/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10017029
Climate change is a scam.

>Did the Oil lobby such a good job???
>40 years of effort
>hundreds of billions of dollars of propaganda
>both political parties in their pockets
>95% of the media in their pockets
Yes, they did a pretty good job.

>>10017029
>Is American public this stupid?
...even more so.

>Did the Oil lobby such a good job???
...no, but it doesn't need to be -- see above.

>>10017036
>95% of the media in their pockets
What kind of delusion do you live in? Now, there are plenty of news outlets that are clearly taking money from big oil or whatever, but mainstream media consensus is that climate change is real.

Personally I think it's real enough, but it's being used as a crutch for scams by everything from scummy kickstarters to multinational corporations and whole governments. 90% of the shit that's being done to "combat climate change" is just enriching the parties interested or pushing their geopolitical goals.

>>10017029

Trump rejects whatever his party tells him to reject.

>>10017029
>>10017033
>>10017036
>>10017071
>>10017131
>>10017260
Well woop dee fucking doo.

>>10017029
* man made climate change

>>10017029
>t. Pajeet or Indonesian

>>10017029
god what id give to get my face in that crack in that position there. then id get my shiv and split open those leggings and just embed my face in, lick that asshole out til its raw. shame she has tiny tits

>>10017029
>Is American public this stupid?
>Did the Oil lobby such a good job???
both, actually a majority of americans prefers to believe "it's not my fault" just because it's convinient,
but since most live near coast and rivers they will pay for their ignorance

>>10017033
no it isn't

The scam is destroying the environment through industrial pollution because profits, while pushing the "la la la nothing's happening" meme. The people using this "it's a scam/cash grab" argument seem to forget that a lot of profit is made from what companies are already doing, and who have a financial incentive to push denialism. There's no scam, just your apathy and your bullshit.

>>10017284
>Greenland ice cores
How many times are we going to go over this? These are NOT representative of global mean surface temperatures, and paleo reconstructions are vastly less precise than the instrumental temperature record. Furthermore, there are multiple lines of evidence that collectively strongly suggest an anthropogenic cause of the observed modern warming. C-14/C-12 ratios in atmospheric CO2 are a good example.

>>10017029
>her foot on his shoulder
God I wish that were me

>>10017029
>the paris agreement as it stands is actively detrimental to american interests
>therefore I am leaving that agreement
>if it were changed to be more beneficial to the american economy and generate jobs, say through removing the bit where china gets 100 billion dollars for free, I'd be willing to rejoin it
those rootless multinationals are just mad that they aren't able to steal money from the states
Trump has told them what to do if they want the united states to rejoin, yet for some reason they refuse to even consider it, and instead just screech autistically

There's no question the planet is warming. But, nobody knows if this is a cyclical thing. There aren't enough specific old records. In addition, all of the planets have warmed over the last 20 years. You can look that up. Fossil fuels are not causing climate change.

>>10017512
You didn't even try
the fact that fossil fuels are increasing temperatures is clear as day, the question is the severity, and whether or not it will be negated by other effects

>>10017029
>How come Trump rejects climate change when the scientific consensus is clear about it???
Becuase the scientific consensus is compromised.
I've seen professors who were under threat of loosing their tenure, for questioning climate change.

We know for sure greenhouse effect is real. Without it Earth would be frozen. It's simple physics and chemistry.

Trump wants a dystopia.
Him and his fellow right wingers hate this world and like to see it burn.

>>10017310
>i like to eat shit

Trump probably isn't an idiot.
I don't think he privately rejects it.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rising-seas-put-donald-trumps-scottish-golf-course-in-danger-gt2m2cpv5

https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2017-12-22/trump-resort-in-ireland-will-build-seawalls-to-protect-against-climate-change

>>10017036
Sadly this. Big oil and big coal are powerful industries with a lot of money on hand. They’re shilling for Kavanaugh as well.

>>10017029
>How come Trump rejects climate change when the scientific consensus is clear about it???

Because he knows he can score points with his base by larping as a literal retard

>>10017512
>There aren't enough specific old records to satisfy me
FTFY

>>10017029
Because taking action to prevent it is not necessarily the optimal solution for individual countries

>>10017945
Trump makes brainlets like you look smart

Warming would likely be beneficial to keeping away our overdue ice age cycle.

Any weather / temp records under even a 2000 year span is useless.

Nothing is being destroyed as far as the planet is concerned we can go fuck ourselves.

Site specific temperature variances are more likely effected by jet stream shift, the ninos, solar and galaxy events.

BTW World pop went from under 1Billion to 7 Billion CO2 expelling bio machines. Sooo.

Also the earth belches out methane at will which is 10x more warming the CO2

It's a scam.

>>10018095
what a load of horseshit
>Warming would likely be beneficial to keeping away our overdue ice age cycle.
well, we won't be having an ice age anymore thanks to our GHG emissions, so mission accomplished
>Any weather / temp records under even a 2000 year span is useless.
The instrumental record only goes back 150 ish years, but it is by far the most reliable record of Earth's surface temperatures we have. This complaint that science didn't start sooner has nothing to do with whether or not AGW is true.
>Nothing is being destroyed as far as the planet is concerned we can go fuck ourselves.
Nature in the sense of physical processes is unconscious in the first place, except in the minds of some animals that took billions of years to appear. Does that justify fucking over humans in the future because pick-up trucks and cheap bullshit under free trade are really fun to have?
>Site specific temperature variances are more likely effected by jet stream shift, the ninos, solar and galaxy events.
And yet the global mean surface temperature isn't. Climatologists have considered all of these, and found that the effect of natural variations on global mean surface temperature are insignificant compared to the driving factor, billions of annual tons of anthropogenic GHG emissions.
>BTW World pop went from under 1Billion to 7 Billion CO2 expelling bio machines. Sooo.
Yes, science gave us technology, and combined with the stability of the liberal system and wealth-increasing capitalism, we have reached a crisis from all three.
>Also the earth belches out methane at will which is 10x more warming the CO2
Wow that's not even true. Livestock and landfills are the largest sources of methane emissions. Fracking is rapidly becoming a large source as well, though.
>It's a scam.
It's science, and the evidence is robust. Maintaining the status quo is suicide for any civilization in the long term, and not only because of AGW.

>>10017029
He can't make any money off of climate change.

>>10017029

who is that?

fun fact, we are an ice age species, an ice age would be good for us

>>10017029
>General public is uneducated because conservatives have been pushing anti-education narratives and trying to limit school funding for the past 50 years
>Corporations have too much power because conservatives have been pushing for deregulation for the past 50 years
>General public has no power, economic or political, to exert on this issue, because they are in a dire economic situation caused by corporate deregulation that conservatives have been pushing for 50 years
>This has allowed Big Oil to do whatever they want

It's just really simple, people are shit, we don't live in a civilized world, we live in a world where world wars happen and stuff.

>>10018867
I've personally noticed a trend where populations nearer to the equator seem crazier/less intelligent than those in colder regions, but I have no hard data to back it up.

>>10019038
>noticed a trend
Lrn2trend-analysis fgt pls

>>10019069
Okay mr fancy words, what should I call my anecdotal observation of this phenomena?

>>10017029
Its a chinese hoax.

>>10017284
>Years before present (2000)
No it isn't.
Stop posting bullshit graphs.

>>10019038
it's not about countries, it's just about temperature, that's why you don't write math tests in a sauna

A few thousand years ago the scientific consensus was that the earth was flat and the universe revolved around it.

Scientific consensus doesn't mean jack shit. Especially when the people pedaling this shit are the ones who stand to financially gain from it by being given tax dollars and donations for """research"""

>>10019129
right, but temperature varies predictably with geography, I'm suggesting that people living in the American south and Australian far north seem similar in their behavior because they experience similar average temperatures.

>>10019038
lol, NQ is the scientific hub for all tropics related science, marine science and also a lot of medical science like cancer research.

>>10019142
But it is also full of queenslanders, the smart people are a very definite minority.

>>10019142
>>10019145
>The Smart State.

>>10019145
>implying queenslanders aren't the smartest people in Australia with that Irish heritage.

>>10019151
Fuck. I'm off to awaken my inner potato now.

>>10019098
nope
>>10019137
>Especially when the people pedaling this shit are the ones who stand to financially gain from it by being given tax dollars and donations for """research"""
Like the people paying shills to pedal climate denialism to protect their fossil fuel profits?

>>10019211
peddle*

>>10017029
>scientific consensus
oxymorons are a /lit topic, move this thread there.

>>10017512
There is more than enough paleoclimate data that tells us this warming is extremely anomalous as not cyclical. And we already know the cause is human emissions, which is not cyclical. Don't make shit up on the science board.

>>10017945
>Trump probably isn't an idiot.

>>10019137
>A few thousand years ago the scientific consensus was that the earth was flat and the universe revolved around it
So since the curvy conservatism is that it's round and not the center, that's wrong too, correct?

>>10018095
This. And the fact that it could all be solved with nuclear power for infrastructure/shipping and hydrogen fuel cells for trucking. But no, it all has to be solved by solar cells, wind turbines, and batteries (all of which create more pollution in their production and maintenance than a modern carbon fuel plant under strict emissions regulations). Oh, and the meaningless taxes to make said "green" technology competitive (whereas it just really moves more money from consumers of oil products into the pockets of "green" execs who still haven't deliver on their promises.

It's a scam. And the fact that 90% of this board is now convinced that the republicans are destroying the earth in new ways every year is a double win for particular politicians and their cronies. Ya know, cuz votes.

>>10019306
What the fuck are you talking about, faggot? Supporting the energy transition away from fossil fuels does not mean opposition to nuclear plants or hydrogen fuel cells. That's just the position of the radical green types, aka the hippies that are also vegan and probably commies. On the other hand, I fully support a switch to nuclear plants for grid power, and hydrogen cells if the hydrogen can be produced cost effectively. Hydrogen cells could potentially have other issues. Fugitive hydrogen gas is speculated to cause ozone depletion. Water vapor is a potent GHG, and it's not clear if having massive amounts of them on the road every single day wouldn't cause warming issues themselves. Something for future research as they become more popular.

None of this has anything to do with whether or not AGW is true. You don't get to discard evidence for political reasons, even if you think the most insidious of conspiracies is underway on the basis of the scientific knowledge.

>>10019139
you ever heard of air conditioning?
problem solved!

>>10019137
>A few thousand years ago the scientific consensus...

there was no science and no education to speak of "a few thousand years ago"

>>10019306
Nuclear powers like Russia and China and US will keep using it. But nobody wants to make every third world nation a nuclear power. So it's obviously not a solution for everybody. Wind and solar works everywhere and you don't accidentially give some crazy dictator the ability to build nukes.

>>10019433
What are you fucking stupid

>>10019490
First serious science was from the Greeks. They already knew the Earth was round. They even computed Earth circumfence. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cce1XJ3BCxg

>>10019455
>and US
nuclear power usage in the US is on a fairly sharp decline due to costs of setup, legal red tape involved in construction and maintenance, and public hate of nuclear

also
>nuclear power plant=ability to get a nuclear bomb

>>10017029

>Every actor, 95% of journalists, every school teacher, every professor, every cat lady, most everyone you know, and nearly all public figures testify to the veracity of climate change with religious zeal.

>What the devil? One or more climate apostates exist somewhere on Earth? There's clearly an oil industry conspiracy to suppress the truth of climate change!

>I posted this with electricity produced by a coal power plant because somebody, but not me, needs to do something about this!

We've been on the verge of total climate diaster since, what, the 90s? Yawn. Wake me up when you environmentalists start talking about real solutions, like air bursting small pox over every city in China or launching a mass sterilization campaign in Africa.

>>10020089
Wake me up when your arguments against AGW stop being logical fallacies.

>>10020089
We started to in africa. Condom use and safe sex practices were on the rise during the clinton administration. Then dubya got in power and along with fundie missionaries undid all the progress.

>>10017029
Because endorsing an opinion means people who share this opinion will vote for him.
It's literally this simple, he knew who he needed to appeal to and he has done it.
THIS is how he won the elections.

>>10020089
Posts like this convince me more and more that paleoconservatives are monsters.

>>10017284
greenland =/= global

>>10017029
even if we take measures to prevent it, economically it's silly unless every single country in the Earth participates (China won't and it's the biggest offender with the largest population.) So why should we cuck ourselves for no benefits? Free ride principal except we aren't the free riders, we're trying to be the ones to give free rides. Math and science includes economics you fucking degenerates. Whether or not muh evil corporations are benefitting from it, you are also benefiting from lower prices than if state mandated regulations come into play. Even if we stopped all pollution from the 400 million Americans, compared to the other 7 Billion excrement factories called humans on Earth we wouldn't make a fucking dent in it.

This is all assuming man made climate change is real of course which is being debated currently.

>>10020089
>rightists are willing to genocide billions of innocent people if it protects their profits
I'm convinced that right-wingers have absolutely no empathy.

>>10021088
>our entire civilization is on the way to destroying the environment which sustains it but that's okay so long as we have cheap products to consume
Fun fact: Americans on a per-capita produce more than twice as much carbon emissions as the Chinese do

>>10021088
>China won't and it's the biggest offender with the largest population.

