cause infinite loss.

I could say that you would experience infinite loss if you don't give me all your money because I'm the only person who knows how to save the Earth from being eaten by Galactic Space Monster Zuul. There are infinite potential claims for things that could cause infinite loss, we have to be rational about what we're actually putting into our decision matrix, otherwise it's worthless.

It probably looks more like this:

            climate change is real |  climate change is a "hoax"
            ------------------------------------------------------
           |     finite, lasting    |                             |
 do nothing|   human/economic loss  |          no change          |
           |                        |                             |
            ------------------------------------------------------
           |   finite, temporary    |       finite, temporary     |
take action|   human/economic loss  |    human/economic loss      |
           |                        |                             |
            ------------------------------------------------------

So, you can see that the decision is more complicated than what might be suggested by 'Pascal's Wager' because I've taken out the hyperbolic fallacious references to 'infinite loss' or 'infinite gain'. The actual decision now rests more on the degree of accuracy of the premise and what the exact consequences are. What are those values going into the decision matrix? Are they 0.5, and 1 compared to 0.9 and 0.9, or are they 0.7 and 1 compared to 0.8 and 0.8? Or something else entirely?

Again, I personally think that we're not doing enough to change our ways, at least within the degree of accuracy we've seen for climate change evidence, projections of its effects, and projected costs of 'green' technology. That's because I made a logical assessment of a complex situation, not a regurgitated ideological one, which is what referring to Pascal's Wager seems to induce.

[–]mebd 1 point2 points ago

Maybe that's at the crux of this: "skeptics" just don't believe that the consequences of climate change are that drastic. I'm not trying to denigrate you, but our ecosystem is extremely delicate. We've all heard about how a few degree rise in temperature can raise worldwide sea levels to the point where Nevada gets beachfront real estate.

But there are other things to, such as messing with thermohaline circulation of the oceans (which affects everything from seasons to hurricanes to crop growth to habitable areas).

Maybe it is hyperbolic to say the world will explode, but there is a real chance that society as we know it would collapse and we'd experience a mass human extinction on a scale that has yet to be recorded. Part of the problem is we don't know what to expect, we just can speculate on what might happen.

But back on point, there is no financial loss that could approach the danger of ignoring a real climate change threat. When we're talking about hurricanes hitting Oklahoma and 7 feet of snow in Mexico, I stop listening to arguments about the harm to the economy. So in a Pascal-like argument, we have so much less to lose by just assuming it's real and being wrong than if we assume it isn't real, do nothing, when it is.

[–]elustran 0 points1 point ago

You're not denigrating me, really, because I mostly agree with you - I've been trying to explain why the logic of this comic doesn't quite work because the situation is nuanced, and doesn't serve to change the opinions of people who have logical reasons for wanting certain policies but not others.

If I haven't been clear - I personally think the effects of climate change are drastic enough to warrant more than we're currently doing and I think we're pretty fucked if we're not mostly turned around by 2050. Worst case scenario is lots of economic strife, possibly some mixture of war, famine, and epidemics leading to lower mortality and demographic collapse. Optimistically, we'll have a slowly shrinking population and be able to make our food stretch without things turning into something like The Road.

[–]mebd 1 point2 points ago

Thank you. It's funny that people thought I was literally referring to Pascal's argument and shot back at me the, "well, if there's no God, the Pascal sucks."

I've never seen such an appropriate use of that kind of chart before, I normally just dismiss game theory as beneath me.

EDIT: BTW, awesome video you linked below. Bookmarking that one.

[–]rcglinsk 1 point2 points ago

Any global warming deiner with a brain is more nuanced than that. The net present value of future harm in a zero feedback scenario is tiny compared to the high feedback scenarios. The NPV of the cost of various green policy options must also be considered. We should pursue policy X only if the NPV of the mitigation of climate change exceeds the NPV of the costs of the policy.

That we're doing a cost benefit analysis isn't controversial. But the environmentalists do not seem to care at all about how much policy proposal X will cost. They don't even seem to think it's important to have a policy proposal. This sentiment is well reflected in the cartoon in the OP. No matter how we build the green energy infrastructure, no matter how much it costs, the benefits to society will justify it. The reasoning is pure bias.

So, to someone who is not an environmentalist, I see a large mass of zealots, convinced that they are fighting a great evil, desperate for power and truly massive sums of public money, and other than put a big tax on carbon, they haven't even thought out what exactly it is they want to do.

To use a slightly dated analogy:

That CO2 emissions will have a moderate and straightfoward effect on steady state surface temperature is like saying Saddam Hussein is an ass hole who deserved to die. That there will be major positive feedbacks and severe temperature rise is like the idea that Saddam is going to give a nuke to Al Queda.

Even if one agrees that Saddam is an ass hole and is only skeptical about the al queda connection, it would still be perfectly reasonable to object to war on the grounds that no one has any idea of what to do once we get to Baghdad. The sentiment of the OP is that no matter what happens we'll have toppled a dictator and therefore the cost will be worth it.

