/sci/ - Science & Math

>ipcc
>>>/x/

>>10055596
enjoy starvation you piece of shit

>>10055596
This is a science board. If you think science is all a conspiracy, I think you need to go back to rddit.

>an IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels
What's the point? The Paris agreement was to keep warming below 2.0°C, and there's fuck-all chance we're going to actually stay below that. A report on +2.5°C (or more) would be far more relevant.

>>10055760
The argument could be that efforts to hit 1.5, even if they ultimately fail, would make it easier to keep global warming from escalating over 2 degrees or reaching 2.5 degrees.

>>10055772
>The argument could be that efforts to hit 1.5, even if they ultimately fail, would make it easier to keep global warming from escalating over 2 degrees or reaching 2.5 degrees.
Sure, I'm not disagreeing with that.

My point is that studying the impacts of +1.5°C is significantly less important than studying the impact of larger increases, if there's no chance of us stopping at +1.5°C.

>>10055777
There is a very slim scientific possibility of stopping at 1.5c, but I get your point.

Another reason they don't model much beyond 2 degrees is they simply don't know 100% what will happen. A lot more uncertainty develops the warmer it gets, and since 2c is already extremely bad, modelling much beyond that is practically unnecessary since we'd start seeing a full shut down on the global ecosystem.

>>10055777
>My point is that studying the impacts of +1.5°C is significantly less important than studying the impact of larger increases, if there's no chance of us stopping at +1.5°C.
they DID study the impact of larger increases. it's a difference of tens of millions versus hundreds of millions just going from 1.5C to 2C

they're focusing on 1.5C for the media reports because it's the most achievable, least bad option.

>>10055731
>If you think science is all a conspiracy
How did you come to this notion from my post?

so we're fucked in 2040. shit.

Unironically get rid of democracy. Democracy cannot respond to climate change. It just can't. Look at how China is busting their ass to rein in their emissions while STILL developing, it's much more impressive than anything the United States is doing.

Authoritarian systems of government are better at marshaling forces and responding to existential threats than democracies are. The choice is between democracy and a livable climate, and I think we all know which choice to make.

>>10055981
>Authoritarian systems of government are better at marshaling forces and responding to existential threats than democracies are.
I'm not really convinced that's the case. Authoritarian governments tend to collapse pretty quickly under changing conditions, which is one of the reasons they invest so heavily in preserving the status quo. And I don't think the USA makes a particularly good example of how democratic nations are reacting to AGW - there are a significant number of countries which are both more democratic and more concerned about reducing emissions.

>>10056009
The US is the weird outlier if anything. Most 1st world democracies are treating climate change as serious, though not serious enough to try to bring nonconformists like the USA back to the table.

No one is doing enough, but the USA is the only major democracy doing essentially nothing.

>>10055981
I don't understand this meme about China being champions of the environment.
>worst smog in the world
>biggest GHG emitters in the world
>extincted the only three species of river dolphin
>people burn coal in their living rooms ffs

>>10056021
nigga, i'm in the US and people still use wood burning stoves where i live.

>>10056021
And the USA is right behind them at number two.

Fuck, can we stop spreading the fucking blame on this?

Anyway, the good news is that we now have working negative emissions technology, so that's one facet of the IPCC's reports that is actually real now and not just vaporware.

But we really do need to bust our asses. The time is growing short.

So what *exactly* is supposed to be so dangerous that is going to happen?

APOLOGISE

>>10056032
I haven't read the report yet. Does it say, essentially, "You're going to need nuclear power you morons, stop demonizing it"?

Because if it doesn't it's a massive waste of time.

>>10056030
Mass crop failure leading to mass famine, mass flooding of highly populated coast lines, mass extinction of many species. A trigger effect that will lead to even higher temperatures that endanger the ability for earth to sustain any kind of life, including but in particular humanity itself.

This won't be in just one or two places, the effect will be global.

This is the apocalypse we're talking about, and the science behind it is pretty solid.

>>10056033
It does say nuclear energy must be part of the energy mix.

>>10056033
if nuclear power hadnt been demonised during its early years we wouldnt be having such a large degree of warming

>>10056037
We currently produce enough food for a population of like 25 billion, if you factor out needless waste and super high caloric intake. Would it really be that bad?

>>10056037
How could the earth possibly become uninhabitable to life by releasing co2 if all that co2 got sequestered in the past by life?

>>10055902
>>>/x/

>>10056039
>Avoiding the most serious damage requires transforming the world economy within just a few years, said the authors, who estimate that the damage would come at a cost of $54 trillion. But while they conclude that it is technically possible to achieve the rapid changes required to avoid 2.7 degrees of warming, they concede that it may be politically unlikely.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/07/climate/ipcc-climate-report-2040.html

>>10056039
no we do not, and yes it will be worse than you can possibly imagine. >>10056040
idiot

>>10056043
>>10056039
Oops, didn't mean to quote you

>>10056021
>I don't understand this meme
Lrn2meme fgt pls

>>10056021
>I don't understand this meme about China being champions of the environment.
They're not. They are doing a pretty good job of limiting CO2 emissions though.