China is literally doing more to combat climate change than any other country given its population dumbass

>Even if we stopped all pollution from the 400 million Americans, compared to the other 7 Billion excrement factories called humans on Earth we wouldn't make a fucking dent in it.

the US makes up 4.4% of the world population, but accounts for 15% of all greenhouse gases emitted. Even *just* the US cutting back to our "fair share" of emissions would, in fact, put a dent in it

>>10021097
It's actually Paleocons that have that trait. Neocons are alright. Though Paleocons also have a good chunk of stupid evil added as well given that they wish to burn down the cities of their countries which are the most prosperous parts of said countries.

>>10017029
>Did the Oil lobby such a good job???
answered your own question
>>10019591
its actually just extremely energy inefficient and expensive to keep nuclear plants running for decades, it has little to do with political agendas

>>10021097
How is it possible that there is not a single issue modern US Republicans are correct about? Look at their voting record, EVERY SINGLE ISSUE they are wrong about. They ALWAYS vote against the little people and in favor of big business. Is this a coincidence? Is this a mere ideological difference that our intellectual upbringing makes us unable to understand, and there's a chance that they're right and we're wrong? No. This is a simple case of bad faith acting on the part of conservatives, there is no explanation apart from that at this point and I am truly and utterly convinced 100% that everyone who is still willingly a Republican falls into one of two categories:
>Actively malicious, seeking personal goals and profits for big business
>A person who can't give up on the party because of a team-sports mentality
>Too stupid to understand the scientific, economic, and sociological issues at play

That is the only answer. Notice how conservatives, even on 4chan, never give substantive refutations of basic statements in favor of ideas that benefit the common man? All they do is insult you and call you a liberal commie cuck. I'm sick of it honestly I don't know what to do anymore.

>>10021109
Paleocons are correct in assessing the disgusting nature of urban culture. They were the last expression of American culture in politics, and American culture is inherently rural, a product of a frontier. To say they want to actually destroy cities however is an insultingly lazy hyperbole. That you think they are cartoon villains says a lot about where you derived your worldview.
>>10021114
The reason you think this way is because you are incapable of understanding the republican mindset, thereby feeling no empathy for them and their causes and assuming the worst of them. Ultimately very few people are able to specialize in a given topic enough (let alone have the mental capacity) to perform a purely logical and reason-based conclusion. You are no different from them in this respect.

>>10021175
Explain this Paleocon fantasy then.

>>10021175
So if I empathized with conservatives I'd understand why it's good to give massive corporations tax cuts that go primarily into corporate buybacks, why it's good to pretend climate change isn't real, why it's good to not bother protecting the environment or national parks, and why it's good to treat immigrants inhumanely by separating them from their children and losing track of the parents of some children?

Sorry, you can't use the "if you just had empathy for the psychopathic murderer you'd understand" argument.

>>10018867
>ice age species
a few million in africa then
k

>>10021175
Cities are where civilization happens. They are the sources of advancements in economics, culture and knowledge. The rurals have never been and will never be as relevant. You might say that the rurals produce food but the rurals are still reliant on cities for new techniques and advanced tools. Crop rotation and genetic modification came from cities, not the backwaters. When Rome collapsed, agriculture collapsed.

>>10021202
To add on to your post anon, rural communities are almost entirely propped up economically by large cities. First off, metro areas tend to contribute net positives to federal taxes whereas rural areas are a drain, for a host of reasons including increased military base presence in rural areas, which acts as a form of welfare for the local community, and through farming subsidies. Conservatives tend to live in rural areas and tend to be vocally against welfare, but these rural areas are the biggest beneficiaries of federal welfare in the entire country, at the expense of liberal metro areas.

Even on 4chan it's a meme that California is a mistake that shouldn't have happened...? But yet it's the fifth largest economy in the entire world, bigger than the UK, and could do fine on its own if it had good trade agreements with the rest of the states, which those states would need since their technology is entirely dependent on Silicon Valley, and Seattle as well, so the west cost metropolis in general

>>10021212
Oh, and to the /pol/tard that's going to come here and say the only reason this graph looks the way it is because of black people and Jews, go slit your throat racist

>>10021189
Can't, never heard of it. I'll look into it though
>>10021192
Unironically yes to the first part of your post. Not a climate change denier by the way. I am not in saying this agreeing with your portrayal of conservative positions
>>10021202
Cities are a source of death and decay. They have been this way for millennia, but a few millennia is a short span in the context of all of human history. Human psychology isn't well adapted to the conditions of modern urban living and as such they produce mental decay too.
For a long time now cities have generally not hosted self sustaining population. Bucolic settings are where birth rates tend to be above replacement rates. Healthy rural people migrating to the cities is what kept them alive for centuries. Although I agree cities can be a source of technology and industry they should not replace the heart and soul of a society, which is it's land. Everything comes from the land

>>10021221
>Cities are a source of death and decay. They have been this way for millennia, but a few millennia is a short span in the context of all of human history. Human psychology isn't well adapted to the conditions of modern urban living and as such they produce mental decay too.
>For a long time now cities have generally not hosted self sustaining population. Bucolic settings are where birth rates tend to be above replacement rates. Healthy rural people migrating to the cities is what kept them alive for centuries. Although I agree cities can be a source of technology and industry they should not replace the heart and soul of a society, which is it's land. Everything comes from the land
When I drive through rural areas I want to get out of there as fast as possible because the gas stations are used as hangout spots by vagrants wearing baseball caps, and the people live in an 80s style environment with at most a Walmart at one end of town. Bucolic settings, like the beautiful plentiful land of Oklahoma you mean? Home of some of the largest meth addict populations in the world. Nice naivete

>>10021221
>Human psychology isn't well adapted to the conditions of modern urban living and as such they produce mental decay too.
An appeal to nature fallacy.
>For a long time now cities have generally not hosted self sustaining population. Bucolic settings are where birth rates tend to be above replacement rates. Healthy rural people migrating to the cities is what kept them alive for centuries.
I'll concede that cities tend to have lower birth rates, but this is because success and ambition contribute to lower birth rates because children are a drain on resources.
>Although I agree cities can be a source of technology and industry they should not replace the heart and soul of a society, which is it's land. Everything comes from the land.
An emotional appeal.

another summer is over
yet arctic ice didn't melt as predicted

http://climatechangepredictions.org/

>>10019086
>what should I call my anecdotal observation
Call it dead & buried, where it should be.
This board is about /sci/ence, not your Fifteenth-Century opinion.

>>10021348
yeah, it was "just" the hottest summer ever recorded in many countries

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/09/03/uk/2018-england-hottest-summer-intl/index.html

yay humanity, I guess

>>10021348
arctic ice melted even more then predicted,
making even this possible
"Container ship crosses Arctic route for first time in history due to melting sea ice"
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/maersk-container-ship-arctic-ocean-northern-sea-route-venta-global-warming-a8543431.html

also
"Data released by the National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado showed this winter’s sea ice cover was less than a third of what it was just five years ago."

>>10021192
>why it's good to give massive corporations tax cuts
Because consumers pay corporate tax through increased prices of goods, ceteris paribus. Cheaper consumer goods means more money for other shit, a higher standard of living, less government dependence, etc. This applies to any tax, not just corporate.

>climate change isn't real
The phenomenon may exist, but calling the commonly proposed solutions "science", as if there is no hint of political ideology involved, is obnoxious. Leftists use global warming as an avenue for shoehorning in their policies, and shout down any opposition or criticism as being antiscientific and uneducated. It works exactly the same way with social issues; if you don't agree with their delusion du jour, you're a hate-filled bigoted racist monster.

>not bother protecting the environment, national parks
Protecting the environment is desirable. The best way to achieve this is through privatization, such that externalities cannot be offloaded onto the commons. Nobody gives a flying fuck about a city bus with a flat tire, but when it's on your own car, suddenly the issue becomes a lot higher on the priority list.

>treat immigrants inhumanely
These are people who sneak into the country knowing that they are committing a federal crime. If caught, you go to jail while your case is processed. Like with all crimes, they cannot throw your children in jail with you. Would you prefer that? Or would you rather they get shipped right back across the border all together, but without due process?

I can tell that you haven't made a shred of effort to understand the positions or motivations of those you oppose. Stop being a communist cuck, and then kill yourself for good measure.

>>10021590
So tax cuts lower the prices of consumer goods? We've never seen that historically, and we haven't seen that from recent tax cuts, in fact inflation is at an all time high

There is some political affiliation associated with climate change but this doesn't refute it, there is even more politics behind climate change denial, and putting "science" in quotes doesn't refute the real science behind it

No, the best way to protect the environment is not through privatization that's why the EPA was created

Many of them were refugees not illegal immigrants, and the punishment does not match the crime, how about treat them like humans

Slut your wrists conservacuck, keep willingly getting fucked up the ass by big business, you're so fucking naive with your 17th century worldview which was barely relevant even then

>>10017029
It seems a lot cheaper to bite the costs of climate change than to reduce carbon emissions by any meaningful level.

>>10021629
>We've never seen that historically, and we haven't seen that from recent tax cuts
Wrong. Prices usually have some form of stickiness (usually sticky-down), but in general if market forces are actually allowed to work, the price mechanism will function as it's supposed to. And inflation occurs solely due to the expansion of the money supply. Demand-pull inflation is nonsense.

>doesn't refute it
The issue isn't refuting it, the issue is how to solve it, if at all. There is no consensus on the degree of human involvement, nor is there a consensus on which solutions are going to achieve what ends. But you know what we have seen plenty of? Taxes of all sorts to pad government revenue, and grants to otherwise uncompetitive "green" businesses and initiatives. That's not science, that's politics.

>not through privatization that's why the EPA was created
>the bloated federal government created yet another agency to siphon money from taxpayers, so it must have been justified
kys

>Many of them were refugees not illegal immigrants
There were literally no legal immigrants who had their children taken. Entering the legal immigration stream, or even claiming asylum at the border, will allow you to remain with your children as your case is processed by immigration officials. Family separation only occurs when immigration law is violated. Stop getting all your information from Huffpost headlines and Twitter posts.

>>10021728
>The issue isn't refuting it, the issue is how to solve it, if at all. There is no consensus on the degree of human involvement,
Yes there is. The scientific community overwhelmingly agrees that there is a warming trend, that it is unprecedented in at least 2000 years, and that human use of fossil fuels is very likely to be the cause. The climate skeptics are a strong minority.
>nor is there a consensus on which solutions are going to achieve what ends.
It's pretty straightforward. Quit using fossil fuels.
>But you know what we have seen plenty of? Taxes of all sorts to pad government revenue
A carbon tax would provide a simple mechanism to put a price on the damage caused from fossil fuel use. It could even be made revenue-neutral by law, if abuse is a concern. Business as usual is unacceptable.
>and grants to otherwise uncompetitive "green" businesses and initiatives.
What about the subsidies for oil extraction and corn ethanol production? Stop being disingenuous. Also, solar and wind are already closing in on profitability, and would be pushed into profitability with the carbon tax or cap and trade.
>That's not science, that's politics.
You are right. Any realistic solutions necessarily involve politics. That doesn't get rid of the scientific rationale for effective solutions, but the only real solutions will require political action.

>>10019137
>A few thousand years ago the scientific consensus was that the earth was flat and the universe revolved around it.
Scientific consensus was that the Earth was round. Thinking that the Earth was flat was an ignorant peasant superstition.

>>10021701
It's only expensive because we already waited this long. Infrastructure, powerplants, cars, everything has to be replaced anyway with something new. If you gradually replace everything old with something environment friendly there is almost no additional cost.

>>10021760
>Quit using fossil fuels
There is no guarantee that this will stop it, nor will it reverse the trend. Show me the consensus on the solutions.

>carbon tax
And by pure coincidence, that price gets paid to the government so they can spend it on all sorts of nonsense. Just like any other tax, for that matter. What, you don't want to fill the government coffers with your hard-earned money? You must hate the planet!

>subsidies
Are terrible, I agree. Solar and wind are not competitive if they require artificial costs to be imposed on the consumers.

>Business as usual is unacceptable
Why? Climate doomsayers love to spout fire and brimstone. Around the time humans were happily putting food in clay pots, my city was under hundreds of meters of ice. Climate changes, and life adapts. What, some shithole island nations get flooded? Coastal residents have to move two blocks inland? Agricultural regions shift slightly northward? What a tragedy, humans will surely become extinct this time! We'd better all cripple our economies (but not the developing world, obviously) and expand government power for the slim chance of slowing down this inevitable trend!

>>10021798
>Show me the consensus on the solutions.
Emitting GHGs faster than nature can sequester them causes warming. Solution: stop emitting GHGs faster than nature can sequester them to stop the warming. Were you dropped on your head as a child?
>And by pure coincidence, that price gets paid to the government so they can spend it on all sorts of nonsense. Just like any other tax, for that matter. What, you don't want to fill the government coffers with your hard-earned money? You must hate the planet!
Did you miss the part about "revenue-neutral by law"?
>Solar and wind are not competitive if they require artificial costs to be imposed on the consumers.
Then neither is corn ethanol. More importantly, environmental externalities being valued at zero is the only reason fossil fuels are the cheapest option. This has been the standard for centuries, but now it must change. The cost of the damage to the commons is simply too high. As much as economic growth is a good thing for generating wealth and prosperity, it means nothing if the environment is devastated and humans are unable to continue exploiting it. Well, it means something to the assholes who will die before they suffer the worst of it, and act accordingly.
>doomsayers
The processes that are underway due to human activity are destroying valuable natural resources that nature will not be able to replace for anywhere from 10× to 100000x as long as it took us to destroy them. How do you grow enough food when all your soil has eroded away and what's left are shitty deserts? You can't catch many fish in the ocean, because most of those are gone too. There is less topsoil the further north you go. Climate warming threatens to exacerbate these food problems, reduce the freshwater supply, and cause deadly heat waves. They might be uncomfortable facts, but facts they are. Economic growth cannot be maintained in light of these severe threats.