[–]elustran 0 points1 point ago

As someone who does think we need to stymie climate change and protect our natural resources, I also see a large mass of zealots among environmentalists. It makes me not want to call myself an environmentalist, honestly. There are zealots in both camps, and all they do is screw themselves over. I also don't think that being an environmentalist and skeptical about the exact levels of climate change are mutually exclusive positions - just because you don't think climate change is going to turn everything into Mad Max doesn't mean you don't want a clean water supply and a nice forest to hike in.

People who are capable of having a polite rational debate and at least understand some basic logic, economics, physics, and so on aren't the problem. If people understand opposing views, are capable of being swayed by evidence, and are open to compromise, they are going to produce better results.

For example, I'd rather be arguing over the variables of a cost benefit analysis than arguing against, "No, X is bad no matter what," which is what a lot of public debate degenerates into.

[–]rawrgs 2 points3 points ago

The difference is that the data supporting the link between smoking and cancer is very observable and is even reproduceable in laboratory experiments with animals. Climate science is based off of correlation and computer models which are nowhere near as concrete as reproduceable experiments.

I feel like most people view climate change skeptics as idiots who think that it's all being made up. We see the data. We understand that there is an enormous complexity to the effects of even one variable like average temperature to the climate overall. Most skeptics want the issue to be researched more, and they still believe in sustainable and clean energy. Skeptics just don't jump to conclusions, like:

"Climate change is responsible for this outbreak of floods/tornadoes/hurricanes/wildfires/extinction/this particular oddity in nature etc."

Scientists can be mistaken, or even biased, despite the nature of science. Stephen Hawking, a brilliant scientific mind, was at odds with the existence of the Higgs Boson, along with many other scientists in the field, yet there is strong evidence now that points to those scientists being wrong. We haven't mastered climate science by any means. It's a particularly difficult science since there are so many variables and we can't reproduce models in anything other than a computer. The variables include solar intensity, the reflectivity of the Earth, whether or not water vapor in the atmosphere is a positive or negative feedback cycle, fluctuations in the magnetic field just to name a few. Then, you have to plug those into a computer, and hope that your formulas and theories are correct. Still, the curse of this science is that there's no solid way to test for it like there is for carcinogens, which we can pump into animals and observe trends in multiple samples of people's lifestyles. We have one planet that behaves like Earth to observe, and that's Earth, and we can't really run tests on it, only observe correlations.

Edit: and on Pascal's Wager, that is only applicable when there is no downside to taking the proposed course of action. In this case, taking some courses of action will cost lots of money (human labor) and produce nothing of significant value. In that instance, we waste resources and human happiness on a gamble. Just as it was used in religion, if there is no Heaven, Hell or God, then you are refraining from enjoying your life as you see fit by obeying things like abstinence, not eating pork, punishing yourself for having homosexual urges, etc. So Pascal's Wager is fallacious in these instances.

[–]tr77 1 point2 points ago

A better analogy would be if you switched to a part time job from a full time job in order to quit smoking.

[–]HaricotNoir 1 point2 points ago

Indeed, here is a very eloquently argued video outlining the Pascal's Wager in favor of taking action against global warming, as opposed to doing nothing.

[–]forgettableme 1 point2 points ago

As the availability of oil decreases the price increases.

Research/building/developing renewable energy uses the current energy source (oil).

It is smarter and more efficient to research it NOW while we have a relatively low cost in oil products and the availability of oil products in abundance to manufacture the greener products.

If we wait till we "need" them then the cost of implementing them will be a lot higher.

Plus there are all the jobs in research, manufacturing, building, construction, development, upgrading, advocating, education, etc. Etc. Etc. That are being created right now.

Plus a lot of educated people are working retail right now... not "researching something else". We have all these brilliant minds, why not put them to work researching how to fix the world for future generations.

[–]sphigel 0 points1 point ago

Plus there are all the jobs in research, manufacturing, building, construction, development, upgrading, advocating, education, etc. Etc. Etc. That are being created right now.

Jobs created through government subsidies are not a good thing. Basically you have congress investing other peoples (tax payers) money into something they deem a good investment. How is that a good thing? I would invest your money more carelessly than I would invest my money. Just like congress will invest our money more carelessly than they would invest their own. Jobs need to be sustainable to have a long term benefit to the economy. Malinvestment can create jobs in the short term but we are not really better off for it.

[–]Not_Me_But_A_Friend 1 point2 points ago

Looks like someone needs a lesson in basic economics.

NO! someone needs as fucking lesson in comics posted to /r/funny

If you look for a fully robust explanation of the economics of Global Warming in an /r/funny comic you are a total moran.

[–]M00nfish -3 points-2 points ago

1) Green energy has created thousands of jobs in our western countries over the last years. Research, development and construction of these kind of plants is nothing you can so easily outsource to 3rd world countries and will secure these jobs for us.