>>10056028
>Anyway, the good news is that we now have working negative emissions technology
Wait, what? When did that happen?

>>10056030
AFAIK, the big issue is changes in temperature and rainfall harming agriculture, particularly in poorer countries. There's a pretty long list of other impacts, though.

>>10056039
What makes you think that waste is going to disappear?

>>10056037
>mass flooding of highly populated coast lines,
Outside of a few particularly vulnerable places, that's a pretty long term fear.

> A trigger effect that will lead to even higher temperatures that endanger the ability for earth to sustain any kind of life, including but in particular humanity itself.
?????????

>>10056039
Yes, for the simple fact that once food security is lost the whole thing comes apart. One bad year of harvest right now is mitigated by good harvest elsewhere. Once there are more bad harvests than good harvests year after year, things stack up until they become insurmountable.

>>10056040

Yeah, its not like earth has ever gone through mass extinction events.

>>10056047
>Wait, what? When did that happen?
There's a Swiss company called Climeworks that captures atmospheric carbon for sequestration and sale. The tech works at the current scale, but needs investment and mass deployment before we can know if it can have a dent in emissions. There are a few other companies, but Climeworks is the only one I'm aware of that isn't part of a mining operation.

>>10056055
>Climeworks
I want to be optimistic, but I'm not.
I'm concerned about their energy source, I'm concerned about their financial viability, and I'm concerned that they seem to be focusing on only the first half of "carbon capture and storage".

>>10056048
Mass extinction and 'uninhabitable to life' are not the same thing

>>10056070
The distinction is irrelevant to the species experiencing mass extinction.

>>10056062
They do operate a sister plant in Greenland that permanently stores co2. Their problem currently is economics. It's a business without a strong market other than a vague desire to do something about climate change. They've said themselves to be really economical there needs to be a higher carbon tax.

>>10056078
ecologically climate change will send the planet back to earlier evolutionary epochs and you won’t see much eukaryotic life for millions of years. basically all life that we need to survive will vanish in 500-2000 years from this process. Within just a hundred years we’ll see catastrophic loss of biodiversity and keystone species population collapse. All of our ecological failsafes will disappear

>>10056084
And we should just sit back and let that happen?

>>10055760
2C/450ppm is a point of no return
by that point, the Ocean and the Vegetation&Land turn into carbon emitters instead of sinks
Since the volumes of co2 are a magnitude of order bigger than what fossil fuel burning are, you get stuck on a escalator that takes you to 4C(according to trump) and probably even more.

>>10056087
No, we should institute authoritarian bloodthirsty governments with carte blanche mandates to depopulate the earth, we should make it a capital offense to poach, fish illegally or dump waste, we should start putting extreme restrictions on industry, international trade and travel as well as automotive transport, im all for carbon capture too but most importantly we need to downsize by the billions. Im just explaining what is happening already, and its already too late I think so none of that would really do anything.

>>10056078
>The distinction is irrelevant to the species experiencing mass extinction.
I dont give a shit about the perspective of some undefined species, smartass.

Every time I ask simple questions about climate change I get these sanctimonious responses and it becomes clear you morons don't know what the fuck you are talking about. Could anyone point me in the direction of a reputable resource.

>>10056091
lol
you and your teenage nazi cartoon fantasies

>>10056093
https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

>>10056084
>ecologically climate change will send the planet back to earlier evolutionary epochs and you won’t see much eukaryotic life for millions of years.
Where in the fuck are you getting this from?

>>10056089
>2C/450ppm is a point of no return
"point of no return" defined how?

>Since the volumes of co2 are a magnitude of order bigger than what fossil fuel burning are, you get stuck on a escalator that takes you to 4C(according to trump) and probably even more.
That's not how positive feedback works. There's no risk of "runaway warming".

>>10056093
>Could anyone point me in the direction of a reputable resource.
Have you tried the OP?

CO2 residence time is what, 130 years? Damn

>>10056093
>Every time I ask stupid questions about climate change
>I get these sanctimonious responses
Surprise.

>>10056105
> "point of no return" defined how?
cutting your emissions isn't enough, you have to actively remove co2 from the atmosphere
https://youtu.be/Mc_4Z1oiXhY?t=17m45s

>>10056098
I'm not skeptical of climate change. Only insofar as I don't much about it beyond the basics so I have no way of reasoning about the more complicated claims

>>10056105
>where are you getting this from
when the temperature rises by 2.5 celsius where the fuck are all the heterotrophs going to get their food from anon? what will happen to marine and river ecosystems? to all the insects and birds? its fucking retarded to assume they’ll just adapt to this, everything will slowly die off over hundreds of years and we’ll be left with cockroaches, sea lice, algae and fungi

>>10056093
>I dont give a shit about the perspective of some undefined species
The species in question is humanity, moron.

>>10056116
You asked for information
There it is, click on the "advanced" sections to get loads of technical info

>>10056117
>where the fuck are all the heterotrophs going to get their food from anon?
From eating plants and other animals?