>>10021914
Go look up anti-desertification methods, the PRC has already begun engaging African and Arab nations with this tech as well.

Trumps unwillingness to confront climate change will further push the agenda into the hands of the PRC, soon China along with the EU will be seen as the largest factions fighting climate change.

At this rate, the Old World shall return to relevance, power will be held in Moscow, Beijng and Amsterdam, not Washington

>>10017029
>Trump
... is easy to understand and predict once you recognize that his presidency is all about one thing: himself. Anything he can do to 'win', he will support. This includes supporting those who he needs to support him, and obsessively attacking anyone who is a hindrance to his objective (auto-aggrandizing).

The fossil fuel industry is very powerful. They have lots of money. The scientific community's commodity is evidence, and they always seek funding. Guess who wins, and what happens to evidence? This is promoted by brainless cheerleaders like >>10017033

>Stupid
Mmm... More like competitive. Once they back a horse, it's too embarrassing to admit a mistake was made, so they 'double-down' on stupid support their mistake. That's when reason disappears.

>Job
They did pretty well. Every once in a while there's an article about how some oil company recognized the dangers of climate change, but hushed the results (hearkening back to the days of Big Tobacco hiding results). This is not usually treated with much ink. It's more a failure of the media, who find people will subscribe more to tawdry pulp news.
Google "oil climate study revealed" for examples.

Trump is an anti-intellectual brainlet who assumes that anything he's unable to understand is bullshit. his whole ideology is a rejection of not just experts but the idea of expertise; his supporters are rebelling against the educated people telling them things like "you can't simultaneously cut taxes, increase spending, and balance the budget" and "bombing civilians just creates more terrorists" and "you can't get rid of due process" and "trade wars just hurt everyone's economies".

>>10017284
GISP2 uses 1950 as its zero year, not 2000, like >>10019111 says. That graph ends at 1855...before ALMOST ALL modern warming happened.

>posting the mislabeled Lappi graph
>just fucking drawing lines on a graph instead of actually doing any kind of regression
>confusing local trends for global trends
if you do any of these you should be beaten savagely for your stupidity.

>>10022003
>his supporters are rebelling against the educated people telling them things
That's the key.
His supporters just want to rebel against educated people.
Note how all his supporters have no credentials or qualifications and larp as scientists while using pseudoscience as a source.

>>10021728
>if market forces are actually allowed to work, the price mechanism will function as it's supposed to.
ah yes, the unerring faith of the Libertarian dumbfuck. no matter how many times it fails, they're ONE HUNDRED PERCENT CONFIDENT that their ideology will work this next time!
remember when Trump's people said that the tax cuts would lower prices and create jobs? and big businesses said they'd just use the tax cuts to buy back stock? and then they did? and meanwhile, the trade war he's gotten us into have sent consumer prices skyrocketing

>There is no consensus on the degree of human involvement
that's where you're wrong kiddo.
>nor is there a consensus on which solutions are going to achieve what ends
that's also where you're wrong kiddo.

>the bloated federal government created yet another agency to siphon money from taxpayers
hey, notice how our air and water have been much cleaner since the EPA instituted emissions standards? the Clean Air Act alone saves 160,000 lives every year.
>https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-07/documents/summaryreport.pdf

>Entering the legal immigration stream, or even claiming asylum at the border, will allow you to remain with your children as your case is processed by immigration officials
literally a lie. scroll down to read about Ms. L, who presented herself at a border crossing to claim asylum but still had her child taken away during proceedings.
>https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/ms-l-v-ice-order-granting-plaintiffs-motion-classwide-preliminary-injunction

>>10017507
I disagree with the Paris deal as well, throwing money at China and Africa probably won’t solve the problem

But trump still disagrees with climate change, or he has in the past

>>10017029
BECAUSE THERE IS NO FUCKING RELATION BETWEEN CO2 LEVELS AND WARMTH
THE ONLY THING THAT CHANGES THE CLIMATE IS SUN ACTIVITY

>>10022115
this is wrong and you know it's wrong
just have a look at >>10017824

>>10022115
Totally, no relation.

>>10022115
No relation here.

>>10022115
No relation to be found at all.

>>10021111
jesus christ /sci/ check my digits you massive nerds

>>10022115
>MAYBE IF I PUT MY RETARDATION IN ALL-CAPS NOBODY WILL QUESTION IT

>>10020091
https://science.house.gov/news/press-releases/former-noaa-scientist-confirms-colleagues-manipulated-climate-records

True. Logical fallacies are for brainlets. Falsifying data to meet political objectives is chad-tier.


>>10020108
Got proof? Or is this just a listen-and-believe NPR-ism? I posited a modest proposal which offers a very permanent solution to the population problem. Clearly the Clinton model of condoms and Sesame Street AIDS muppets was not very robust if it immediately collapsed after a change of political control in the United States happened. perhaps a more empathetic solution is to have 100% of the African population migrate to Europe and the United States, to enjoy our Public Assistance. I think you should volunteer to house about four Sudanese families. It would really show everyone what a nice person you are.


>>10021066
you're the one using electricity to respond to a shitpost and increasing the global temperature in the process. You planet killer.


>>10021097
>Reads A shitpost. Immediately loses all faith in humanity.

>would rather genocide the entire population of Earth than give up posting on 4chan.

These boards need age restrictions.

>>10022280
Oh look, the retard is back to post his debunked propaganda and then slither away without replying to this post!

https://www.factcheck.org/2017/02/no-data-manipulation-at-noaa/

https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/02/08/noaa-scientists-climate-change-data/

>>10022306
>snopes
>factcheck

>>10021232
Have you ever been outside a city? You’re delusional. Even the richest cities have almost no living space. Even working class rednecks where I live have decent sized houses, multiple cars and boats. Meanwhile, people in the city have nothing to their name but an apartment made for poor Irish and Italians 100 years ago

>>10022341
>retard lying on the internet

>>10022003
>"you can't simultaneously cut taxes, increase spending, and balance the budget"
Trump's tax cuts made it through congress, but his proposed budget cuts didn't. Not sure what you're getting at here.
>"bombing civilians just creates more terrorists"
You can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs. Unfortunately, like any war, there will be civilian casualties, but thankfully Trump is far less of a warmonger than preceding presidents
>"you can't get rid of due process"
When did Trump say it?
>"trade wars just hurt everyone's economies"
When other countries rely more on us than we do on them, threats of a trade war can bring them to the negotiating table. Examples: Mexico and the EU

>>10022341
I bet you can't even tell me a single thing that's wrong in either article.

>>10021914
>revenue-neutral by law
If you can afford to cut certain taxes or rates in order to fit in carbon tax, you can afford to cut those taxes outright AND not impose carbon tax.

>environmental externalities being valued at zero
They're not at zero. Public pressure forces companies to shill for green approaches, token as they may be. The government did not need to force people to buy hybrid cars, for instance. Consumers are plenty able to make their own decisions.

> it means nothing if the environment is devastated and humans are unable to continue exploiting it
And the environment means nothing if we are reduced to caveman-levels of economic activity in order to chase after a particular global temperature. All those problems you've mentioned have technological solutions. Vertical farming is starting to enter the market, and if surface farming becomes more costly, vertical farming becomes more competitive. Fish farming is already a thing. Heat waves typically only kill a handful of the very sick or elderly, when they insist on going outdoors without any preparation or regard for their health.

Remember, the planet has been significantly warmer than this before. Global warming happens naturally, and even if it didn't happen now, it would happen later. We are simply speeding up the process. At some point, we would have to face the music, and we are plenty capable of doing it now, without having to reduce economic output.

>>10022031
>and then they did?
The accelerating (and importantly, relatively flat) GDP growth rate since 2016, as compared to the previous decades, speaks for itself. Tariffs do impede economic activity, but in exchange, you buy domestic production security in the event of international conflict, have an (artificially) increased employment rate and the social benefits derived therefrom, and the ability to exert nonmilitary pressure on foreign nations in order to achieve political goals. Increasing production competitiveness from the bottom through deregulation would be better, but you fags would march in the streets if your precious gibs were threatened.

>Clean Air Act alone saves 160,000 lives every year
That report is hilarious. They pull those numbers out of their ass, and then assign an arbitrary dollar value to it and proclaim what a raging success it has been. The only definite figure is the cost of compliance, on the order of tens of billions. Anything beyond that is vague extrapolation with nothing supporting it. And as usual, opportunity costs of the public policy are completely ignored, because that would weaken the narrative.

>Ms. L
Who showed up with no documentation demonstrating parentage, at which point she was separated, processed, and then reunited with her child. A handful of incidents like this do not mitigate the fact that illegal immigration runs rampant; look at the very next case mentioned in the document, with Ms. C crossing "between points of entry" (ie. illegally). She must have misread her map, surely! But I agree with you, this shouldn't happen. Asylum claims should simply be refused outright, and any legal applicants politely turned back. There are plenty of people who want to immigrate to America through the other processes, and asylum seekers by definition come with almost nothing. What benefit is there in letting them in?

Is /sci/ the most r*ddit board on this website? I'm inclined to think so, given the state of these threads. But you'll notice that it is specifically the climate change threads where this occurs. I am convinced that 90% of people ITT and others like it are mostly trolls and armchair scientists who learn everything they know about CC through youtube videos from people like Veratisium and SciShow.

Here's how it goes:
>OP: why is CC wrong OR why Americans so dumb to reject CC
>literally the next 200 replies are back and forth of literal poo-flinging, name calling, posting cherry picked graphs/figures, broad and sweeping political/religious claims/accusations, and yelling that the other guy's evidence is debunked. Throw in some (very) biased sources.
>that's it until everyone abandons ship or the thread reaches the post limit
Starting CC threads on /sci/ should be a bannable offense.

>>10022531
>B-b-both sides right guys???
So pathetic, time to go back >>>/pol/

>>10022538
Time to go back >>>/lgbt/

>>10022544
>says the fag who can't even put up an argument

>>10022439
>They're not at zero. Public pressure forces companies to shill for green approaches, token as they may be. The government did not need to force people to buy hybrid cars, for instance. Consumers are plenty able to make their own decisions.
Jesus Christ, retard. Subsidies and incentives for hybrids and EVs does not mean externalities of fossil fuel use have a cost associated with them. That's what the carbon tax is for. The extra cost for power plant resources is virtually zero. The cost for petrol externalities is far below what would be needed to be effective, and not burdensome at all right now. The cost for agricultural practices is also minimal and not burdensome. You are talking out of your ass.
>And the environment means nothing if we are reduced to caveman-levels of economic activity in order to chase after a particular global temperature.
Nice hyperbole. Technology isn't going away. No one will be living like a caveman unless the environmental destruction continues to the point people start dropping like flies and resource wars break out. We're talking about effective solutions now so it doesn't come to that. Boohoo I can't spew whatever bullshit I want into the air anymore because the planet's ecosystems literally cannot handle it. I don't feel sorry for infinite growth morons who can't understand the impossibility of it in the first place. We're hitting that wall now.
>Vertical farming
Requires high nutrient input and soil.
>Fish farming
Typically requires fish meal made from... other fish. Which will all be overfished to depletion except in protected (by force) fisheries if current practices continue.

Growing food requires inputs. You don't get something for free. Cutting down the rest of the forests for more soil for more food is no solution. We need biodiversity of species as well. Reduced consumption and a gradual, but impactful transition away from fossil fuels is what is needed. There is no getting around this.

>>10022003
>his supporters are rebelling against the educated people
based
intellectuals are the first against the wall

>>10022571
>Subsidies and incentives for hybrids and EVs does not mean externalities of fossil fuel use have a cost associated with them
What the fuck are you on about? Environmental externalities for any power generation or delivery method are nonzero. Once they get to a certain threshold, a majority of the public will push to mitigate those externalities. This does not need the government to happen. If you pump sewage into my stream, you ought to be liable for damages caused. If your factory releases airborne toxins above a city, same thing. But I challenge you to clearly demonstrate damages caused to you, or anyone else, by a particular individual's or group's release of CO2.

>environmental destruction continues to the point people start dropping like flies and resource wars break out
Hahaha, the absolute state of your worldview. The temperature rises a couple degrees and WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE OMG

>high nutrient input
Commercial fertilizers are derived from minerals, not plants.
>soil
Hydroponics you fool.

>fish meal made from...other fish
Dog food is made almost entirely from plants. You can even feed dogs vegetarian dog food if you want. The reason fish get fed fish meal is because fish meal is cheap; it's just ground up fish waste. If that supply runs down, you bet your ass a vegetable-based alternative will be marketed. Innovation follows demand.

Your talk of global catastrophe unless we turn into hippies is fucking retarded. The planet's ecosystem, and the animals within it, are far more durable than you fags pretend. But hey, when regular shilling for investment in your green startups doesn't cut it, why not get the government on board to force everyone to cough up shekels for your environmentalist agenda?

>>10022538
Well done for being part of the problem.

>>10022783
The only problem here is your denial.