2) China actually takes environmental problems seriously. Way more seriously than the US at least, which is kind of easy I have to admit.

3) Energy is cheap as hell - especially electricity. Switching to green energy won't make your bills explode, it will increase a small amount of your monthly costs by 20-30%. At the same time it makes you more and more independent of the countries you have to lay siege upon in order to secure your access to oil and gas (less war-related costs!).

4) It is better for our environment as a whole. Don't discount the economic value of healthier people and the stabilisation of our eco-system.

[–]SCOldboy 6 points7 points ago

Creating jobs really doesn't mean much if those jobs aren't producing something meaningful or efficiently. For example, Milton Friedman discussing creating gov't jobs.

So yes, people in green industries are producing products, but they could produce more if the industry was making standard products.

[–]crazymuffin147 7 points8 points ago

I have to take offense to your 3rd point while agreeing to the rest of your argument. 42% of US oil used is domestic, 11% from Canada, 11% from Mexico, 9% from Saudi Arabia, 8% from Venezuela, 7% from Nigeria, 4% from Iraq, and 8% from 25 other countries Source

Iraq is the only country from that list that we could consider 'laying seige to' and 4% seems easily replaceable

[–]pseudo721 3 points4 points ago

I'm no economics guy, but as I understand it: Even though much of it is physically domestic oil, it all enters the global market, and thus is ALL affected by overseas market forces, wars, and market speculation. Thus, even if most of our oil came from our own land, the price would still be affected by events overseas.

[–]inormallyjustlurkbut 7 points8 points ago

Regarding #2, China pretty much has to take environmental problems seriously. The pollution problems there are horrendous.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points ago

Regarding #1, you have stumbled into the broken windows fallacy. anyone want to have a crack at #4?

[–]Not_Pictured 1 point2 points ago

#4 is simply the broken window fallacy again. "Don't discount the economic value of higher window production". While completely ignoring the economic gains of people doing other things.

Broken windows all over the place. For instance "Less air pollution means less people with lung cancer (probably). The cures to lung cancer that otherwise could be been invented cure lung cancer."

[–]PoliticalHivemind 0 points1 point ago

2) China actually takes environmental problems seriously. Way more seriously than the US at least, which is kind of easy I have to admit.

I really, really hope someone in /r/circlebroke finds this post. This is fucking hilarious.

[–]quaste 0 points1 point ago

But that game isn't played correctly as long as damage to the environment is largely an externalized cost, be it to other nations or other generations.

[–]sicklaxbro 0 points1 point ago

You also have government subsidies and taxes. The problem is Republican and Democrats have two completely different views of either no green research or forcing it on to every one. For example Sarah Plain saying "drill baby drill" or Obama along with other Democrats blocking pipe line construction or the attempt to make the sale of incandescent light bulbs illegal by 2014.

Instead of taxing old energy sources or subsidizing clean energy, the government should put money toward research which would make wind or solar energy cheaper indefinitely.

On a science note the main reason why electric cars will take many more years before they are just as good as gas cars is energy density. This graph although from Exxon still shows that gas is more practical then electric. However battery technology is getting better constantly so that doesn't mean the idea should be dropped.

[–]Logian 0 points1 point ago

Another thing I see that everyone seems to forget is that no country can become energy independent, oil and natural gas are global commodities. This means that no matter where you live(excluding isolated areas), fluctuation in the supply and demand of oil will effect you. Think about oil not as the U.S. demand for oil but as the global demand for oil.

[–]weej267 0 points1 point ago

I'm going to copy and paste this comment into a document. That way, when this comic inevitably shows up again next week, I'll get boatloads of karma.

[–]Theedon 50 points51 points ago

I am still not going to pay $40,000 for a Chevy Volt.

[–][deleted] 48 points49 points ago

Pay $100 for a bike.

(But we'll understand if you don't live close to work, school, etc.)

[–]Battered_Saint 24 points25 points ago

I work from home and cut my commute to $0.

[–]Theedon 7 points8 points ago

I love to ride my electric bike to work when my work schedule alows for it.

[–]sphigel 0 points1 point ago

$100 gets you a pretty shitty bike though.

[–]bussche 6 points7 points ago

$100 bucks will get you a decent used road bike off craigslist or kijiji.

[–]FreneticEntropy 60 points61 points ago

Climate change is real, but this argument is completely retarded. There are huge costs to coping with climate change. If we didn't have to do it, we shouldn't. Dealing with it is going to have an opportunity cost and will further impoverish a lot of people if we can't use every available source of energy.

[–]astazangasta 10 points11 points ago

This is not clear to me. The next century is going to see a huge rise in power consumption. This means we have to develop a whole lot of new energy capacity. We can either do this using new, clean technology, or we can do it using dirty technology, which has large negative externalities associated with it (i.e., pollution). I don't know if you've ever lived in a city with a serious air pollution problem; I have. It is a serious difficulty, and this is why countries like China and to a lesser extent India are making the decision to favor green technology: because the old tech has a huge cost associated with it, too, even if you don't factor in the climate change part of it.