>what will happen to marine and river ecosystems?
Lots of algae and things things which eat algae.

>to all the insects and birds?
Things which can move poleward will.

>Its fucking retarded to assume they’ll just adapt to this
Why? That's what's happened in every previous mass extinction.

Ecosystems are going to change, and a lot of the highly-specialised organisms are going to die, but there are plenty of hardy generalists who can deal with warm and wet conditions. There's no reason to think that +2.5°C means no more eukaryotes.

>>10056131
this isn’t anything like the other mass extinction events, temps will rise, pollution will become unmanageable, keystone species will die off, high biodiversity biomes will disintegrate and the first creatures to go extinct will be amphibians, invertebrates, fish, birds and anything else which is going to be directly affected by the high build up of pollutants in the food chain and total loss of access to regular food. Im sorry but you’re wrong and you have no idea how bad it is that billionaire oil magnates are in charge of our plans, which incorporate the blind narcissism of your view.
>lots of algae
excellent change the ph of the world’s water systems kill off all the plankton and microbes, destroy the aquatic life and choke the rivers

/v/irgin here. Saw a news article on the the report and thought I would stop by here to see what you guys are saying. In any case, I'M HAVING A FUCKING PANIC ATTACK. HOW THE FUCK AM I MEANT TO GO ON KNOWING I WILL SEE EVERYTHING AROUND ME DIE, SLOWLY DYING MYSELF?! IM NOT READY FOR THIS, I CANT DEAL WITH IT!

>>10056188
Vote

I'm sorry but that's the only option we really have. Vote for politicians that will act on the IPCC paper. Protest those that won't and get politically engaged on the subject. Get violent even, throw a brick through an oil company's window.

Or you can kill yourself.

>>10056184
>pollution will become unmanageable
>birds and anything else which is going to be directly affected by the high build up of pollutants
What makes you think that pollution is suddenly going to get a lot worse?

>total loss of access to regular food.
I don't see how you think that's going to happen. Many birds in particular are very good at finding alternate sources of food, and "invertebrates" covers a pretty broad set of organisms.

>high biodiversity biomes will disintegrate
Sure, but they're going to be replaced by lower-diversity biomes filled with generalists and migrants. Not empty wasteland with nothing but fungus and microbes.

>Im sorry but you’re wrong
This conversation is going nowhere.
You claimed that "ecologically climate change will send the planet back to earlier evolutionary epochs and you won’t see much eukaryotic life for millions of years". Do you have a source for that?

>>10056192
Holy shit you fucking retard its a cascadin loss of integrity to these biomes no it will not be some equilibrating situation. First most sensitive birds, insects and marine life will see population reductions which is already in progress globally. Next, there will be a disruption of the food chain in river and coastal ecosystems as the supply of plankton plummets and as algae begin changing ph and choking the life out of these aquatic zones. finally, as these animals begin to migrate all of their more advanced predators will die off as they do not have the vagility to find food where these life forms will abscond to. You will in two hundred years see: no salmon, no large populations of krill, no large flocks of tropical birds or swarming pollinators, the entire floral food chain will just fuckif die because these plants cannot survive with even miniscule alterations to temperature, humidity, tree cover, soil quality and this will culminate in most herd animals dying. Where the fuck are bison, wildebeest, caribou, alpacas and buffalo supposed to graze when grasslands are on fire half the fucking year and there’s decade long droughts. Are you retarded? no absolutely not there will not be some pivot to simpler ecosystems, life will just become a disgusting cacophany of different refugee organisms, and the only life that would thrive would be algae and fungus, why? Fungi were the dominant life after the oxygen crisis besides algae and you will likely see similar conditions late into global warming.
>invertebrates covers a broad set of organisms
basically all oceanic invertebrates and river invertebrates are hyper sensitive to water ph and to oxygen levels. oxygen starvation is already a looming problem in marine ecosystems
>but what about pollution
pollution will start leaking into these ecosystems as the coasts, rivers and lakes begin to dry up and randomly flood along with the god awful storm systems that go-with a warming climate. You’re an imbecile

>>10056192
Going further, you pus filled orifice, there should be incredible problems with monocultures, with top soil destruction and with migrating human populations expanding into the last parts of the wilderness on earth and as conflict and panic increases, especially food shortages, most animals will quickly become food for our lovely beige and brown hordes. But there’s more, montane ecosystems will ofc lose their snowpack and will be buffeted by uncanny and unpredictable weather systems, say goodbye to all your coastal biomes, say goodbye to every form of microbial life that supports our soil and facilitates our nitrogen cycles, you insipid pig. For what its worth about the only animals that will weather this extremely well should be, as i said, cockroaches, and of course blight carrying pests like lice and ticks (already exploding in numbers and carrying new vicious strains of old diseases), and scavengers like seagulls, rats, racoons, dingos and coyotes. Everything will be compressed into tiny claustrophobic little metropolitan outskirts where legions of poachers and untold sums of toxins will be waiting for them. Our entire planet will have to be converted to sea walls, graineries, mechanized farm land, fisheries and mines/power plants to prevent social collapse. The pollution will be a combination of warfare, destruction of old energy systems, incredible incompetence in handling older third world dams/storage units and finally just people not fucking caring because population is set to balloon for 50-60 more years to around 10 billion, most of whom will be illiterate, hungry nogs and sand nigs with absolutely zero consideration for this Earth. Eat a bullet, my petulant and cowardly little insect friend

>>10056218
>>10056224
I'll take that as a "no" on the request for a source.