>>10022682
>Environmental externalities for any power generation or delivery method are nonzero.
Are you really going to squabble about "exactly zero" or "approximately zero"? The economic cost of them is in no way accurately added to their use. The amount actually paid is vastly lower than the true cost.
>Hahaha, the absolute state of your worldview. The temperature rises a couple degrees and WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE OMG
If what is being done continues, the problem of making enough food for people will become impossible. Population is relatively stable in the developed world, not decreasing. Declining natural resources for food is bad news for those countries. And it's largely due to mismanagement stemming from short term profit maximization, and ignorance of agricultural producers of these effects.
>Hydroponics you fool.
Now go look up the resource inputs for hydroponics, as well as what crops hydroponics is limited to. They are usually low calorie vegetables like lettuce, kale, and tomatoes, which are not calorie rich enough to sustain a population. The resource math does not add up.
>If that supply runs down, you bet your ass a vegetable-based alternative will be marketed. Innovation follows demand.
Someone has no idea what commercially desired fish actually eat in their diets.
>Your talk of global catastrophe unless we turn into hippies is fucking retarded. The planet's ecosystem, and the animals within it, are far more durable than you fags pretend.
And yet, natural resources crucial for food production are dwindling continuously. Your faith in technology solving the problem is not supported by the reality of it.

>>10017036
>>10018012
>>95% of the media in their pockets
Most retarded posts in this retarded thread.

>>10022816
>The amount actually paid is vastly lower than the true cost.
So sayeth Anon, Knower of the True Cost of Things. Protip: cost is determined at the point of exchange. For some who think the wold will end with every exhalation of CO2 they make, the cost is great. For those who doubt it, or don't care, the cost is negligible. This may change over time, as will all valuations. What is amusing is that you think you can determine some sort of "objective" cost, despite that entire exercise being contingent on subjective values.

>resource inputs for hydroponics, as well as what crops hydroponics is limited to.
Electrical power for grow lights, water, hydroponic equipment and space, pollinators, and synthetic fertilizers. The procurement of which is not contingent on climate. All plants can be produced hydroponically. This includes staple foods like potatoes, tomatoes, greens, and even wheat or rice. Research currently goes toward easy crops because they're cost effective. Nobody cares about hydroponic apples because apples grow just fine outside. If this ever changes, you will see innovation in hydroponic apple production. But there is nothing stopping it physically, it's just a matter of incentive.

>what commercially desired fish actually eat in their diets
There are already companies producing insect-based fish meal for farmed salmon. Not a whole lot of effort is going into this field because regular fish meal is cheap, but let's not pretend that we don't have alternatives.

Your doubt in the technological solutions doesn't reflect the reality. Many of the problems you talk about already have solutions that exist. Others can be developed in short order. When you have someone who is presented with this, but still continues to cry fire and brimstone, what can you conclude? That he is either an idiot, or is intentionally masking a subversive agenda. Which one are you?

>>10017029
If you're going to bitch and whine about stupidity, please write as though you're literate.

>>10019069
Wow somebody just passed their data analysis class

>>10022115
the human species is trolling itself into extinction

>>10022883
>For those who doubt it, or don't care, the cost is negligible.
Nature doesn't care about the thoughts of anyone, let alone morons.
>What is amusing is that you think you can determine some sort of "objective" cost, despite that entire exercise being contingent on subjective values.
There are real long term economic costs that can be assessed. Your argument that it is subjective is just intended to doubt that estimation can or should be done.
>This includes staple foods like potatoes, tomatoes, greens, and even wheat or rice. Research currently goes toward easy crops because they're cost effective. Nobody cares about hydroponic apples because apples grow just fine outside. If this ever changes, you will see innovation in hydroponic apple production. But there is nothing stopping it physically, it's just a matter of incentive.
I encourage you to read about real hydroponics operations before rattling off false bullshit that proves you don't know what you're talking about. It's not cost effective for most of them, nor even feasible for numerous crops.
>There are already companies producing insect-based fish meal for farmed salmon. Not a whole lot of effort is going into this field because regular fish meal is cheap, but let's not pretend that we don't have alternatives.
This field is interesting to to me, but it's not clear that intensive aquaculture can be scaled up to meet demand. A better option is to stop overfishing so we have the natural sources for them.
>Your doubt in the technological solutions doesn't reflect the reality.
And yet your account of it relies on a lot of unproven speculation and some outright falsehoods.
>fire and brimstone, what can you conclude? That he is either an idiot, or is intentionally masking a subversive agenda.
Technology cannot solve the tragedy of the commons without massive population reduction. If you understood the amounts of inputs required for the various methods of agriculture, you would know this.

>>10022178
>>10022169
>>10022166
>>10022162
if you stay in the same room for hours the CO2 levels rise from 400 to 1000, do you die? no you fucking retards

>>10022930
Nice troll attempt.

>>10022915
I should also mention that when it comes to intensive hydroponics and similar operations, it requires a high initial cost for technology, as well as high levels of monitoring and management, and education about the needed equipment and systems to be effective. Indoor lights still need a power source, probably coming from the grid. It is not at all clear how all of these inputs could possibly add up to cost-effective, long term solutions without huge amounts of money being spent and probably government management as well if traditional agriculture yields drop significantly. It's ignoring one huge problem while creating another huge problem. Anti-environmentalist techno-futurists have far too much faith in our abilities to scale this up, and violate their own principles of opposing large amounts of government involvement or preferring the cheapest option because muh economy. Not to say economy isn't important, but it cannot be the only important consideration either.

>>10017029
Does it really matter? We're about two or three decades past doing anything meaningful to stop it. The only thing that can be done now is prepare for the worst because shit is going to start falling apart in the next 20 years just due to smaller factors such as mass migration out of the most affected areas. Not to mention CFCs are back in major production and the ozone layer is getting even more fucked up.

>>10022538
>call /sci/ a reddit board
>response is saying there are two sides and you have to pick one
You proved his point.

>>10023015
What does one have to do with the other you dumb faggot? Fuck off back to /pol/ already, you're not fooling anyone.

>>10023037
>say there's more than two, extreme options
>"fuck off back to /pol/ already"
When can we require an IQ test before allowing people to post here?

>>10023057
there is only one option and we’ve already chosen it retard.

>>10022959
>Does it really matter?
Yes
>The only thing that can be done now is prepare for the worst because shit is going to start falling apart in the next 20 years just due to smaller factors such as mass migration out of the most affected areas.
We should get to it, then, instead of denying it has ever been a problem

>>10023057
What the fuck are you jacking off about retard? Humans are either the main cause of global warming or they aren't.

>hurr no I'm super special and my position is unique but obviously I'm not going to discuss it because I would get BTFO if I did

>>10023073
So, is it 100% humans or 0% humans then?

>>10023074
Approximately 110%

>inb4 hurr durr how is that possible I don't know anything yet I think I'm unique and intelligent

>>10023084
nice troll

>>10023090
>I don't get it, must be a troll
Google is your friend, you anti-intellectual mongoloid.

>>10023093
nice troll

>>10023095
So instead of just not posting, you proved my prediction correct. Thanks, retard.

>>10023099
keep going, this is fun

>>10023100
Nah I'm going to bed. Enjoy wallowing in your own stupidity.

>>10023102
a convenient exit for a troll

>>10022915
>real long term economic costs that can be assessed
And those costs will be addressed through the price mechanism. That is the closest "objective" measure you can use. Economies can adjust very quickly as new problems arise, or latent problems (like climate change) manifest.

>not cost effective for most of them
Compared to traditional farming, yes. At no point did I dispute this. You're the one saying how agriculture will disappear and everyone will starve to death, and I'm telling you that we already have the technology to address this. Will it be more expensive, at least in the short to medium run? Probably. But a way out exists, so fuck off with your doom and gloom hyperbolic nonsense.
>nor even feasible for numerous crops
Which ones? You style yourself as well educated in this matter, so educate everyone ITT.

>without massive population reduction
On this we can agree. The developing world can starve if they cannot keep up technologically, I really don't care.

>>10022945
>probably government management as well
This doesn't follow. If you want the cheapest option, throwing government into the mix is the exact opposite of what you do. Consider: almost all planetary agriculture is privately owned right now.

>>10021765
That's unironically really cool. I'm going to have to add the Mediterranean to my bucket list so that I can try this for myself.

>>10023155
Price comes from costs of harvesting and shipping, as well as demand, but supply is relatively abundant for now. Environmental externalities are not assessed or included, and will not be without an effective mechanism like a carbon tax.
>I'm telling you that we already have the technology to address this.
We don't, you dumb faggot. Your assertion is not based on extant technology, but unproven speculation. The high costs of setup and issues with scalability are rational reasons to doubt your unproven speculation that it will solve all of our problems so that you can justify the idiotic position of "lol fuck the environment muh free market."
>Which ones?
The calorie rich ones like root vegetables and nuts that would actually be needed to produce sufficient food.
>But a way out exists
The way out is more respect for the constraints of the natural ecosystems we depend on, and efforts to protect them.
>This doesn't follow. If you want the cheapest option, throwing government into the mix is the exact opposite of what you do.
Perhaps not. Education is already government subsidized and will be required for one. But leave it to you to seize on the least relevant part, and ignore the other parts about resource inputs that BTFO your bullshit assertions about how it's totally already solved so nothing has to be done to address environmental issues.

>>10022930
found the jail bird

>>10023151
>mfw scrolling through this image expecting it to be ironic but it was made completely sincerely

>>10022959
>We're about two or three decades past doing anything meaningful to stop it

No, it's just more expensive now. All we have to do is drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We got the technology and every nation is doing it.

There are:

-Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections

-Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes

-Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown

-Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences

Tbqh proper data just isn't there and weather/climate is extremely difficult to predict accurately. Even if you're not a conservative you should think critically about the political aspects of what global warming/climate change entails for the government and its people.

For example, a rhetoric that global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere culminating in a period of extensive glaciation. Press reports at the time did not accurately reflect the full scope of the debate in the scientific literature.

>>10021954
>Amsterdam
>t. deluded pinko dutchfag

>>10023285
>We got the technology and every nation is doing it.
What´s this technology you speak of? As far as I am aware, only nuclear power provides near-emissionless energy, but it cannot yet be (and probably never will be) used to power cargo ships, tankers, airplanes, trucks or private vehicles due to the severe limitations of battery technology.

>>10023313
>What´s this technology you speak of?
It's surprisingly simple technology. E.g. in a city you can drive a bike instead of a car, no greenhouse gas emissions. Hydroelectricity, windfarms, solar energy. Electric high speed railway for transport between cities. And actually you can easily power trucks with electricity. Also battery technology made quite some progress recently. It made things like mobile phones possible. This was unthinkable with huge heavy batteries we had 30 years ago.

Also, nuclear is pretty much dead since the 1980's. It's just not competitive.

>>10023334
Nuclear is competitive just fine, the thing that killed it was the fossil fuel lobby spreading the rumors that it was "dangerous" and "not competitive". People were cautious after 3 mile island but it was still a thing. After Fukushima the lie factory went into full gear and killed it.
Wind and solar are part of the solution but aren't reliable enough to be the only means, and hydro pits two factions of greenies against each other. One wants sustainable power, the other wants to preserve fish and waterways for nature.

>>10023181
>Environmental externalities are not assessed or included
They are absolutely assessed with regard to many forms of pollution. Some impediments to controlling these externalities would be public ownership of property, and regulations concerning scope of litigation. But for the most part, externalities are addressed. Your issue is just that most people don't give a fuck. And your solution is to use government to force them to care about the same things you do.

> it will solve all of our problems
It will solve most of the problems in the developed world. And it will cost us. I never claimed that it would just be a perfect substitute, just that it is a solution that works, and that the technology is already being used as we speak. In effect, BTFOing your retarded fear-mongering about how we will all die.

>The calorie rich ones like root vegetables
Those are very easy to grow hydroponically. People grow potatoes, carrots, turnips, etc. like that all the time. You use a substrate like perlite or vermiculite, and irrigate with nutrient-filled water. Why the fuck are you pretending like you know something about this when it's evident you haven't done a shred of research?

>>10023181
>ignore the other parts about resource inputs
OK, let's;
>high initial cost
Yes. But your implication is that food is ungrowable outdoors because the environment is destroyed and it's the climate apocalypse. This alone makes it cost-effective, because there is literally no other alternative. As well, the advantage of hydroponics is that it is not dependent on fertile soil. You can grow bananas in Greenland if you really wanted to.
>high levels of monitoring and management
Not really. Irrigation is automated, there are no pests or temperature fluctuations to deal with, and everything just needs to be looked over to make sure it's running.
>education
Is needed for traditional farming as well. Most principles are the same, some techniques and technologies are slightly different. Not rocket science, either way.
>power
A problem of cost, not climate change. Generating power is easy peasy if you disregard emissions standards. And since the climate is going to self destruct, a few more coal plants to run the agricultural system won't make a difference.

>>10023458
even nuclear industry say nuclear can not compete and is pretty much dead
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/SY/SY20/20150513/103447/HHRG-114-SY20-Wstate-ParmentolaJ-20150513.pdf

>>10017029
>Explain this
>160 replies
I need too poop too bad to read the whole thread, but here goes:
People believe the GOP line on climate change because it serves their emotional need to believe they're wiser and more level-headed then the "dumbass libtard" majority.

