/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11094412
hey the best of us get trolled once in a while too

>>11094421
based

>>11094424
>Who are you arguing against?
idk tbqh

>warming determines the damage
Ok but even in the worst case scenario only a low test male would accept living in a socialist hellhole. Our energy is already too expensive since nuclear was utterily regulated into oblivion. And it seems that fusion is just on the horizon (for real this time) so it might be more reasonable to make a mad dash to fusion with cheap fossil fuels then invest fusion energy into carbon capture once we have the cheap fusion energy.

The point is that there are plenty of other options beside cutting our balls off and only being able to use solar and wind energy going forward. And notice that legislation packages such as the green new deal want to place control of wind and solar in as few people as possible, with the stifling regulations and zoning laws (like agenda 21 type bullshit.) And there is no promotion of biofuels either which is again, suspect, as batteries are a much heavier storage of energy and cost more to haul around in transportation applications.

>Without emissions of GHGs we would be cooling.
See I don't believe this.. or at least I think it's unlikely. The warming period started BEFORE significant emissions were released. The uptrend started in 1800. And the Solar TSI correlated heavily until 1985. So it seems we would be in a warming cycle no matter if we stopped emitting or not. I'll concede that emissions speed up global warming probably but looking at the charts it's not obvious it would get cooler if they all stopped at once which is unrealistic anyways.

>it's almost like you need scientists to figure it out. Wow.
Maybe but there are so few trustworthy ones so for discussion sake we have to confine it to what is easily provable or various kinds of rhetorical logical arguments.. like how not being skeptical of "consensus claims" is a sign that you're not being rational.