FYI: people like you who brazenly lie about the potential impacts of global warming, create global warming denial by linking your lies to any potentially legitimate global warming warnings.https://twitter.com/GhostPanther/status/1061331338165280768 …
-
Show this thread
-
If the worst of global warming comes true, at worst it will result in the slow (human scale) flooding of some high value areas and some desertification elsewhere, which people will either migrate away from or geoengineer around.
1 reply 2 retweets 2 likesShow this thread -
Some high value farmland will disappear, making some luxury crops more expensive, but much northern land will become farmable. No food shortages. There may be statistically more natural disasters, none of which could actually be directly attributed to GW.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likesShow this thread -
Heat waves in some countries that already experience them will be worsened, somewhat increasing deaths in a statistical level. At worst, global warming deaths will be a few million, almost all being statistical deaths you will not be able to directly attribute to GW.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likesShow this thread -
However, if you ban fossil fuels, the world's food supply will immediately collapse. There will be global mass starvation. Billions would actually die. Converting back to pre-fossil fuel agriculture would require half the population to be farmers, unable to train quick enough.
1 reply 3 retweets 4 likesShow this thread -
Fertilizer requires fossil fuels. Heavy machinery requires fossil fuels. Food storage, including refrigeration, requires fossil fuels. Food transport requires fossil fuels. Herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides requires fossil fuels.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likesShow this thread -
If you banned fossil fuels, practically everyone who lives in a city would die within a few weeks, maybe a couple months, because there'd be no way to get them enough food, it'd be near impossible to distribute the food, and what little they did get would be rotted and infested.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likesShow this thread -
At best, banning fossil fuels would directly kill most of the population by starvation or by violence over food within a couple months. At worst, global warming would kill a rounding error's worth of the population that would only be noticable by statistical analysis.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likesShow this thread -
Free Northerner Retweeted Adam McKay
Have people like
@GhostPanther never been stuck in traffic watching a massive train ship wheat by the ton? Did they never consider where the wheat came from or goes? What powers the train? Do they think bread just magically appears at Whole Foods?https://twitter.com/GhostPanther/status/1061331338165280768?s=19 …Free Northerner added,
1 reply 1 retweet 4 likesShow this thread -
If you really think global warming is an issue, then advocate for geoengineering. Recreating the atmospheric effects of a volcanic eruption to lower the global temperature is a lot more practical than killing most of the world by banning fossil fuels.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likesShow this thread
Yeah, but then he doesn't get to kill most of the world's population - communists have a thing for that
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.