>>10022341
>I don't like these fact-checking organizations because they caught me in a lie
>but the word of Lamar Smith, a notorious climate change denier who's literally gotten hundreds of thousands of dollars in legalized bribes from fossil fuel interests, is beyond reproach!
>even if the scientist whose statements he's referring to says that's not what he said!

>>10022439
>If you can afford to cut certain taxes or rates in order to fit in carbon tax, you can afford to cut those taxes outright AND not impose carbon tax.
this is absolutely fucking retarded.
"if you can afford to quit your day job to work as a professional musician, you can afford to quit and not work at all"
the point is that the extra revenue from the carbon tax allows the government to reduce the revenue from other taxes without needing to cut services, shifting tax burden away from the general public and onto polluters without increasing or decreasing it. you're just an anti-tax zealot with no idea of how economics or government actually work. stop sucking Grover Norquist's dick.

>They're not at zero. Public pressure forces companies to shill for green approaches, token as they may be.
you have no idea what an externality is.

>Vertical farming is starting to enter the market
like >>10022571 said, very resource-intensive.
>Fish farming is already a thing
aaand it already damages nearby ecosystems because of the increased nutrient density causing microbial blooms.
>Heat waves typically only kill a handful of the very sick or elderly
so it's okay then?

>Remember, the planet has been significantly warmer than this before.
and ecosystems were entirely different then. modern ecosystems are not compatible with Cretaceous conditions.
>even if it didn't happen now, it would happen later
not like this, it wouldn't. even Milankovitch-driven glacial retreat isn't this fast. warming comparable to the current rate is associated with mass extinctions in the fossil record.
>We are simply speeding up the process
that you don't understand that this is a problem shows how ignorant you are

>>10023593
>just an anti-tax zealot with no idea of how economics or government actually work
Most taxes can be cut, because the services they fund are unnecessary. You're a pro-tax parasite who wants others to pay for what you want.

>no idea what an externality is
We were talking about the costs of those externalities, numbnuts. All economic value is subjective; one person will be more or less tolerant of pollution or desertification than another, and will be willing to spend more or less money to mitigate it.

>already damages nearby ecosystems
Not really a problem since the world is ending, surely?

>so it's okay then?
Yes.

>associated with mass extinctions
Describe, generally, what will happen in the next 10-100 years if we do not stop using fossil fuels immediately.

>>10022513
>The accelerating (and importantly, relatively flat) GDP growth rate since 2016, as compared to the previous decades, speaks for itself
since when was GDP growth rate any kind of decent proxy for employment, wages, or consumer purchasing power? median wage growth is plateauing since 2016 after 7 years of growth in the wake of the recession.

>They pull those numbers out of their ass, and then assign an arbitrary dollar value to it and proclaim what a raging success it has been.
>I can't read a methodology section, therefore this report is false!
>oh wait, not the cost of compliance estimates, those are real
>but all the other figures are fake!
brainlet
>https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-07/documents/emissionsfullreport.pdf
>https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-07/documents/costfullreport.pdf

>Who showed up with no documentation demonstrating parentage, at which point she was separated, processed, and then reunited with her child
There was literally no reason to believe S.S. was NOT Ms. L's child, and she was taken away LITERALLY SCREAMING to be returned to her mother. And the authorities DIDN'T EVEN DO ANY TESTING to confirm parenthood until the ACLU sued. That's not genuine concern for any child's well-being; that's deliberate abuse of a refugee who did literally everything through the proper legal channels.
>A handful of incidents like this do not mitigate the fact that illegal immigration runs rampant
whataboutism. the presence of illegal immigration doesn't give the government license to mistreat legal refugees. (oh, and the law allows refugees, even those who entered the country illegally, to affirmatively seek asylum up to a year after entering.)
>asylum seekers by definition come with almost nothing. What benefit is there in letting them in?
this is literally the argument used to turn away ships full of Jews fleeing Nazi Germany ~80 years ago. I dunno about you, but I want my country to have some Goddamn moral authority.

>>10023302
Prjections are just that. Mostly an illustrative tool. The warming isn't going away until fossil fuel use does. Those scientists you mentioned are a strong minority of the climate science community. A strong majority of climatologists agree that the warming trend is occurring and that it's caused by human activity. There is no robust debate about these two facts in the expert community, but only in the political arena full of ignoruses and some minority of laymen. Your political motivations are just as apparent as what you accuse others of, and on top of it you misrepresent what is being presented and then conclude that misrepresentation is reason to doubt it. The solution is clear: stop using fossil fuels. How to go about that is a different question.

>>10023658
>turn away ships full of Jews fleeing Nazi Germany
And there it is.

>>10017029
This.
>>10017033
No one truly denies climate change the fact is we have the technology to change our own climate right now. Yes, we can actually remove co2 from the atmosphere.

The other fact is we're in the 6th extinction meaning we're over due for between 50%-85% of all animals on earth to die off. It happens every 50-150 million years or so. Some event happens like an asteroid hits earth it vaporizers 50% of the surface and repairs itself over millions of years.

>>10022682
>Once they get to a certain threshold, a majority of the public will push to mitigate those externalities.
he said, fighting tooth and nail against attempts to mitigate those externalities. you realize that's exactly what emissions controls do, right?
your argument is that we don't need to do anything about pollution because if it gets really bad we'll do something about pollution.

>The temperature rises a couple degrees and WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE OMG
your inability to understand something doesn't make it false.

>Commercial fertilizers are derived from minerals, not plants.
phosphate fertilizers, sure. nitrate fertilizers, not so much. can't grow plants other than legumes without nitrates.
also, do you think we've just got an infinite supply of minerals or something?
>Hydroponics you fool.
which requires even MORE resource input and is only suitable for certain types of crop. there's a reason it's only widely adopted in places where soil isn't available.

>The reason fish get fed fish meal is because fish meal is cheap
aaand because it's high in protein and fats, which fish need a lot of.
>If that supply runs down, you bet your ass a vegetable-based alternative will be marketed.
vegetables are poor in protein and fats. marine food webs are entirely different from terrestrial ones. with few exceptions, fish can't be effectively raised on vegetable matter.
>Innovation follows demand.
there's loads of demand for free energy. hasn't happened yet. there are limits to what innovation can do.

>>10023151
>this is what climate change deniers actually believe

>>10017029
There's also a consensus among gender studies professors that gender doesn't exist. Climate science isn't a science, it's just an ideological echo-chamber. We can't know jackshit about the weather, look up complex systems

>>10023155
>If you want the cheapest option, throwing government into the mix is the exact opposite of what you do.
But if you want rapid modernization or technological advancement beyond what market forces can drive, throwing government into the mix is exactly what you do. Government-driven research and industry may be less efficient, but independence from the demand for immediate profits and focus instead on the public good allows them to take more risks and explore new technologies.
look at the national highway system, at geologic surveys, at military research in everything from RF tech to aviation to genetics to materials science. sure, it's expensive, but look at all the wealth and advancement it enabled down the line.

>The developing world can starve if they cannot keep up technologically, I really don't care.
there was a time when American conservatives stood for something more than "fuck you, I got mine"

>>10023491
>They are absolutely assessed with regard to many forms of pollution.
They are not. You go on to mention mechanisms that do not in any way come close to the full cost of the damage. Damage that can be estimated by economists with full information. I don't know how many different ways to state this. You are wrong. If fossil fuel externalities were priced correctly, their use would be decreasing, not increasing.
>It will solve most of the problems in the developed world.
Hydroponics are NOT enough to make up for good conservation and stewardship practices. I'm not even against hydroponics. They have their place, but they're not a grail that can replace traditional agriculture as you want to imply.
>In effect, BTFOing your retarded fear-mongering about how we will all die.
We won't be dying from this. The worst of it won't arrive for hundreds or thousands of years. The point is the damage done is irreversible except on timescales much, much longer than the pace at which we are causing it. The problem is atrocious stewardship for short term profit maximization. Possessing knowledge of this and continuing to do the same thing anyway is evil. Also, do you have any other rhetorical tricks besides copycatting to assert the opposite, or repeating the same thing after I showed you why it was false three times before?
>People grow potatoes, carrots, turnips, etc. like that all the time.
And they don't do as well in hydroponic systems, being root vegetables, while also being significantly more expensive for that reduced yield.
>>10023494
>>10023656
>The world is ending, you didn't say that but now I am saying at and agreeing with it.
Now you're a fatalist, but you were a denialist before. You just want to win the argument and will shift like a chameleon to whatever view necessary to do so. Just fuck off already. I've said the same things to you in the last five posts because you repeatedly assert the same things when they aren't true.
>inb4 no u for the 14th time

>>10023693
>there was a time when American conservatives stood for something more than "fuck you, I got mine"
There was a time when leftists stood for something more than "fuck you, I got yours". Oh wait, no there wasn't.

>>10022306
>House.gov is propaganda. Snopes is credible.

Liberals need adult supervision.

>We're going to build a carbon tax and porky is going to pay for it.
-this thread

Note how none of these TED-talk educated citizen scientists have done the obvious thing and killed themselves to stop CO2 emissions.

>>10023491
>Your issue is just that most people don't give a fuck. And your solution is to use government to force them to care about the same things you do.
turns out a majority of Americans DO give a fuck. over half explicitly support a carbon tax. majorities of not just Americans, but REPUBLICANS SPECIFICALLY, support tighter emissions standards on industry and automobiles, mandatory controls on greenhouse gas emissions, government investment in wind and solar energy, and more aggressive enforcement of environmental regulations.
>https://news.gallup.com/poll/232007/americans-want-government-more-environment.aspx
turns out people like you are in the minority. the party shilling for the coal and petroleum industries isn't even representing its own membership's wishes.

>>10023521
the problem with nuclear is that there's been so little R&D that we're still running a lot of '70s and '80s era reactor tech. Parmentola is right on the money; we need more research to bring next generation nuclear reactors into production.

>>10023656
>Most taxes can be cut, because the services they fund are unnecessary.
t. guy who can't understand systems more complicated than a Mousetrap board
I bet you think providing free contraception to the public is a bad idea, too.

>We were talking about the costs of those externalities
which is why it's a problem that you don't understand what they are or how they work

>Not really a problem since the world is ending
when trying to avert calamity, it's best not to rely on techniques that actively make things worse.
I'm an invertebrate paleontologist; I know a thing or two about marine ecology.

>it's fine if other people die so long as it's not me
this attitude is what kills civilizations. by the time it is you, it's usually too late for you to do anything.

>Describe, generally, what will happen in the next 10-100 years if we do not stop using fossil fuels immediately.
depends on whether we burn 'em all like you propose or restrict our use of them like I propose. what scenario are you asking about?

>>10023665
>how dare you compare me to those Nazi-sympathizing America First people?
>so what if I use the exact same arguments as them?

>>10023701
>laughs in New Deal

>>10023715
>how dare you compare me to those Nazi-sympathizing America First people?
Hahaha, is that really what you think I meant?

>>10023678
not seeing any scientific evidence to contradict it bucko

>>10023716

>>10023151
These denier memes have been debunked for decades.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

>>10023302
>there are scientists
There is always going to be a small fringe group contradicting the consensus on any scientific issue, so this means nothing. What matters is their arguments, which are wrong, and their evidence, which doesn't exist.

>Tbqh proper data just isn't there
What data isn't there?

>and weather/climate is extremely difficult to predict accurately.
LOL equivocating weather and climate. Climate is easier to predict since it is largely determined by radiative flux and not by chaotic actions, which cancel themselves out when you average weather over large spaces and timeframes.

>Even if you're not a conservative you should think critically about the political aspects of what global warming/climate change entails for the government and its people.
So basically you're lying about the science because you don't like it's political implications. Well at least you're able to admit that, most deniers aren't.

>For example, a rhetoric that global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere culminating in a period of extensive glaciation. Press reports at the time did not accurately reflect the full scope of the debate in the scientific literature.
So look at the scientific literature. The only one misrepresenting the scope of the debate are the denier blogs feeding you these lies and misrepresentations.

>>10023683
>ignores the massive amount of scientific evidence supporting climatology
>confuses weather with climate
>CANT NO NUFFINZ
You seem to be confusing /sci/ with /pol/. No one believes you. Time to go back.

>>10023702
>House.gov is propaganda. Snopes is credible
Yes, snopes debunked the propaganda. Tell me one thing in its analysis that's wrong. You probably didn't even read it, you're pathetic.

>>10017512
Yeah, but imagine you were ill. There's two glasses in front of you: One with water and one with poison. You know which one contains the poison, because virtually the entire scientific community tells you which one is. Granted, they don't know how strong the poison is or whether it caused your disease in the first place. But they tell you that it isn't helping you for sure.
Would you still drink the poison?

>>10023723
deliberate vagueness isn't a substitute for having something to actually say

>>10023785
Snopes is wonderfully useful for debunking silly Internet rumors and such like. But when it comes to issues that have a political dimension, they've given up objectivity in favor of promoting their own in-house positions. It's a shame, at one point they were more useful for bigger questions... but all things pass.

>>10023802
Your overly-simplified illustration is not useful, though. You left out things like "One group stands to make a shit ton of money if you chose one glass, another group stands to advance a political agenda that they beleive is the only True Way, plus also make a shit ton of money, if you choose the other, and in fact you don;t know whether one, neither or both glasses contain any poison -- but both groups are lobbying the scientists and nobody in this while cacophonous pile of noise gives a rats ass about YOU.

Now pick a glass. And picking wrong might kill you.