[–]ReturningTarzan 4 points5 points ago

We will need more sources of energy, and in a perfect world those sources would be as clean as possible. But nothing is that easy, hence the need for cost/benefit analyses.

Choosing something "cheap and easy", like coal, over wind energy for these new power sources would free up resources that could then be put towards other issues (drinking water, agriculture, industry, infrastructure, social inequality, disease, etc.). Of course the downside to going that route is an exacerbated climate change problem down the line and faster depletion of fossil fuel reserves. So it's a question of finding the most rational trade-off, starting with a cost/benefit analysis: coal pollutes more, but how much more? Coal costs less, but how much less (noting that coal will become more expensive as it becomes more scarce)? Wind pollutes less, but how much less (building and maintaining windmills has an environmental impact, too)? Wind costs more, but how much more? Are all the externalities (positive and negative) accounted for? What is the proper metric for all of this: dollars? Joules? Human lives?

The only people who, to my knowledge, have actually looked at climate change from a rational cost/benefit perspective have arrived at the conclusion that it should not be a top priority right now. Because addressing the problem is way too expensive, and even if we go all in (compromising on a lot of other social/environmental initiatives to do so!) then the impact of that effort will still be quite small. Now, whether those calculations ultimately check out, that I'm not smart enough to say. The work may well be biased as fuck. But I understand the need for the analysis, with the point being that the green movement apparently couldn't care less.

It's really troubling to see all this policy being made without a rational foundation. In fact the only argument seems to be "climate change is bad, so anything we do to prevent it must be a worthwhile allocation of resources." Which is simply fallacious. Even more troubling is the way in which any attempt to start a rational discussion about the relative urgency of cutting CO2 emissions vs. the cost of doing so, is immediately dismissed as denial of the reality of climate change.

[–]astazangasta -1 points0 points ago

Who are those people?

[–]arbores 1 point2 points ago

It's not as simple as "clean" and "dirty" technology

[–]alclarkey 0 points1 point ago

Of course climate change is real. And it has been real since the beginning of time. We've had heat waves and ice ages since the very beginning. If we are experiencing climate change, it'll be nothing the earth hasn't seen before. All this hullabaloo about though is used as an excuse by politicians to be tyrants. "In the name of climate change I declare..."

[–]23fuck 34 points35 points ago

carbon taxes ≠ better world

[–]Battered_Saint 7 points8 points ago

No, but it gives the elites more of your money to "misappropriate"

[–]rcglinsk 0 points1 point ago

James Hansen has proposed a tax and divident scheme. Taxes are collected at minehead or first port of sale, and then distributed pro rata to the population of the country in question. Well, he says up to four dividends for a family of 4 or more. It's a much better option, if we're going to be doing something like that, than carbon permits.

[–]23fuck 1 point2 points ago

how about none of that BS. Are you saying this would be a global tax? Yeah, let's give the UN the infrastructure to collect taxes on everyone - surely their power won't gradually grow over time.

[–]Drooperdoo 14 points15 points ago

The Carbon Credit scheme doesn't really do any of those great things in the cartoon. They tax you for the amount of carbon you create, and you can actually borrow credits from low-polluting countries. It'll be an economic boon for Iceland, or the Melanesian Islands. But the larger countries will move ahead, unchanged.

It's essentially, then, a money-making scheme (that has very little to do with actually innovating our way out of pollution). It's a scam to monetize the very air we breathe. Enron (the company famous for scamming in the energy field) came up with the carbon credit scheme. The UN also backed it as a way to usher in a global tax, whereby money can be extorted from rich countries and funneled through to the UN.

So if it's too good to be true, it usually is.

The Climate Change industry is singing to you about rainbows and unicorns, and, as usual, it's a corporatist money-making scam.

[–]zxcv73 0 points1 point ago

I read monkey-making scheme, and my mind was temporarily boggled with so many questions. The biggest being why would they want monkeys? What kind of sick plot do they have with making so many monkeys? A monkey army? How would they train them? Etc. But then I re-read this and was calmed. Good points btw.

[–]JWTroxell 2 points3 points ago

Well. I can read... Graphs.

[–]kharmedy 2 points3 points ago

I don't think that's the point of the comic though. It's not saying that we should drop everything and devote all resources to these goals; it's saying that even if Climate change is a naturally occurring event and humans can't do anything to change it, the goals outlined are still all worthwhile. A lot of people dispute the development of new energy or ecological projects based on the dogma surrounding climate change, without even thinking about the possible economic or quality of life gains.

[–]LeartS 1 point2 points ago

Thank you! I can't believe I had to go this far (36th first-level comment thread) to find this kind of comment.

[–]NosferatuHeftyDance 14 points15 points ago

This time of the week already?

[–]mak310 4 points5 points ago

This repost has probably frontpaged Reddit more than any other.