>>10056218
>>10056224
Capitalism was a mistake

>>10055577
Pic's missing something...

>>10056218
I wish people would talk about this more. This is not a matter of losing money or convenience. This is a matter of survival, and our chances of survival get lower every day we fuck around.

>>10056264
>being this stupid

>>10056269
Make a bunker or die with the rest

The report ignores permafrost and albedo feedback loops. 1.5 C is a myth. Get ready for mad max cunts I'll eat your fucking faces

>>10056318
>The report ignores permafrost and albedo feedback loops.
No it doesn't.

>>10056336
"The reduced complexity climate models employed in this assessment do not take into account permafrost or
non-CO2 Earth-system feedbacks, although the MAGICC model has a permafrost module that can be
enabled. Taking the current climate and Earth-system feedbacks understanding together, there is a possibility
that these models would underestimate the longer-term future temperature response to stringent emission
pathways"

2.2.1.2, page 17

http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_chapter2.pdf

>>10056014
>No one is doing enough, but the USA is the only major democracy doing essentially nothing.
Everyboidy else is also doing nothing, but pretending otherwise.
>germans dismantling nuclear power in favor of imported russian LNG/domestic coal power
>>10055981
>Look at how China is busting their ass to rein in their emissions while STILL developing, it's much more impressive than anything the United States is doing.
The chinks have been proven to lie through the teeth in any statistic relating to carbon emissions. They promised to scrap coal power plants in the paris agreement, but have - according to satellites images obtained by the BBC, among other reputable sources - instead increased their coal power capacity by 25%.

I suggest you take everything a filthy communist chang says with a large grain of salt.

>>10056047
>They are doing a pretty good job of limiting CO2 emissions though
Their statistics regarding emissions have long since been proven to be lies.

>>10055981
It's not democracy. The elephant in the room is that the current economic model is drunk on resources and will wither if these are throttled. Everybody knows, but we all dream of becoming quintillionaires one day.

I hope we hit +10C so we can have the perfect climate for bringing back dinosaurs.

>>10055981
Both modern democracy and capitalism are going to be discarded once climate change ruins the planet. Maybe the only good thing to come out of this mess.

>>10056402
And the climate alarmist admits his true intentions.

>>10056028
No we don't. I mean, we always did have many ways to do CO2 capture but most of them are stupidly unfeasible and they still are.

>>10056030
Well for one more frequent natural disasters. Each natural disasters causes billions of damage and displaces millions of people.

>>10056404
Capitalism is what brought this mess along with pretty much all other modern problems. Just like all economic systems before it, capitalism will have a set timespan in history. It is not going to go on forever. That is just obvious.

Also love your new shill script. Let me predict. In 10 years when we are proven right once again you will change your shill script once more and will be saying, "we are actually better this way anyway, warming is good".

basically one has to choose between parties that will accelerate climate change, or parties that want to flood your home with congolese cannibal drug dealers and islamic state fighters out of sheer malice.

not a good situation.

>>10055731
Science is a method of inquiry.
IPCC crap is cargo cult science.

>>10056030
Last time the Earth was this warm, billions of people died in agony.

Or maybe not.

>>10056037
Mass hysteria, cats and dogs sleeping together

>>10056105
>That's not how positive feedback works.
That's EXACTLY how positive feedback works. Explain how it's not - if you can.

>>10056451
Well, then you look more into it and you realise that one of those is overblown hysteria (immigration "problem" is completely overblown) and the other is imminent death.
And I know the irony of this is that there is this stupid Lubos Motl fan that is thinking the mirror opposite of what I am. But nonetheless, I am correct and he is wrong.

>>10055577

we need LESS people.
there is no way we can pollute LESS if we increase the population, expecially since the mass increase is from third world countries.

The first world countries have understood that, that's why we have sub replacement fertility but the economists go turbo autism about economical parameters.

god dammit.

>>10056465

based ghostbusters quote.

>>10055577
climate change is good for developed world, these “scientists” want to destroy our economies for the benefit of places like Africa or India

>>10056030
food supply gets hit, big time
https://youtu.be/Mc_4Z1oiXhY?t=23m10s

>>10055804
>since 2c is already extremely bad,
it’s extremely beneficial to many countries, only Third World will be negatively affected

>>10056420
>In 10 years when we are proven right once again you will change your shill script once more and will be saying, "we are actually better this way anyway, warming is
good".
>>10056493
>climate change is good for developed world, these “scientists” want to destroy our economies for the benefit of places like Africa or India

Cannot even make this shit up.