>>10023817
What was not objective about the article? You didn't even read it did you? And it's pretty funny you're calling snopes politically biased while ignoring that Lamar Smith is by definition politically biased.

>>10023802
>>10023822
Why don't you take both glasses, mix them and find a ratio that works?
You could reduce the usage of fossil fuels while relying on other forms of power generation more. There's no need to pick one extreme and stick to it.

>>10023847
Which is sort of what we are doing now, yeah? More carbon-neutral energy sources come online as they develop to the point where it is economical for them to do so. Governments subsidize some of them to make them come online a bit sooner.

>>10023730
okay, let's go through that failed abortion figure by figure.

the chart listing greenhouse effect by gas is uncited and, unsurprisingly, false; water vapor accounts for only 50% of the greenhouse effect, and CO2 about 20%
>ftp://soest.hawaii.edu/coastal/Climate%20Articles/CO2%20role%20modern%20warming%202010.pdf

the figures claiming that human-produced CO2 is only a minor component of total CO2 in the atmosphere is also false.
natural sources of CO2 are large, but they're completely counterbalanced by natural sinks; NET emissions (rather than gross emissions) are overwhelmingly dominated by manmade sources.

the diminishing returns chart uses the climate sensitivity figure from Lindzen and Choi, two well-known deniers whose estimate is well out of line with similar work done by scientists who haven't gotten tens of thousands of dollars from coal companies.
>http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/lindzen-and-choi-unraveled/
using a more realistic parameter suggests a shallower curve.

the Vostok ice core data series is real, but a misleading claim is made about it.
yes, we see 100kyr cyclicity due to Milankovitch forcings. so why would we see SUDDEN, RAPID change when we're not at that part of the cycle? we're already in an interglacial; we shouldn't see rapid warming.

the sea level curve doesn't show modern sea level rise. the fact that it remained fairly steady for 8000 years means that the sudden rise we're now seeing (3 mm per year, not quite the speed seen during glacial retreat but pretty fast) should set off alarms.

the "no global warming for 18 years" graph is a hilariously cherry-picked interval. the 1998 El Nino excursion skews the trendline because it's right at the start; using pretty much ANY OTHER starting point shows a warming trend.
also, RSS needs to be drift corrected or it's out of whack with other data series.
>https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00767.1

Lappi graph already addressed >>10022003

It isn't that I don't believe in climate change. I just have a problem with how most solutions to address it are put forward. I don't agree with carbon credits or other methods of taxing pollution. This lets the mega corporations continue to pollute but puts a lot of stress and extra expense on smaller companies.

A person can believe in climate change but still disagree on how to address the problem.

>>10023730
>>10023868 (cont.)
tornado counts are a hilariously stupid metric for storm intensity. accumulated cyclone energy (a metric for tropical storm energy, which IS directly fed by warmer oceans) has shown a weak increasing trend, but for some reason isn't in the picture. hmmm...

the drought figure uses the wrong metric for crops. the Palmer Hydrological Drought Index measures precipitation as it relates to groundwater on a longer timescale, so increased precipitation in one season can counterbalance drought in another. the Palmer Drought Severity Index, however, focuses on the effects of drought on plants in the shorter term, and the PDSI shows a clear drying trend worldwide.
>https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2010JD015541

the Al Gore quote is fabricated. this isn't news or anything, it's been known to be fake for ages.

any questions?

>>10023735
>hey, there's a depression on, and since we're still on the gold standard, we can't just issue more money to stimulate the economy so folks don't starve.
>we're gonna need you to trade in your gold so we can issue more money. don't worry, you'll be compensated at the fair market rate, we just can't have gold being hoarded.
>shame we have to do this, but on the gold standard, there's no other way around it.

eighty-five years later...
>FDR WAS A LIBRUL GREMLIN WHO TOOK EVERYONE'S STUFF AWAY

listening to conservatives blame liberals for problems caused by conservative policies never gets old...

>>10023881
Carbon credits are not the same as a carbon tax. Deniers try to conflate them in order to confuse people. There is nothing wrong or unfair about a carbon tax.

>>10023670
>The other fact is we're in the 6th extinction meaning we're over due for between 50%-85% of all animals on earth to die off.

That's actually what we already did. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/21/human-race-just-001-of-all-life-but-has-destroyed-over-80-of-wild-mammals-study

>>10023881
Fuck the smaller companies. Small business exists only to stroke the ego of the owner. They are inefficient. Let the mega corps do all the manufacturing. If you want a small business do something that doesn’t pollute the world. Who the fuck is trying to manufacture small batches of cars in their backyard?

>>10022531
posts like these are how you know you've BTFOd someone

see you next time in the IQ threads, /pol/

>>10023868
>>10023890
fucking absolutely destroyed lmao

>>10023759
>skepitcalscience
half of those arguments have been debunked and the site was made by a communications major dropout

NAS believed in global cooling

>>10024007
the CIA believed in global cooling

>>10024008
an international team of scientists believed in global cooling

>>10024010
A temperature graph from NASA GISS data showing that they used to believe in Global Cooling

>>10024011
more

>>10024013
hmmmmm

>>10024017
protip C02 levels were much higher than today when life started on earth, and have been higher than today for most of lifes history on this planet.

>>10024021

>>10024024
>b-but muh polar bears are going extinct! climate change is the worst!

>>10024030
Also, the final nail in the coffin:

"It's in the article" is not an argument. If it is, then I will simply tell you how you've been disproven via this link, and call it a day. http://smallthoughts.com/climategate/
Get fucked, bugmen.

>>10023881
for a problem of this scope? just nationalize the corporations and shoot all the boards and CEOs that disagree

>>10024011
now let's look at how the graph continues on after the 1960s
>>10022169

>>10024036
>climategate
now I know you're a retard, if the denialism wasn't enough to suggest it

>>10024008
>>10024010
>>10024011
>scientific consensus changes in the face of new evidence
>LMAO WHY CAN'T THEY KEEP THEIR STORY STRAIGHT

>>10024017
>>10024021
>>10024013
>doesn't understand the difference between sudden and gradual change
It's the difference between slamming into a wall and coming to a slow stop. Life can adapt to a change over millions of years, but every single time there's been a sharp change there's also been a MASSIVE extinction. Like on this >>10024013 graph; what you fail to mention is that each one of those sharp changes fucking sucked to live through. It doesn't matter that "hurrrrrr 100 million years ago temps were higher" because LIFE HAD TIME TO ADAPT TO THOSE CONDITIONS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eocene%E2%80%93Oligocene_extinction_event

>>10024024
>>10024030
Arctic sea ice is on the decline you brainwashed turd. Notice how in the graph you posted it shows a slight decrease in volume over the period? Notice how the 2018 line is on the lower end of the 2004-2013 average? This is why I fucking hate deniers. Because the evidence is RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOUR FACE but you're so focused on "owning le libs" because of America's retarded team sports politics that you will never take an objective look at it.

>>10018186
>>10017029
i want to know as well

>>10024007
Which ones have been debunked?

>>10024007
When did the NAS say the next ice age was coming?

>>10024008
>>10024010
>>10024011
>Northern Hemisphere
Deniers are truly pathetic.

>>10024090
The scientific consensus didn't even change, he's just trying to pass off northern hemisphere data as global data.

Daily reminder that climate change deniers are Big Oil shills.

>>10017029
There are people who think the planet is flat and that there are 15 genders. Not believing in climate change isn't smart but it's not that bad when compared to the rest

>>10024261
It's worse because it actually damages society by not allowing climate change mitigation.

notice how none of these newspaper clippings are ever sourced, or include any information as to what paper published them when? this is deliberate, because deniers don't like it when people actually follow their references. they just want to post some pics and act like that proves their point, and people thinking independently gets in the way.

>>10024007
that's from this George Will OPINION PIECE from 1992:
>https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=nd8VAAAAIBAJ&sjid=4hIEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4011,361727
He makes a couple outright false claims in there, including attributing a citation to Science (a technical journal) that actually came from Science News (a popular science magazine).
>http://www.inkstain.net/fleck/2008/05/george-will-is-a-hack/
that particular quote is pulled from Science Digest, which was hardly even a popular science magazine in its later years; it published sensationalist columns about everything from UFOs to spontaneous combustion.
a couple paragraphs above that quote, he cites a Science paper as predicting "extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation", but neglects to mention that that's a trend over the next 7,000 years and that it's assuming no human influence on the climate.
>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17790893
like the blogger said, George Will is a hack, and dumbfucks like you who copypaste his words are stupid hacks.

>>10024261
>some college girl believing she's an otherkin
>worse than our entire fucking planet becoming unsuitable for civilization
This is how they get you to go against your own interests; by spooking you with irrelevant shit.

>>10024270
>>10024281
If climate change is man made then humanity is already doomed. Might as well focus on things you can change

>>10024285
>don't do ANYTHING to try to mitigate it you fucking pleb
>you'll get in the way of MY profits!!! You're basically STEALING money from me!!!
>just GIVE UP and DIE already

>>10024036
you should probably kill yourself

>>10024291
Why so angry friend ;)

>>10024296
Because greedy oligarchs destroying my kids' future is an issue which I care deeply about. I have strong beliefs and I am not afraid to stand by them, nor am I afraid to tear into the lies and propaganda which are allowing this monstrous thing to happen in front of our eyes.

I'm angry because anger is what is justified in this situation.

>>10017029
How come Merkel wants rapefugees when the statistic consensus is clear about it???

Why are all Germans both in support of this and stupid enough to want it?
Did the lybruls such a good job???

really concerns me

>>10024309
>the statistic consensus
careful not to fall for it

>>10024305
I simply said that it's less stupid to not believe in climate change than in 15 genders. Believing in 15 genders requires you to be psychotic or retarded. Denying climate change simply requires you to believe that scientists are dumb or lying for political purposes. Regardless, even without oligarchs people are going to keep polluting and won't accept living in mudhuts to save the planet

>>10024305
You gotta liquidate the bourgeoisie, man
We been telling you this for over a century now

>>10024322
No one's going to be living in mud huts though, except Africans that already do. Did people in early America or 18th century Europe live in mud huts? Stop with the hyperbole. Our technology isn't going away either. Quality of life will not decrease that much.

>>10024349
They did live very poor lives compared to how we live. People will rather live rich and destroy the planet than live poor and preserve it. They won't accept such a huge drop in quality of life. The only way would be to kill 95% of humanity but that's not realistic either without huge nuclear war or some super disease.

>>10024357
In Europe they didn't as long as there wasn't a war going on. Before the French Revolution there was already a robust economy and a large bourgoisie class, far from the feudal system, and more prosperous. Britain had already adopted a parliamentary system for some time. Those wars and revolutions largely had more to do with the increasing adoption of liberalism than anything, not squalor.

Sustenance conditions were more to be expected on the American frontier, where westward expansion lasted basically right up to 1900. Now we have technology never dreamed of then. The "collapse of prosperity" angle from the energy transition and reduced consumption is exaggerated.

>>10024390
bourgeoisie*

>>10019137
>peddling lies this hard

>>10017029
I find it funny how those multinational climate shitters have decided to continue bitching and moaning about trump, instead of thinking of a way things could be done that would serve both their and America's interests
instead of showering china with money, why not have the solar panel and other eco-tech industry in the states, this would further green development, and make Trump happy by making more jobs for americans
win win, he'd be happy to invest in it, and climate change has the US fighting it again

>>10024090
>>doesn't understand the difference between sudden and gradual change
>It's the difference between slamming into a wall and coming to a slow stop.
aren't you the one taking into account just the average temperatures in large periods of time and calling it "slow stop", then taking individual years with precise measurements and calling it "slamming into a wall"?

>>10023902
>issue more money to stimulate the economy so folks don't starve
If the concern was folks not starving, it might have been a good idea not to pay farmers to plow their crops under and let their fields lie fallow, and slaughter and burn portions of their livestock, all so that prices would rise.

Printing money doesn't stimulate the economy, it shifts wealth from all currency holders to those who first receive the new cash.

>you'll be compensated at the fair market rate
The absolute fucking delusion. Right after everyone turned in their gold, FDR revalued the gold standard to $35/oz.

>Turn your gold into the federal reserve, goys, or else we arrest you. But don't worry, the fair market value that we'll give you in the form of government paper will instantly lose half its worth when we revalue it to $35/oz in 9 months. What, you don't trust us with your shekels? Oy vey, what a conservative bigot, it's your fault our banks are all insolvent!

>>10024623
>I don't understand economics: the post

>If the concern was folks not starving, it might have been a good idea not to pay farmers to plow their crops under and let their fields lie fallow, and slaughter and burn portions of their livestock, all so that prices would rise.
the problem at that point was not shortages of crops but rather of economic collapse. we were running surpluses of those crops but farmers were still losing their land, so subsidies were necessary. read some history.

>Right after everyone turned in their gold, FDR revalued the gold standard to $35/oz
that was the import/export price only, you fuckwit. within the US it would have kept the same value.
the point was to attract foreign investors. it worked.

>government paper will instantly lose half its worth when we revalue it
that's not what happens when you change the import/export price of gold
imagine being this retarded

the whole point of this was to increase the money supply in America, which spurred investment and (in concert with FDR's program of infrastructure work and later the war effort) rescued the economy. FDR got shit done, but apparently because he put the lives of the common people before vaunted principles of not inconveniencing the wealthy, he's a communist in your book.

>>10017512
>it's just a coincidence guys!