[–]Mageant 5 points6 points ago

Because if climate change is a hoax then despite all the good things that get done there are also some stupid things like a carbon tax that get introduced.

It is important to know the truth.

[–]IamTooDamHigh 4 points5 points ago

Nothing wrong with creating a better world because we can!

[–]thekilljoy 21 points22 points ago

So we're using Pascal's Wager to justify it now?

Climate change is real (hell, change is part of the whole concept of climates..) but arguing for it using this old gambit is just silly.

[–]arch4ngel 12 points13 points ago

The wager is valid when dealing with a finite number of things.

It becomes stupid when you deal with religion (exactly what it was made for).

[–]thekilljoy 1 point2 points ago

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's still essentially an Appeal to Consequences is it not?

[–]0blomov 6 points7 points ago

No, because the comic isn't asserting that climate change is true because the world will be better with cleaner energy, it's simply saying the world will be better with cleaner energy.

[–]SCOldboy 1 point2 points ago

Well the assumption is you need a green revolution to avoid the perils of climate change. Some people, like myself, believe innovation will make climate change a non-issue and improve the world economically.

For example, a long story short. Around the end of the 19th century most cities were encountering a major environmental problem. Transportation within cities was dependent on horses that produced a lot of manure. It simply wasn't practical to remove all this waste, so the streets would fill up, empty lots would fill up, people would get sick. It was all really awful. Then the car comes along and the world was saved from the problems of the horse. One day something will come along that saves the world from the perils of the car.

[–]59383405987 1 point2 points ago

hell, change is part of the whole concept of climates..

This is also a bad argument, as it would imply that "climate change" is real by definition, no evidence needed. "Climate change" as it's actually used doesn't just mean any change in any climate, it means (something like) systematic, possibly disruptive and harmful-to-humans changes in climate parameters around the world. And sometimes being anthropogenic is part of the concept.

[–]thekilljoy 1 point2 points ago

imply that "climate change" is real by definition, no evidence needed.

You're misunderstanding the way I meant it. When I went through my meteorological classes, it was pretty plain and simple: the climate changes, locally, globally, and in time. With or without man's influence; and with or without man's influence, it will continue to do so, and it will, naturally, enter another stage that is inhospitable to us.

Which always drew me to the arguement: Isn't to some extent not a damn thing we're doing altruistic towards nature but selfish towards status quo? While I'm all for reducing/eliminating man's influence on climate (to the extent that we stand out against other animals anyways) that includes our influence of preservation of climates that are trying to naturally change in to something we don't like/won't support us.

I've seen the reverse of what we fight happen in California first hand (we fight deforestation, in this example) where we don't fight it because somehow artificially greening a fucking natural desert is a good thing. It's not a good thing for anyone but us and the invasive species we bring along for the ride.

[–]Sariel007 8 points9 points ago

[–]Fanntastic 8 points9 points ago

What if I didn't see this comic on my front page once a week?

[–]Antagonistic_Comment 3 points4 points ago

What if this wasn't reposted every day?

[–]RonaldFuckingPaul 1 point2 points ago

BUT, we've been trying to create a better world all along.

[–]HebrewHammerTN 1 point2 points ago

Here's my solution to end war and help with the climate:

20 billion dollars, tax free to the individual or company that is able to produce and demonstrably implement a way to escape fossil fuels.(shortened in scope for brevity sake, btw)

Sell it to the people for war in the middle east like this:

Listen, let's wage an economic war on the middle east. Their main source of money is oil. If we are able to become oil independent, their financing will be irreparably hindered. Fuck over the middle east, by finding alternative fuel sources, and then giving all research to all nations that buy from the middle east.(more complicated, and less vitriol in a normal conversation with generalizations, but we are tring to accomplish a goal)

Greed, and hate as motivators for some works great, it just has to be properly framed.

Edit: as an aside this is a bit of a Pascal's Wager fallacy. The original post that is.

[–]FrostyM288 1 point2 points ago

Didn't the original comic have an additional line? I remember: "and we create a better world for nothing!"

[–]knobbysideup 1 point2 points ago

This actually gets to the point of it. It exists, certainly. How much do we contribute to it? Doesn't matter. Do the right things because they are the right things to do. Don't use climate change as the reason.

[–]herbandmargie 1 point2 points ago

What if people don't want an anti-capitalist, centrally planned, elite-driven, "green" culture forced down the throats of Americans?

You know because it's always better to let someone create the world you should be living in.

[–]Brett42 1 point2 points ago

Why do we use one of the most controversial reasons to support all of those thing, then. We should work on clean air to make us healthier and renewable resources so we don't run out. You can't deny where the smog over some cities comes from.

[–]SwimmingNaked 0 points1 point ago

Look around you...people will make the biggest exclamations because they believe that it the best way to attract attention and because the alternative is hard.