>>10056495
>all crop states in 1st world countries fucked up
>extremely beneficial

Bet your retard ass thinks that we can just move agriculture from France to Sweden.

so when do ecoterrorist cells start blowing up oil refineries, bunker fuel megaships and assassinating big polluter CEOs?

Out of all the terroristy things to do that would be somewhat reasonable at least.

>>10056504
actually crops will increase in most First World states

>>10056486
here in england, immigration looks like a more imminent threat of death. 300 years till cataclysm? try 30 before we're being chased down by mobs with machetes.

>>10056495
US crops get fucked up by 50%
Whoop Dee Fucking Doo

retard

>>10056508
more on point map

let me repeat:unless you are Third Worlder you have little to fear about climate change, in fact in many aspects it is beneficial

>>10056508
>let me show you this shill map and completely disregard the trend of crop yields failing in the CURRENT YEAR

>Crop failure and bankruptcy threaten farmers as drought grips Europe
>Abnormally hot temperatures continue to wreak devastation across northern and central parts of the continent

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jul/20/crop-failure-and-bankruptcy-threaten-farmers-as-drought-grips-europe

>>10056513
>US crops get fucked up by 50%
I specifically said only Third World countries will be affected, didn’t I?

>>10056515
don't link to the grauniad

>>10056510
That's complete bullshit.

>>10056508
egypt bad
saudi-arabia good

that map doesn't talk about crops, it talks about the money
us crops will fail, but us can buy it's way out of it

>>10056516
Shut up and go play with your friend Lubos Motl. Why do you come here to pollute these threads with your bullshit?

>>10056516
talk to the map

>>10055596
Yeah why don't we listen to the REAL studies. The ones from exxon mobil

>>10056518
what do you think will happen, then, if things continue as they are?

>>10056515
sorry sweetie fruit harvest in Poland was 60% higher this year.


https://www.ogrodinfo.pl/aktualnosci/rynki-i-prawo/gus-zbiory-owocow-z-drzew-65-proc-wyzsze-niz-ubiegloroczne

>>10056520
>waaaah I want my apocalypse fantasy not science!
climatologists in a nutshell

>>10056514

and where do you think those billions of people gonna go when the crops fail in their country?

jesus christ it's like you enjoy living in a sardine packed world where there's an endless sea of people mashed together surrounded by an hellish environment.

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/365/1554/2973#ref-62

In mid and high latitudes, the suitability and productivity of crops are projected to increase and extend northwards, especially for cereals and cool season seed crops (Maracchi et al. 2005; Tuck et al. 2006; Olesen et al. 2007). Crops prevalent in southern Europe such as maize, sunflower and soya beans could also become viable further north and at higher altitudes (Hildén et al. 2005; Audsley et al. 2006; Olesen et al. 2007). Here, yields could increase by as much as 30 per cent by the 2050s, dependent on crop (Alexandrov et al. 2002; Ewert et al. 2005; Richter & Semenov 2005; Audsley et al. 2006; Olesen et al. 2007). For the coming century, Fisher et al. (2005) simulated large gains in potential agricultural land for the regions such as the Russian Federation, owing to longer planting windows and generally more favourable growing conditions under warming, amounting to a 64 per cent increase over 245 million hectares by the 2080s. However, technological development could outweigh these effects, resulting in combined wheat yield increases of 37–101% by the 2050s (Ewert et al. 2005).

>>10056527
>and where do you think those billions of people gonna go when the crops fail in their country?
not to the country with closed borders
or are you one of these people who believe refugees have superpowers and can pass through walls plus dodge bullets

>>10056530

wew lad, you don't think that a migratory pressure of billions of people would be enough to crack stuff and cause a genocide?
it wouldn't fly, you can't obliterate that much people, it's not tenable with the current state of the world

>>10056527
Ah here come the threats
First the climatologist wanted to demand an authoritarian world government because “otherwise your country is dead whitey!”
now that he has been exposed as liar comes the threat “give me power or I will send these nasty refugees to you”

>>10056533
>it wouldn't fly, you can't obliterate that much people, it's not tenable with the current state of the world
>current state of the world

Also I like the idea that not having open borders is genocide.Haven’t heard that one before

>>10055577
>it's bad news for everyone.
scaremongers getting paid for scaring people release report that is scary

what a shocker
notice how they never mention positive aspects of global warming?

>>10056224
You are justifiable angry my friend.
Im not sure what you describe is a certain outcome. We have options.

I am unsure of whether mechanical sequestering co2 will ever be practical.
The logistics of it require a stability in our societies, both in regards to the political will to make use of them, but also in regards to the availabillity of raw materials needed to build and maintain them.

I personally believe our best chance lies in gene modified microorganisms working on an exponential scale.

I realize the limitations of our current knowledge in designing a lifeform for this endeavour and that employing this solution might open af necological pandora's box. At the moment it seems like a last resort, but i think we will at some point be forced to do enact it.

Hope for the best, prepare for the worst. The solution will never be societal change that might destabilize or eliminate the progress in researching ways to avoid a 2C+ scenario.

