Temperature is not the problem. No climate scientist has ever worried that plants won’t produce well in higher temperatures. Acting like they’re ‘exploring the consequences of climate change’ is a smokescreen, it’s a way of making it seem like the fears are overblown. They’re testing a hypothesis with an obvious conclusion that’s somewhat related to global warming, while conveniently ignoring the things real scientists are actually worried about.

The fears come from the other effects of rising temperature and greenhouse gasses. Most of the real scary stuff is happening in the oceans. Things like the potential for massive amounts of algal death and the loss of potentially 60% of the oxygen creating organisms on earth. Plants are gonna grow great when oxygen levels drop to 15% and people have to wear breathing masks anytime they venture to the surface.

We are absolutely not a hardy or fast growing species. It takes years, for our children to be remotely self sufficient, and over a decade to reach sexual maturity. We have a similar growth pattern to elephants, outside of whales, we’re some of the slowest growing animals alive. We can’t survive extreme temperature swings, radiation, loss of oxygen. We’ve created things to overcome our physical mediocrity, but those things can very quickly disappear for most of the population when the infrastructure supporting global shipping and manufacturing collapses. The fact that we make up such a huge portion of mammal biomass mostly just means we’ll be a great food source for whatever bugs evolve to eat us. Keep in mind that we may be about 30% of mammal biomass, but livestock make up more than 60%. That’s not because they’re small and adaptable, it’s because they’re food.

This is a ‘transition period’ on a geologic scale. We’re talking about the next 50,000 years at best, it’s not something we’re just to ride out and things go back to normal.

Because higher temperatures aren’t the problem, the rate of change is. I assume the worst because we’ve seen it before in the fossil record. The best comparison is the Triassic-Permian extinction. Rapid change in temperatures led to global ecological collapse and the death of 85% of all life on earth. Now, during the Triassic-Permian extinction CO2 levels rose from 400 ppm to ~2500 ppm over the course of ~50,000 years, with an estimated rate of change of around .05 ppm per year. We’re starting out lower at 280 ppm before the industrial revolution, but we’ve already hit 420, and we’re now adding about 2.5 ppm every year, with that number increasing every year. So we’re currently experiencing warming that’s 50 times faster than the most devastating extinction event in Earth’s history.

The fact that our entire food industry is based around genetically engineered monocultures is just another point of failure. It’s a constant game of cat and mouse to continually keep each generation of plants protected against changing diseases and pests, and because the vast majority of the seed is coming from one company, if something does adapt to overcome the engineered defenses, it’s devastating to the entire global population of that crop.

Look at who funded that study, and the actual contents.

According to this study - funded by the Chinese government, the single largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions on earth - we’ll see increased plant growth in the short term under controlled warming. Even ignoring the incredible conflict of interest, the fundamental assumption of the study is that we’ll be able to get warming under control and stick to the goals of the Paris agreement, maintaining only 2 degrees of warming by 2070. That’s absolutely absurd. We’ll be incredibly lucky to not hit 2 degrees of warming by 2040 at this rate. Besides that, they are essentially just looking at how plant growth responds to changes in temp and CO2. Of course plant productivity increases with higher temps and more available CO2, that’s not where the problems come in.

The problems occur when those hardy, fast growing species start really exploding. Cyanobacterial blooms that deoxygenate massive swaths of the ocean, killing millions of fish at a time. Population explosions of pests, contaminating food supplies and starting future pandemics. The ecosystem is complex and interconnected, things will adapt eventually, but the transition period will be catastrophic.

We are not a hardy, fast growing species. I have no doubt that people will survive, but it’s going to effect everyone, and a lot sooner than you think.

Where do these “mass death everywhere” ideas come from?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event

The problem isn’t that it’s going to be warmer. The problem is that it’s getting warmer so quickly that populations won’t be able to adapt. Ecological collapse is absolutely on the table here. There is no real debate in the scientific community about this, just deceptive propaganda that’s disguised as ‘conflicting science’ but is simply a smoke screen to keep people ignoring the problem.

If there’s a decent dribble there I’ll grab a paper towel or napkin and clean it off first, but I usually don’t worry about it. Wiping it off with a finger is disgusting though IMO. Her finger has about a thousand times more nasty stuff than anything in the sauce bottle, that’s a great way to contaminate an entire container.

I think if someone looks good in photos but not on video, they probably just have a skilled photographer.

That’s literally the entire point of making the distinction between throwing away bottles with the cap and without. What did you think this was about?

Feel free to try it out yourself, but people bring this up for a reason. You are wildly underestimating the strength of thin plastics.

Technically true, but kinda pointless to bring up here. It’s a thin layer that’s vaporized during recycling. Not exactly comparable to a plastic bottle containing tens of thousands of times more plastic that’s probably gonna sit in a landfill shedding plastic bits for the next 100,000 years.

A bottle full of air rolls when stepped on, with no cap they just squish flat.

Extremist incel males are “stupid” cos they didn’t use grammer cos “feminist thing” or cos they are “stupid” they didn’t use grammer and “they are so masculine”?

This is nostalgia talking. In the OG trilogy, Thrawn was killed in a painfully obvious coup that any competent commander should have seen coming for miles. His constant dismissal of the Noghiri was idiotic. He may not have known Leia was Vader’s daughter, but something was obviously happening with their society that he just waved away like nothing.

In Ahsoka, he has next to nothing to work with, uses his meager resources efficiently, and achieves his only goal completely (aside from Ezra’s infiltration anyway). Babylon’s betrayal is the only reason the heroes achieve anything at all. At the end of the day, Thrawn has always been a fun character who primarily looks like a genius compared to the complete idiocy of other imperials.

You completely missed my point obviously. I’m trying to get you to consider what “intelligence” actually means. Is intelligence the ability to learn? Make decisions? Have feelings? Outside of humans, what else possesses your definition of intelligence? Parrots? Mice? Spiders?

I’m not comparing LLMs to human complexity, nor do I particularly give a shit about them in my daily life. I’m just trying to get you to actually examine your definition of intelligence, as you seem to use something specific that most of our society doesn’t.

I would argue that humans also frequently give bad advice and incorrect information. We regurgitate the information we read, and we’re notoriously bad at recognizing false and misleading info.

More important to keep in mind is that the vast, vast majority of intelligence in our world is much dumber than people. If you’re expecting greater than human intelligence as your baseline, you’re going to have a wildly different definition than the rest of the world.

That definition would also apply to teaching a baby to walk.

Thanos is complete idiot. Life is the primary resource on which other life relies. Destroying half of all life in the universe is also destroying half the universe’s resources, accomplishing absolutely nothing.