Compare big, bright, moving advertising displays...they've become so numerous as to be easily ignored. The human mind adapts and we develop "ad blindness"...the bane of any marketer. Yet one simple story about $50 and a cryptogram alleged to be written by a homeless guy and we fall all over ourselves to discuss and solve - even while exclaiming that it's got to be either a prank or a marketing ploy.

The difference? Inventiveness vs. sticking with the same-old-same-old strategies that were basically developed in the first half of the last century.

We're on the cusp of a total shift in the way things are marketed, and that will also impact the way topics like climate change is portrayed. One alternative is shock-ads...initially perpetrated by commercials for charities including starving children. Another is depth and complex advertising strategies and marketing ploys (viral attempts). The third is ultra-targeting, where the companies know as much as possible about you so they can tailor efforts specifically to you.

As things evolve, it's going like this...big & bold -> shock -> viral/targeting. As people become jaded to the first two, companies are going to rely more and more on the latter. Of those two latter, targeting is easier than viral marketing, so you're going to see more and more privacy-invasive strategies while marketing try to get your attention and companies do what they can understand and have quantifiable numbers to base spending their dollars on.

In short, it's a shame that viral marketing isn't going to be predominant because the alternative is boring and invasive. Try not to decry the viral marketing efforts you do see however, because it's better for everyone than the alternative.

[–]b36 1 point2 points ago

Good point. Even if some of the climate change arguments is false, we humans should still work to make the world better. Clean energy and clean water for everybody sure would help.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

What if it's a big hoax and we further fuck up the already horrible economy because of enacting green policies we can't afford and killing jobs that we deem non eco friendly?

[–]magic3383 1 point2 points ago

It's really about carbon taxes.

[–]ejduck3744 1 point2 points ago

That is one thing I never understood. You don't have to tell me that building a coal plant in Pennsylvania is going to negatively affect India. Its enough for me that it negatively affects Pennsylvania.

[–]Eric578 1 point2 points ago

the solutions the climate change shysters want won't make the world a better place, it'll ruin entire economies and create larger even more bloated bureaucracies. Hardly worth it if they're wrong.

[–]geoff422 1 point2 points ago

It costs less to just keep shitting all over the planet.

[–]standardconfimed 8 points9 points ago

[–]brandellf 1 point2 points ago

Two words. Government Expansion. That's why it's bad.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points ago

So glad everyone has informed me that polluting has zero costs. Let me go tell the locals kids to put there faces in front of running car exhausts. They won't get sick. Crazy that I used to think throwing toxic shit in the air was a bad idea. Carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide = harmless everybody.

Global warming also has zero costs. There aren't places already hit with rising sea levels like Norfolk, Virginia or planes sinking into melted runways, or electrical grids stressed by increased air conditioner use. Nope, none of that either. What a relief.

[–]astazangasta 3 points4 points ago

I am pretty sick of all the people whining in this thread about how hard it will be to switch to green technologies, and it will impose such a huge cost on society, and we can't take the burden wah wah wah.

Get a fucking grip. Seriously, did Edison and Nikola Tesla cry about what a huge burden it was when they introduced us to power generation a century ago? No, they just fucking built an entirely new system of power generation and distribution, and the whole world adopted it rapidly. Now we actually HAVE a grid in place, we have many kinds of generation technology available, and all we want to do is replace one kind with another, and this is somehow a huge, unsurmountable problem? When did capitalism become so spineless and weak?

[–]digga1301 3 points4 points ago

That's not an actual argument though. The point is the comic is illogical since it suggests that switching to green tech would have no associated costs, when in reality you do have to accept an economic cost to go green.

[–]groucho_marxist 2 points3 points ago

I don't think the reasonable skeptic position is "hoax". That implies that a huge conspiracy is deceiving us on purpose. I suspect the true believers like this term because it paints everyone from skeptics to loons with the same brush. Hoax makes no sense-skeptics all think it's a hoax-therefore skepticism makes no sense

[–]KonaEarth 0 points1 point ago

Sustainability, Green jobs, Livable cities...

Words like that are so vague they always make me nervous. I'm afraid of the change-zealots just as much as I'm afraid of the deniers.

[–]Subduction 2 points3 points ago

But you don't understand, it could cost companies a little more money!

Don't you care about the companies?

[–]indignation01 15 points16 points ago

LOL You think the companies will pay the increased cost. That's cute.

[–]Slade_inso 1 point2 points ago

And he used the word "little" with regard to said cost.

Adorable, really.

[–]SCOldboy 1 point2 points ago

Let Milton Friedman explain it to you.

[–]g4nd 1 point2 points ago

It only becomes a joke when the government think that charging more tax is the answer. Sure, it would be nice to not destroy rain forests and such like... But there's no need to charge me almost £1.50 / litre for petrol and £170 a year on road tax and tell me that's for making the world a better place. That's what part is bull shit.

Also, I'm in the UK and we are a tiny island compared to places like America who are paying a lot less for fuel and driving massive cars (I'm not sure if America has the joy of a road tax equivalent). I struggle to see how our government charging all this money to 'try to make us make different choices' bears any significance when compared to places like China and America.