I believe we will never be unified enough as humans to enact an authoritarian revolution without destroying ourselves in the progress, or setting ourselves so far in the fight against climate change back that the difference between the two is measured only in time elapsed.

>>10056533
So either we take immigration up the arse in tandem with pro-climate policies, or we take immigration up the arse a little bit later?

I choose neither route, fuck off.

>>10056535

I've been expressing myself wrong, I meant the following:
the only way to close totally a border is to accept the fact that you're choosing to let people die, this causes an huge uproar when 200 people drown, imagine a situation in which hundred of millions of people would die and you get tangentially guilty.
That's why I think it wouldn't be doable, the majority of the population is blind to the consequences, think about people giving charity to subsaharian countries, they honestly believe that they're doing them a good service.

>>10056541
>Russia, Poland, Hungary
>caring about Africa dying

>>10056541
Then you'd better let us have our cake and eat it. Politics that is in favour of halting and reversing climate change MUST be explicitly divorced from the open-borders politics it has been associated with.

>>10056545
one race, human race

> global ecological collapse
> lol no ill just buy more food
Fucking idiots.

>>10056555
>> global ecological collapse
>global
sucks to be you Third Worlder

Good. Fuck people who live near the sea.

>>10056560
You truly don't understand what ecological collapse is, do you?

>climate change thread
>thread flooded with screaming /pol/tards
I'm not surprised, but I am frustrated.

>>10056589
It's just as bad as the coming ice age, lol

chicken littles.

>>10056593
>make shit up.
>accuse other people of believing it
No.

>Climate Change magic theories

This is not /sci/.

>>10056592
>why won't anyone fall for my scam anymore?

>>10056040
It took plants millions of years to take all that CO2 out of the atmosphere. The plants used it to grow themselves. We are burning all those plants and releasing that Carbon back into the atmosphere at a rate 8000 times faster than the plants used it. That's the problem.

>>10056612
Science doesn't become a scam just because you don't like the results.

>>10056616
It is if the only solution is to pay you.

We're not falling for it. Go back to watching Reddit and Morty reruns.

>>10056618
The solution is infrastructure change. If you can find a way to do it without money, you will be the savior of humanity.

>>10056623
Who should do infrastructure change?

>>10056618
>It is if the only solution is to pay you.
Climatologists get paid regardless of what people decide to do about AGW.

Also, no. The fact that you disagree with some of the proposed solutions to a problem has no bearing on whether or not the problem is real.

>>10056625
Is that a serious question or are you trying to derail this into some kind of "taxes are theft" bullshit?

>>10056629
No I'm asking which specific countries should do infrastructure revamp.

>>10056631
>No I'm asking which specific countries should do infrastructure revamp.
That's not climatology, that's politics.

>>10056637
The fate of the planet rests on it. Climatology won't exist in a world that didn't listen.

>>10055577
>It's out
Fucking kek you reddit retard

>>10056047
>vulnerable populations include athletes
Sorry but this is just laughable.

>be danish
>current gubberment promises no combustion-only cars will be sold after 2030
>by 2035 only electric cars will be sold
Hope a new government will step up and say only electric cars will be allowed on the roads by 2025,
Imagine how nice and quiet and clean the cities would be without combustion engine cars to fuck everything up.

>>10056666
Nice joke, you don't even have cars in denmark

>>10056672
80% of all car trips in denmark are less than 5 kilometers in distance, it's disgusting.

>>10056595

Who is making shit up besides the climate alarmists?

>>10056524
and germany's crops went down the shitter

>>10056692
good

Climatologists=globalists

All climatologists should be declared enemies of the state.

>>10055577
Most countries can't do anything anyways, it's up to countries like china and the US

>>10056705
US has already lowered emissions

China is bullshitting and everyone is pretending they aren't fucking liars.

>>10056709
Thank you, finally another smart person.

>>10056681
http://content.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19731203,00.html
http://content.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19791224,00.html
Those are articles about the US energy crisis. They have nothing to do with climate change. Anyone can check that with 60 seconds on Google.
Fuck off, and take your propaganda with you.

>>10056701
idiot

>>10056718
>They have nothing to do with climate change.

>cold wave hits

>>10056722
Again, they're articles about the US energy crisis during the 1970's. The have nothing to do with climatology. Stop making shit up.

Look:
>Heavy with cargo, low-riding oil tankers bucked through the windblown South Atlantic last week on their way from the Persian Gulf to Philadelphia, Baltimore, Norfolk, New York and other U.S. ports. In a week or so, they will tie up at their destinations—and the U.S. will enter a sterner, more painful new era of energy shortages. These huge ships were the last to be loaded before the Arab states blocked all petroleum shipments to the U.S. in retaliation for American support of Israel. The Arab move is expected to diminish by a...