>>10019137

>A few thousand years ago the scientific consensus was that the earth was flat

All advanced civilizations knew that Earth was round from 3000 BC

Here's what I don't get: Why even take the chance?

By running with the theory that humans are a major factor in climate change, the worst that can happen is that we'll have gained a better grip on a wider range of energy sources. By running with the theory that humans aren't impacting climate at all, the worst that can happen is the collapse of numerous ecosystems and global famine.

Regardless of beliefs, what kind of insanity would defend such a gamble? It's russian roulette on a planetary scale.

>>10019038
that's why the Inuit are ruling the world. They're the real group that's manipulating things behind the scenes.

>>10024772
The hallmark of sanity is lack of desire to rule.
However Australia and South Africa disprove his hypothesis

>>10024747
>what kind of insanity would defend such a gamble?
Humans can't into long term planning on a massive scale as social groups

>>10024672
>people were starving!
>but there was food everywhere, so we had to cut back on production
Imagine being this retarded.

>within the US it would have kept the same value.
>whole point of this was to increase the money supply
Hahahaha, pick one. Where did you learn economics, a coloring book? The absolute state of communist economic understanding, holy shit.

Anyone who believes in consensus is a fucking filthy subhuman idiot NPC. Also, solar radiation is not constant over time.

>>10024778
>The hallmark of sanity is lack of desire to rule.
I always knew trump was sane

>>10024959
So you don't believe in consensus... but you believe in non-consensus science? Or do you just reject all science?

>Also, solar radiation is not constant over time.
And who said it is?

>>10017029
How do I get as empowered as this women

>>10024946
>people were starving!
>but there was food everywhere, so we had to cut back on production
exactly, dumbfuck.
it wasn't a case of "not enough food to feed people". it was a case of "the economy's collapsed, so millions of people are out of work and can't afford to put food on the table". FDR and his advisors did what it took to get the economy rolling again.
this is all historically verifiable fact, by the way. your inability to make sense of it only shows how stupid you are.

>Hahahaha, pick one
"the domestic price of gold would stay the same" and "the supply of money increased" are not mutually exclusive, retard.
you're the one who thinks the value of a dollar would be cut in half by the import/export price of gold being increased 70%.

>The absolute state of communist economic understanding
>look ma, I'm projecting!
also, not remotely a communist. I'm a social democrat with a splash of Third Way and a strong technocratic streak.

>>10024999
>did what it took to get the economy rolling again.
You mean, did what it took to turn a moderately severe market correction into the Great Depression and make it last for a decade.

Possession of any significant sum of gold, or using it in contracts, or the redemption of banknotes for specie, was illegal. People had their gold confiscated through EO 6102 and the Gold Reserve Act. Effectively, the price dropped to zero, since you were not permitted to buy it with USD. People were forced to convert their gold into government paper. And then the government devalued the gold standard in order to print more paper to finance their Keynesian market-distorting nonsense. People were robbed by their government, and yet here you spout that they received fair market value for it. When the institution that decides the market value of the currency you're forced to convert your gold into, suddenly destroys the market value of your gold in its favor, in what universe is that a "fair" transaction?

>social democrat
Yeah, I got that part when you started spewing leftist propaganda.

>>10024976
Consensus is precisely what is corrupting science. Also, it's fake consensus, its controlled by elites who control publications and academia and media

>>10025067
>Consensus is precisely what is corrupting science.
How?

>Also, it's fake consensus, its controlled by elites who control publications and academia and media
So the massive amount of published research that supports the consensus position is fake? What evidence do you have for that?

>>10025067
You didn't answer my question, who said solar radiation is constant?

please stop feeding it

>>10017029
You nailed it. The oil lobby is paid by the most powerful private entities in the money, energy companies. That means they can do whatever they want, they're probably building spaceships to leave once earth dries up. The funniest part, petroleum companies new about global warming since like the 70s, in fact they did a lot of studies on it themselves. Humans gonna hume

>>10025151
>That whole paragraph
I'm going to bed.

>>10023057
Haven't been to /pol/ in years, thanks for asking though. Can't wait until this climate thing blows over haha get it?

>>10025169
I replied to the wrong guy but it really don't care, lets get this boy to the post limit!

>>10025153
welcome to /x/

>>10023151
radioisotope analysis shows that approximately 33% of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was put there by humans

>>10025042
>moderately severe market correction
Careful not to fall for it
>>10024946
>>people were starving!
>>but there was food everywhere, so we had to cut back on production
>Imagine being this retarded.
Available resources are not necessarily coordinated according to social need via markets so yes, exactly

1. CO2 is a very mild GHG which will have little to no effect on global temperature in the atmospheric concentration it is in a) currently, and b) could ever realistically be
2. CO2 is absolutely essential for maintaining life on earth, and the more of it there is in the atmosphere the healthier and more abundant plants will be, which of course will lead to healthier herbivores, then carnivores, then humans, by way of the food chain
3. CO2 reached what was most likely a historic low for earth of 180ppm in the 1800s (plants begin to starve at around 150ppm). Plants receive the most benefit from CO2 at a concentration of about 2000ppm. the current atmospheric concentration is about 400ppm.

All this carbon has been in the atmosphere before, and it has just settled in the earth's crust over the millennia. We're actually saving the planet by releasing it back into the atmosphere.
The earth IS getting warmer, but by such a minuscule contribution from man. And, even if CO2 did greatly contribute to the warming of the earth, that wouldn't be a bad thing. The earth has been warm before, the ice caps have totally disappeared before, and life on earth thrived. To suggest the warming of the earth as some kind of doomsday scenario is ridiculous. People living on the shoreline might have to move inland a bit, big whoop. This is going to happen whether or not humans are contributing to climate change.

>>10024460
That's the idea proposed dumbass, it's been fought by deniers who subsidize unprofitable industries like coal.

>>10025238
1. Its affect is the global warming observed since the industrial revolution, whose rate of warming is an order of magnitude faster than anything in at least the last 600,000 years and will have devastating consequences for the ecosystem and infrastructure humans rely on.

2. CO2 is not the limiting factor for growth in most cases of plant growth, so this is false. The other effects of massive emissions of CO2 can also negatively affect these factors.

3. 2000 ppm is what you would have in a greenhouse where the temperature, nutrients, water, etc are strictly controlled, not outside where the atmosphere is. Again, CO2 is not the limiting factor for plant growth in most cases and you are ignoring all other factors and the effect of CO2 emissions on them. Further, humans evolved in and have always lived in a climate in which CO2 was between 150 to 350 ppm, until now.

>All this carbon has been in the atmosphere before, and it has just settled in the earth's crust over the millennia.
Ironic, considering it was the massive reduction in CO2 over millions of years that allowed for the human species to evolve, and now we are rapidly burning that sequestered CO2 in only a few hundred. Funny how you think this supports your idiotic position.

>The earth IS getting warmer, but by such a minuscule contribution from man.
Exactly.

>And, even if CO2 did greatly contribute to the warming of the earth, that wouldn't be a bad thing. The earth has been warm before, the ice caps have totally disappeared before, and life on earth thrived.
It's not simply the warmth or the level of CO2 that's bad, it's the rapid rate of change that's bad. This does not allow life to adapt to the new climate. According to our understanding of the climate and ecosystems, this will be very bad. Simply making a bad analogy between the past and now without considering the timeframe necessary to adapt to these events does not refute our understanding.

>>10025238
>To suggest the warming of the earth as some kind of doomsday scenario is ridiculous.
To suggest that climatologists are saying this is a doomsday scenario is ridiculous. It's going to be very harmful, it's not going to kill us. Nice strawman.

>People living on the shoreline might have to move inland a bit, big whoop. This is going to happen whether or not humans are contributing to climate change.
It's not going to happen if humans are contributing to it and can stop contributing to it. So people will have to use less fossil fuels, big whoop. This is going to happen whether or not the climate changes.

>>10025238
plants also have heat tolerance ranges, pH ranges etc. even if the CO2 thing was right

>>10025214
>Available resources are not necessarily coordinated according to social need via markets

>>10025278
>To suggest that climatologists are saying this is a doomsday scenario is ridiculous. It's going to be very harmful, it's not going to kill us. Nice strawman.
Could have fooled me from the literature that's been coming out from the last couple of months. From the Hot House Earth paper to the melting permafrost reports, its taking a doomsday scenario tone more and more. The extreme fringe is becoming much less so the more research is being done.

>>10017029
The result of american ignorance. People get killed. Towns get flooded.

Americans are that stupid.

>>10025369
they're absolutely not you fucking retard, that's why there's an unsustainable number of totally dependent eaters and a vast pool of underemployed or superfluous labor. The economy has almost nothing to do with social needs, its a runaway emanation from human brain function and selection pressures acting on the first tool making, domesticating, warmonger. A combination of ape and insect is not capable of extrapolating the primordial arrangements into something sustainable and nourishing for a population of hundreds of millions or billions. What you've seen is briefest period of total disregard for all the restraints of ecological embedding, of being a tiny node in a relatively unstable system with constant disequilibrium and leakage. Your assumptions are based on incorrect interpretations of neuroscience and behavioral genetics, your model for resource distribution comes from the literal structure of mathematics and ledgers, probability and data collection, it has no relationship with how these phenomena behave over long periods of time. That its somewhat accurate in the most controlled or heavy handed efforts at organization is not a testament to its accuracy but to the bare minimum of efficacy asked for in any complex human assemblage.

>>10025042
whoa there boyo, we already know you don't understand economics. you don't need to convince us any further.

>moderately severe market correction
stock prices weren't just dropping from an overvalued peak. the market itself fell apart to the point that investors lost confidence in it and pulled their money, leading to a catastrophic dearth of funds available for lending. this propagated downstream, causing businesses to fail, workers to lose their jobs, etc. etc.
also, this had already been going on for over 3 years when Roosevelt stepped in. his election was in large part a reaction to Hoover's laissez-faire mismanagement of the crisis. but in your batshit chronology, you seem to think that this happened on FDR's watch and that it would have fixed itself if he hadn't mucked with it. how delusional are you?

>Effectively, the price [of gold] dropped to zero, since you were not permitted to buy it with USD.
but people who HAD owned gold weren't directly affected by this, since it had been converted to dollars instead. you keep changing your story.

there you have it. not content with revising the future (by insisting that their ideas will definitely work this time), conservatives have resorted to revising the past (to erase the record of their ideology's abject failure and pin the blame for their messes on the people who cleaned them up). they're even worse than the commies that way...

>>10025369
>"You can't just call everyone who disagrees with you communists"
/pol/: that's where you're wrong, bucko

>>10025537
>this happened on FDR's watch and that it would have fixed itself if he hadn't mucked with it
The stage was set long before FDR showed up, given the massive monetary expansion of the Coolidge era and then Hoover's keynesian-lite, protectionist bullshit. A major correction was inevitable. But the nonsensical and often contradictory policies that FDR did impeded recovery by distorting price signals for years.
>hurr, the economy recovered while FDR was in power, it must have been because of him!

>people who HAD owned gold weren't directly affected by this, since it had been converted to dollars instead
Against their will you dunce. They exchanged something of X value for something they thought was the same. But immediately after, the government redefined the value of the dollar so that people actually lost out, because they had switched their more valuable gold for suddenly less valuable Fed notes. And any domestic trade of gold for industrial or scientific purposes was done at the international value. Nobody thought "huh, everyone else is trading at 35/oz, I'd best keep selling mine at 20/oz!"

>ideology's abject failure
Let's blame laissez faire economics for the chaos resulting from the monetary policy of a central bank and the spendthrift practices of the presidency, that will surely stick it to those conservatives!

>>10026063
>protectionism is keynesian
To be fair, that's more correct than when you called monetary expansionism 'communist'

>>10026107
>protectionism is keynesian
He engaged in deficit spending, AND also passed protectionist policies. Hence the comma in the original post.

>>10026049
Communists are socialists who accept the logical conclusion of their premises. Doesn't take much convincing for the latter to become the former.

American schools are only good for being shot up.

>>10026063
>Hoover in office
>crash happens
>Hoover takes little action for three years
>economy remains stagnant
>FDR takes office
>takes aggressive action immediately
>within months, industrial production shoots back up, unemployment falls, GDP and money supply rebound, price index all the while remaining mostly level
yeah, FDR just made everything worse!

none so blind as them that will not see

>they had switched their more valuable gold for suddenly less valuable Fed notes
suppose you have three oranges worth 75c apiece. you sell them. then the price of oranges goes up to $1 apiece. how much money have you lost?
time to see if you can do simple math, fucko.

fucking hell I actually like a lot of things about America but I can't stand how retarded so much of the population is.
Look at all the people in this thread that think climate change is fake/hoax/scam and will literally gobble up anything trump says just because it's him.

>>10019038
>no hard data

>>10024778
>However Australia and South Africa disprove his hypothesis
the natives of both these regions are beyond retarded

>>10017507
>Guys he didn't read the Paris agreement and doesn't know that it was symbolic, voluntary, and basically pointless, but instead was made to promote a minor change in emission activities that wasn't even strict enough to make a difference.

>>10017945
>Trump probably isn't an idiot
Kek

>>10018019
>larping

>>10019137
Do you work for BP?

>>10017036
>hundreds of billions of dollars of propaganda
Nah. Probably just a billion total between all companies over all these years. That's the fucking joke. It's incredibly cheap to alter public opinion vs actually doing what the public opinion originally wants.