We're taxed to within an inch of our lives over here to set foot in a car. It's ridiculous I tell you.

Do I think the United Kingdom has the power to change the climate of the whole planet? I think it's quite unlikely. When you consider the whole world pumping out all the toxins and waste etc the thought admittedly becomes a bit different and more plausible. Yes, we are too many in numbers and we create too much waste. I would never challenge that. Can we melt the polar ice caps by driving about.. I'm not sure. I don't see any evidence to back it up really.. What if global warming is actually just a natural cycle of this planet that we've colonised for a tiny amount of time? We just don't know.

In the end, the whole thing is natural evolution in my eyes. Humans may evolve to extinct themselves through our selfish and arrogant ways. I don't think there's a thing we can do about it. In the short term, we can possibly delay the inevitable. We can't stand in the way of evolution forever, though.

[–]akallio9000 1 point2 points ago

I believe climate change is happening, but I have my doubts that the multi trillion dollar "cures" will do any good. Except for the people who stand to get rich, like Al Gore.

[–]smilli02 -1 points0 points ago

Would reddit react the same way to a similar cartoon about religion?

[–]funkme1ster 2 points3 points ago

Every time this gets posted in r/funny (about once a month), nothing productive comes from it.

First off, this comic is NOT about climate change, it doesn't even say that anywhere in the comic, it's about "climate* - the atmosphere and environment we live in.

Second, it suggests that all initiatives that can better humanity should be done unquestioningly by mocking the [strawman] naysayer. This is both impractical and impossible. It's about finding balance.

Also, it's not funny, just sarcastic and caustic.

[–]Allaphon 1 point2 points ago

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points ago

The fact that people are bickering about the economics of reducing the human impact on Earth's environment is pretty much proof positive that we have no hope of survival as a species.

Economics is paltry when faced with the fact that we live on a relatively small planet with finite resources, and no way to migrate once those resources are expended. The extinction of the human race is likely the last step on the slow burning apocalypse we face today, and all the rest of our days, but are we really so shortsighted and heartless as to allow the planet to die before realizing our own existence as a species is at risk? Hell yes we are!

[–]FrostMonstreme 1 point2 points ago

What if climate change may or may not be a problem, but it's used as a Trojan horse to justify government programs that are anti-freedom and don't help?

[–]Nassor 0 points1 point ago

Too bad I won't be around when the Holocene interglacial period ends and the ice sheets start returning. Sometime in the next 1,000 to 5,000 years Chicago, Minneapolis, New York City, Boston, and most of Canada will be under a mile of ice and it will remain that way for ~100,000 years. It'll truly be an extinction level event for humanity. Also we know without projections, debate, or much uncertainty that this will happen as for the last 2.8 million years the identical cycle has repeated itself.

One of the things I find fascinating is the fact that catastropic melting of the Greenland icecap has happened in every interglacial period. We are currently in such a period. We are absolutely influencing the climate I believe our influences pale in comparison to the forces that make Arkansas a tundra.

[–]Kaddus 1 point2 points ago

It's not. End of discussion.

[–]PhotoTard -4 points-3 points ago

Huge logic problem with the comic: the "Climate Change" alarmists do NOT want to stop real pollution, they only want to stop CO2, which is not pollution, in fact it's "food" for the plant life required to produce O2.

By spending the requested $2 Trillion to reduce Co2, we INCREASE all other types of deadly pollution, push masses of people into starvation, and do absolutely nothing to "improve the planet. Oh... and the $2 Trillion will improve the global warming aspect by 0.04%, so it is a total failure even in the best case scenario.

Here's an idea: Use the money to fight REAL pollution and do things to improve the planet, or at least not bankrupt it.

[–]ecto1ajon 24 points25 points ago

Actually, burning less coal and oil would significantly improve the planet. Less surface mining means less pollution runoff, and less drilling means less chance of oil spills and toxic byproducts.

[–]astazangasta 12 points13 points ago

Sigh. Okay, let's take it from the top:

Yes, CO2 is "food" for plants. However, the whole problem is that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is currently well above historical norms as a result of human activity such as burning fossil fuels and deforestation. "Climate Change alarmists" are just saying we should bring it back to reasonable levels, not eliminate it from the atmosphere.

Most "Climate Change alarmists" are probably more concerned about other forms of pollution than you are. I'm not sure how you're imagining that reducing CO2 will increase "all other types of deadly pollution". Sure, some of the "green" technologies are polluting - solar cells rely on silicon manufacturing, which is pretty polluting, and nuclear has well-known problems with radioactive waste. But the major alternative to these is coal, which is by far the worst polluting technology we have, from start to finish, and it produces much worse pollution than just CO2. Switching from coal to solar or even coal to nuclear is an unmitigated boon.

I'm not sure what your 0.04% number is about, so I can't really respond to that, but based on the rest of your reasoning I'm going to assume that's horseshit, too.