>>10056681
>the scientists using technologies of yesteryear who were off in timeline but correct in consequences of unchecked consumption and pollution are the same scientists using new technologies of today who are much more accurate in timeline and still correct in consequences, of which that we’re already feeling the early stages right now
>preventing or trying to mitigate further destruction of delicate ecosystems that allow our societies to thrive is globalism

really makes me think

If you’re so worried about immigrants just convince the governments to go green, then use MOABs on Brazil, Middle East, China, India, and Mexico. Won’t have the problem of nuclear fallout, still kills third worlders who do the most environmental damage. New electric clean air society for the rest of us, no worries about hordes of brown people to be scared of. Win win for everyone since they’ll no longer have to live in destitution while being dead.

>>10056718

Oh snap brainlet

"“While the hypotheses described in that original story seemed right at the time,” Gwynne explained, “climate scientists now know that they were seriously incomplete. Our climate is warming — not cooling, as the original story suggested.” Put simply, he said, climate science evolved and advanced, resulting in new knowledge"

Oh crap, it was the exact opposite of what our massive brains predicted! But this time we got it right. Give up your freedoms, peasants.

Fuck off climate change globalists.

Why isn’t IPCC considered a terrorist organization? They literally are calling for destruction of western civilization.

A virus that sterilizes 60% of the population. Surely this can't be hard to make

>>10056731
>Newsweek
That isn't even the same fucking magazine!
What's wrong with you?

>>10056298
It's gonna take more than just a bunker.

>>10055577
Jesus OP, it looks like Alvin and the Chipmunks got botox and a boob job.
>>10056264
This t b q h desu.

>>10056734
It would only need to sterilize 50% if it only worked on one gender.

>>10056734
If it can sterilize 60% it will sterilize everyone, unless you make a vaccine, and guess what, when people find out there's a vaccine, all out war.

>>10056735
It's all part of the same continuum of bullshit.

>>10056747
This "continuum of bullshit" was entirely created by YOU.

>>10056733
>destruction of western civilization
it's doing it to itself, retard

>>10055577
Prove global warming wouldn't be a good thing. The only reason we had to start coming up with agriculture and shit is because it's too fucking cold out there. Rising water levels would bust up modern borders and open more waterways for open travel, rising temperatures would open the path for flora to boom and consume our excessive co2 and bring fauna up with it. One example would be cephalopods, which would boom in warmer water conditions. Scientists have already found octopi and squid to be a goldmine scientific information, and there's evidence showing our plant species are adapting to climate change.
If anything, tropical climes combined with technological innovation should result in our first global golden age.

Regardless of what happens to shithole countries, climate change is obviously a huge threat to food supplies for first-world countries. Sure, in the long run we can move our farmland to the arctic (except Australia, sucks to be you) but that takes shitloads of effort and there's no guarantee that we'll be able to do it fast enough.
What if we've only moved 20% of it by the time all our current farmland is destroyed by drought and fire?

>>10056733
good, western civilization is a cancer on the planet

>>10056788
Cite or you are completely full of shit.

>>10056791
Then if you believe in the scientific method you need to an hero yourself immediately. Help clear the world of cancer.

>>10056786
In the long run, sure. But a violent enough transition could kill us all before we get there.

right wing death camps when?

>>10056046
>fgt
Why the homophobia?

>>10056734
it's corporations who are producing these emissions you fucking retard, people contribute significantly less.

>>10056733
this is the literal opposite of what they're doing

>>10056786
mass migrations, especially from already poor nations, will massively impact population density
agriculture
vast amounts of land will become useless due to flooding or drought
forest fires and heat waves will rise in intensity and frequency
economic costs of dealing with the aforementioned and more will impede technological progress and worsen quality of life

>>10056806
rendered inefficient due to costs of creation/operation and civil backlash

>>10056797
It only takes 0.5 ha of farmland to feed one person for a year. If we assume only 1 billion people (the west) matter, we need 500 million hectares (5 million km^2) of farmland.
The area inside the arctic circle is bigger than that. So yes, it is possible to move our farmland there. If you need me to cite how I got these numbers, I'm sure I can find you a website that explains how multiplication works.

>>10056829

too simplified.

which kind of plants are you gonna grow?
in which koppen area?
how much water?
which kind of soil?

you need to provide the sources for your statement, it's up to you proving you're not pulling them from your ass.

>>10056812
>mass migrations, especially from already poor nations, will massively impact population density

you know there something like borders?

>>10056812
>rendered inefficient due to costs of creation/operation and civil backlash
Somebody's gotta do it at this point.

>>10055981
>he thinks an authoritarian government would choose to address climate change rather than enrich shareholders
I wish I were as naive and hopeful as you

>>10055760
>Paris agreement

That has nothing to do with warming or environment. It is only a business deal for other things.

So basically, going forward we have two options:

>Changing our economic system to cut out fossil fuels
>enclaves of 'chosen people' seize the few remaining resources and barricade themselves from the billions of dispossessed refugees living on scraps of barren land

At this point the latter seems more likely as more and more Western nations slide into fascism. Brazil elected an openly fascist president just yesterday, and meanwhile liberals continue to be too chickenshit to do anything about it.