>>10026235
>industrial production shoots back up, unemployment falls, GDP and money supply rebound, price index all the while remaining mostly level
Hahaha, in what universe? GDP per capita went from 39% below trend in 33 to 27% in 39. Private hours worked rose only 6% over those years, up from 27% below trend. Net private investment actually decreased between 1930-40, meaning that nobody felt secure enough to front their own money when the government was making it rain. Wow, what a tremendous recovery!

>how much money have you lost?
Money? None. You've simply exchanged oranges for dollars, at the going exchange rate of the time. If you were to wait, you could have stood to gain 25 more cents per orange, but this cannot be considered a "loss" in the present.

Now, suppose you are forced to sell oranges at gunpoint for 75 cents apiece. The man "buying" your oranges is also the only one who can produce the money that you use to buy other things, and he is limited in this regard by how many oranges he possesses at any given time. As soon as he has his hands on your oranges, he pumps out almost double the amount of dollars that exist, thereby severely weakening the value of the dollars he gave you in exchange for your oranges. If you were inclined to buy back your oranges (which you can't, because he won't sell, and nobody else is allowed to either), you would be charged $1.30 apiece. You were robbed, cut and dried.

How about instead of trying to push something that ruins business and economies, you find a solution that works for the economy and for you global warming pipe dream.

>>10027277
How about instead of denying facts to prop up the impossibility of unlimited growth, you educate yourself about those facts and work towards an effective solution to the problem while creating new technology and jobs?

>>10027312
How about you realize that science isn't done in a bubble and you need to understand the greater picture of society?

Capitalism doesn't care about your feelings or your crack pot theories. Come up with results or fuck off.

>>10017071
I don't get this but I buy my gas at ARCO. Am I doing good?

>Did the Oil lobby such a good job???
Yes
>Is American public this stupid?
yes

>>10027277
I agree, deniers should explain why they want to allow global warming to ruin businesses and economies instead of instituting an optimal carbon tax that minimizes damage tot he economy.

>>10027312
>muh limits to growth
Fuck off back to the 1970's, will you?

>>10027335
That's not how capitalism works in the US bud. Try pulling that kind of commie shit and you end up on a stick.

You need to come up with tech that solves the problem. Funnily enough, that's what Elon Musk is trying to do with Tesla but the leftist shills are trying to sabotage him because of their rampant cynicism.

>>10027335
Also you realize what we'd need is a carbon tax + a subsidy for your expensive 'renewable' tech + we'd inevitably have to drastically reduce the amount of energy we use since we wouldn't be able to sustain on a pure 'renewable' society.

>>10027346
That is how it works in the US, retard. The government taxes and subsidizes. Your fantasy land doesn't exist.

>You need to come up with tech that solves the problem.
Yes, how do you think that happens? How do you think science works?

>>10027352
Nuclear energy and renewables can easily replace the vast majority of fossil fuel use if the actual cost of fossil fuel use is in the market.

>>10027380
>That is how it works in the US, retard. The government taxes and subsidizes. Your fantasy land doesn't exist.
maybe if you're a commie like Obama. You can't just arbitrarily do shit to the detriment of society because of your feelings.

>Yes, how do you think that happens? How do you think science works?
Then where's the solution?

then start a business and offer a better service to Americans. They will buy it if you can provide something better.

>if the actual cost of fossil fuel use is in the market.
It is, if anything the price is superfluously increased by opec so that's not an argument.

>>10021202
>When Rome collapsed, agriculture collapsed.
What in the absolute fuck, this is exactly backwards, the cities that emptied out. Roman imperial agriculture was a horribly inefficient mess of super-concentrated latifundia where massive overutilization of slave labor led to technological stagnation, agriculture actually improved during the Middle Ages.

>>10027389
>You can't just arbitrarily do shit to the detriment of society because of your feelings.
I agree, you can't just emit harmful pollutants to the detriment of society because of your feelings.

>Then where's the solution?
I already said, an optimal carbon tax with nuclear and renewable energy.

>then start a business and offer a better service to Americans. They will buy it if you can provide something better.
That's not how it works buddy. The government taxes and subsidizes in order to solve societal problems.

>It is, if anything the price is superfluously increased by opec so that's not an argument.
It's not, since the effects of CO2 emissions are more expensive than not emitting them in the first place.

>>10027403
>That's not how it works buddy. The government taxes and subsidizes in order to solve societal problems.
Not in a capitalist society. That's how a communist society solves something

>>10027417
So the US is not capitalist according to you. Unfortunately you still live there.

>>10027417
The fossil fuel industry receives massive government subsidies. By your logic, America is already a communist state.

>>10027421
>>10027424
Communists are trying to inject their ideology but we're not letting them. Come up with a solution or fugg off to china commies.

>>10027426
You've already failed, according to your own argument the US is communist. Love it or leave it.

>>10027429
nope, Trump 2020.

>>10027430
Is 2020 when Trump promised to stop taxing and subsidizing everything? Because I'm pretty sure he told the corn farmers different.

>>10027426
>>10027424
>>10027434

Lets imagine a scenario where your commie dreams come true

-There is a massive tax/subsidy in favor of renewable industry
-I start a business heavily reliant on energy, like bitcoin mining
-I can pay for your shit tier renewable energy service that gives me 300kWh per month
- I can make a deal with some shady dealer to get 1000kWh per month for much cheaper if I don't report it to the government.

Which will I choose?

>>10027439
>Let's imagine fossil fuels can be produced and burned secretly and economically
How old are you? You sound like a high schooler who just read Ayn Rand.

>>10027456
>Let's imagine a world where the USA is a commie state where it forces people to use services that are not economically ideal because of the feelings of libs

>>10027458
You don't have to imagine it. Look I'm sorry that you just read your first Ayn Rand book and are upset that the US is not the utopia that you want it to be, but humans aren't perfect and can't solve certain societal problems with market action alone. Get over it kid. You can have the last word, nothing you say can change reality.

>>10027462
are you voting for Bernie in 2020?

>>10027439
>I can make a deal with some shady dealer to get 1000kWh per month for much cheaper if I don't report it to the government.
carbon emissions are pretty easy to track. Your 'supplier' would get caught amazingly fast.

The fact that you're using bitcoin mining as a business shows how fucking retarded you are though.

>>10027316
You need to understand the greater picture of society. It doesn't exist when the means of agriculture are lost to erosion and degradation of the local environment. Civilizations collapse because of this. Economic growth cannot be more important than the physical factors which sustain our existence, which are rapidly being lost. Fear of reduced economic growth is a cop-out to do nothing about a severe problem.
>your crack pot theories
Yes, you've already proven you don't know what you're talking about.
>>10027338
Infinite growth is an impossibility simply because the world is finite. If you can't understand simple properties of mathematics, you probably shouldn't post on /sci/.

>>10027426
>>10027430
>>10027439
>subsidies I like are fine but subsidies I don't like are evil and basically communism
What's it like being this fucking stupid? Come up with an argument that doesn't rely on your infinite, unexplained "wisdom" or fuck off.

>>10027561
Ok, how about I move my business to Russia or China?

>>10027586
If the subsidies on fossil fuels are the only reason we use them, then why do other countries also use them?

>>10027577
>Fear of reduced economic growth is a cop-out to do nothing about a severe problem.
No, the American way is to prosper.

>>10027604
>>10027561
Also that's besides the point. In this situation, you'd be living in a totalitarian state that forces you to buy uneconomical things.

>>10027606
Destroying the necessary resources for prosperity is not prosperity. It only lasts until the house of cards collapses. Which won't be for hundreds of years, but there is no recovering from it, and our actions will be the cause and deserved blame.
>fossil fuels
What a stupid statement. Thankfully, I never suggested such a moronic thing as what you just typed.

>>10027616
>What a stupid statement. Thankfully, I never suggested such a moronic thing as what you just typed.

so what are you implying by
>subsidies I like are fine but subsidies I don't like are evil and basically communism

please enlighten me with your 195iq

>>10027620
That your complaint about renewable subsidies while glossing over fossil fuel subsidies that are larger than those for renewables is a hilarious double standard that undermines your points.

>>10027683
I don't like any subsidies. But my point is, if it's economically better to use renewable energy without any subsidies, then why don't other countries use them?

Because it's not and gimping the country by increasing the cost of efficient energy providers will hurt our competitive stance compared to other countries.

>>10027705
>efficient energy
Only if you ignore the terrible externalities of using those "efficient" sources. The damage they do cannot be undone for a very, very long time. If your goal is to ensure long-term prosperity, you are doing the opposite. If your goal is short-term prosperity with no regard for the future, you might be an asshole and a retard who is incapable of imagining something different that accomplishes the same economic goals and doesn't rape the environment to death.

>>10027715
>If your goal is short-term prosperity with no regard for the future, you might be an asshole and a retard who is incapable of imagining something different that accomplishes the same economic goals and doesn't rape the environment to death.

Welcome to capitalism. Feel free to leave

>>10017029
Because americans have a weird complex about being proud of making decisions that are antithetical to their well-being

>>10027717
I'm well aware that unfettered capitalism is incompatible with environmentalism. The situation is untenable. I choose eco-fascism.

>>10017029
>scientific consensus

>>10027208
>GDP per capita went from 39% below trend in 33 to 27% in 39
amazingly enough, when the market is overvalued and a crash occurs, even full recovery will lag behind the previous trend because the trend was based on overvaluation.

>hurr the recovery sucked because it didn't make up for lost time during the crash
listen here you retard, your slavish obsession with "below trend" metrics rather than absolute metrics shows that you're not actually interested in understanding how economics work. literally every time there's a recession or depression, growth doesn't catch up to the previous trend; the rate of growth may return to its previous level, but it's effectively impossible to make up for the lost months or years of negative growth.
this really just shows that you're not interested in historical fact and just want to attack FDR's work for political reasons, like any good hack.

>>10027905
>not interested in historical fact
That he hindered the recovery through central planning, a thing that has failed miserably every time it has been tried? OK.

>attack FDR's work for political reasons
>implying this isn't a valid reason too
Tell you what, I have an easy solution to global warming. We exterminate everyone outside of the United States. Massive first strike with the entire nuclear armament on all nuclear nations, coupled with the use of our entire bio and chemical weapon arsenal. Then conventional strikes on every power generation and oil refining facility in every country left. Followed by ground assaults to cripple government and civil infrastructure, and the destruction of agricultural regions through firebombing and defoliants. After all this, any resistance (if it can even be organized) will eventually collapse as people die from malnutrition and lack of medicine.

You wouldn't have any political qualms with my plan, would you? Wouldn't want to be a hack...

>>10027988
>if we can't genocide the rest of the world to fix the problem, we shouldn't make any incremental improvements in technology to help fix it either
yeah, that's not hyperbolic or unreasonable at all...

>>10027988
>FDR's policies couldn't have worked, because otherwise that would contradict the narrative that policies like his have never worked
>FDR liberalism amounts to soviet-style central planning
>If you believe we need any public policy solution to global warming at all so the world doesn't become uninhabitable, you should also support making the world uninhabitable to solve it, or you're not being consistent
Get your head checked, friend

>>10028191
>that's not hyperbolic
That's the point you goddamn brainlet. A hyperbolic but functional solution, that illustrates the validity of criticisms on political grounds and not merely on outcomes. The ends do not justify the means, unless you're subhuman consequentialist trash.

>>10027988
>that would contradict the narrative that policies like his have never worked
Don't need a narrative, the historical record is enough.

>FDR liberalism amounts to soviet-style central planning
The soviets practiced a more extreme form of FDR """liberalism""". He was responsible for the single largest expansion of federal government power in US history. And his price-fixing schemes and economic involvement were very much an example of central planning.

>>10017282
>woop dee fucking doo
great commentary, retard

>>10027988
Do paleoconservatives have a mass of pure evil in place of a brain?

>>10028284
See
>>10028234

>>10028234
>A hyperbolic but functional solution, that illustrates the validity of criticisms on political grounds and not merely on outcomes.
except your example was fucking retarded and extreme, in no way comparable to comparing economic policies

>>10028234
>A hyperbolic but functional solution ... The ends do not justify the means, unless you're subhuman consequentialist trash.
Except the ends in question are to literally make the planet uninhabitable, in order to stop something that will make the planet uninhabitable. That you are daft enough to think this is an example of functional solution that illustrates the validity of dogmatic ideological criticism over pragmatism shows either a complete lack of understanding of the opposing position/its motivation, or lack of good faith. Maybe both.
>Don't need a narrative, the historical record is enough.
Yes, it is. And it baldly contradicts you (cf. FDR fixing the economy during the depression)
>The soviets practiced a more extreme form of FDR """liberalism"""
Aligning everything that isn't purely noninterventionist market mechanics together as though it's all cut of the same cloth is a massive theoretical misstep. Whoops, can't do any kind of public policy at all, because that's basically the same thing as having a single party state that acts like a giant, for profit corporation
also those triple squarequotes around liberalism shiggy af, his whole thing was literally preserving bourgeois rule, servitude of labor, and the production of commodities for market exchange against insurrection
>He was responsible for the single largest expansion of federal government power in US history.
cool
>And his price-fixing schemes and economic involvement were very much an example of central planning.
Man, I hear the fortune 500 companies all centrally plan their prices, production, and coordination of labor too! The oligarchic titans of the 'free market' were communists all along! REEEEEEEEE

>>10017282
SOCIETY