[–]blafunke 2 points3 points ago

Fuck global warming. All this carbon we're running our society with is a limited resource but we're running around like it's infinite. That alone should be reason enough to try and wean ourselves off.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points ago

What is the fuckity fuck? Where exactly do you think excessive CO2 comes from? The burning of fossil fuels in case you haven't learned that by a reading a newspaper ever.

[–]IdolRevolver 2 points3 points ago

CO2 is indeed pollution. It's a greenhouse gas. Just because it occurs naturally does not mean that bumping up the concentration of it won't wreak havoc on our climate. It will.

The main target for reducing CO2 is fossil fuel burning, which also puts out other pollutants with more immediate and damaging effects. The effort to slow or halt climate change by massively reducing fossil fuel use will also reduce these other pollutants, which is one of the points the comic makes.

And since we're throwing names around, you are a climate change denier who is obstructing a vital transition to greener technologies.

[–]droreddit 0 points1 point ago

living the healthiest lifestyle that is most beneficial to the environment is hard. When most consumers are faced with the decision between a product that's cheap, yet perhaps not environmentally friendly or a green product that is pricey, they will more often than not go with the cheaper product. When a corporation faces the choice between smaller profits or greening up their business, they will throw environmentalists a small bone and undertake some green initiatives that ultimately don't have the desired impact and don't affect profits too negatively. Unfortunately being green is too expensive right now, especially when it's considerably cheaper for everyone to live off of fossil fuels. Most people care more about the green in their wallets.

[–]land345 0 points1 point ago

You know what I hate about having a long memory? Remembering every post that's posted twice since I joined, including this one.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points ago

But if we stop using fossil fuels and refuse to use atomic energy, won't we just go back to chopping all the trees down like we did before fossil fuels?

[–]sargent610 1 point2 points ago

sit down mitt just sit down

[–]NamesNotRudiger 0 points1 point ago

I love the David Mitchell Soap Box on this, The Burden of Proof, he really nails it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SI5ulKiZAoE

[–]ThatOneNuge 0 points1 point ago

What annoys me as a lifelong environmentalist is how carbon dioxide becomes more important than, you know, poisons, and ecology. For example, moving mercury-based lightbulbs (which will almost universally be disposed of improperly) into people's homes to avert carbon emissions. Or covering vast areas of desert with mirrors for solar power. Or, for that matter, the toxins in solar panels themselves. Or nuclear power.

There are so many bigger problems, which we can do so much more about, that it frustrates me that we're fixating on climate change.

[–]trancepx 0 points1 point ago

"Create a better world"

This is problematic because of the conflicts of interest with concepts like carbon tax, which as you probably know has received a lot of criticism.

Yes, lets stop polluting... and stuff, duh. But gee I dunno maybe for the sake of us all and not for profit margins?

[–]forgive_then_repeat 0 points1 point ago

Hmm. Here's my issue: Yeah, if it's a hoax, more clean world, etc, which is great. Really, I'm not disputing that. But what about the billions upon billions upon billions being funneled into said possible hoax?

Reddit, you don't support other causes you've deemed possible hoaxes (religion is the most prominent example - you can't prove it isn't real, religious people can't prove it is, and it has positive and negative side-effects when carried out), and you certainly wouldn't allow tax money to go to a church. WHY would you be okay with it going into something as well-disputed as climate change control? Watch the double-standards.

[–]Memoren 0 points1 point ago

Climate change as a natural cycle that the earth goes through is correct but saying that humanity is drastically effecting that cycle is wrong. But in regards to the argument of a green environment regardless of climate change I would say nuclear power. Nuclear Power has been demonized but is one of the most effective and safe means of energy production there is.

[–]Mikeydoes 0 points1 point ago

Climate Change is not a hoax. It will happen with or without us.

To say that we should improve earth because of climate change is a weak reason. Saying you want to improve earth because it is the right thing to do.. Well that is a whole different story.

[–]frogstar 0 points1 point ago

What is the benefit of energy independence?

[–]rsrhcp 0 points1 point ago

I don't know about the logic here. That sort of justification could be applied almost anywhere; justifying a decision based on the failure of the plan doesn't seem smart, no?

I'm all for green energy, those are all good points. I feel guilty on many levels everytime I fill up my car. But does that mindset worry others?

[–]Superconducter 0 points1 point ago

Then you will pay a lot of tax and follow a lot of new laws just so that the same usual rich assholes will get even richer after raping the planet.

[–]oliverMcMayonnaise 0 points1 point ago

What if we "make a difference" and it turns out to totally fuck us because we haven't gotten the science correct?

[–]rhinorocan 0 points1 point ago

God that would suck.

[–]Rathdrummer 0 points1 point ago

OOOOOOOOOOOLD lol. Older than my grandma

[–]xXxTrollxXx 0 points1 point ago

Anybody else notice the exorcist chick right in front of him

[–]CyricTheMadd -1 points0 points ago

You notice no one ever says what if gravity is a hoax?