>>10056905
>At this point the latter seems more likely as more and more Western nations slide into fascism. Brazil elected an openly fascist president just yesterday, and meanwhile liberals continue to be too chickenshit to do anything about it.
these same fascists are campaigning on further destroying the environment, what you're thinking of is eco-fascism which is already taking form with anti-immigrant sentiment rising across the western hemisphere.

>>10056863
You are doing your shilling job wrong, Boris. You are not supposed to quote the line. You are supposed to paraphrase it in a way that makes it seem like a genuine opinion.

>>10056911
>these same fascists are campaigning on further destroying the environment
That's what I meant. Rather than actually stopping climate change, these fascists 'solve' the issue of ecological catastrophe (for themselves only) with genocide.

>>10056921
What are you talking about?

>>10056078
>They do operate a sister plant in Greenland that permanently stores co2. Their problem currently is economics. It's a business without a strong market other than a vague desire to do something about climate change. They've said themselves to be really economical there needs to be a higher carbon tax.

Or just government mandates for carbon removal. Let's be honest, there's no way "the market" is ever going to make this work. It's going to need to be done by the force of law, cost be damned, the way we went to the Moon or got rid of CFCs in time to save the ozone layer.

Look faggots, I am otherwise conservative, but if you are going to lie about climate change, I'm going to support the trannies and feminists. Go fuck yourself, /pol/.

>>10056911
>this post
yikes

>>10056938
That's the thing. It seems like all the technology to solve this problem exists right now. What's lacking is the will to do it.

>>10055577
We only have a decade left of life. Let's make it the best damn decade in the history of the universe. Party time. Orgies in the streets. Free cake and fentanyl for everyone. Let's do this.

Best plan of action is for the EU to start shifting their political and economic alliances away from the US to Asia. It is all ugly politics but it is the only way to get past the US.

>>10056970
>best plan for ZOG is to shift their alliances away from ZOG

Made this just now as an expression of my current emotional outlook

>>10056982
Where we're going, none of us will ever be cold again.

Is it some kind of trend that the beginning of centuries must always be the worst part of the century? It seems like all we have right now it many growing problems that we have no clue how to solve.

>>10055577
SO we have ten years to save the world. Again.

>>10057112
>implying 1945 was not the worst part of the 20th century

>>10056905
please into ecological fascism
please

>>10056905
The latter requires a worldwide cooperation of nuclear powers which is impossible. They'll never just agree on how to divvy up the waning Earth's bounties especially concerning water. Expect WW3 instead

So which countries are safest to be in? Should I pack my bags and move as far North as possible?

>>10056829
Just looking at the USA, the USA exports 25% of its agricultural output and the USA doesn't even try that hard to make food. Reduced output would have a much bigger effect on countries like Egypt who import most of their food. I just don't buy that 1st World countries food supplies would be endangered by a sea level rising under 100 inches.

>>10057237
Better now before all the rich 3rd worlders buy up the whole place and price our the rest of us.

>>10056734
This is why bill Gates is a retard. Cease foreign aid to Africa. Survival of the (white) fittest, or at least people smart enough to know not to have five kids when you're starving to death and have aids.

>>10056298
You need an ark at that point. An ark filled with enough food and water to last you for the X million years it takes for the planet to bounce back. Up side is, all the retards will die right along side the rest of us.

Human mass extinction sees no race, gender or class.

>>10056495
Welp, time to buy land in Scandinavia.

>>10057247
Food production is threatened by the increase of heat and drought, not just sea level rise.

>>10057285
I wonder what will happen if land gets really scarce. Could they kick out recent immigrants with some excuse to make space for the super rich?

>>10057290
And an increase in pest populations being born earlier and in larger numbers. We've already seen a boom in pests, that's expected to increase.

>>10057292

Slaves.

>US in 2050
>breadlines because capitalism ruined the climate
just the height of irony, that would be

>>10057290
actually crop yields will increase in many countries

>>10057303
No, they won't. That's a bullshit graph that only looks at one factor (co2 levels) and not associated factors like water scarcity, increases in pests, and prolonged drought.

>>10057311
>That's a bullshit graph
>waaaa I want my apocalyptic fantasy...waaa

>>10057314
now this is galaxy brain

One one hand I do think that these reports are altered to 'win' an energy war but on the other hand why the fuck does it matter when there is only benefits from switching to renewable. The issue in the UK seems to be a complete lack of vision and forward thinking combined with a stupid population, I live in the north of Ireland which is fucking great for turbines but after learning about the bureaucracy of getting one set up and I can only hope the people who complain are the first to strave. We're fucked because we can't accept that we're animals

>>10057303
>gaim greater than 5% in the white parts of south africa
really makes u think..................

>The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel 2018
>William D. Nordhaus “for integrating climate change into long-run macroeconomic analysis”
>Paul M. Romer “for integrating technological innovations into long-run macroeconomic analysis”

>>10057343
White skin reflects sunlight better. That's why white people land is automatically protected from climate change.

The only issue with climate change is how much oxygen is being displaced so you queers are adapting to hypoxia by thinking you were always this retarded.

Turn up the heat just slowly enough that by the time you realize there is a problem, you're burned.

>>10057311
Right, because more evaporation and more liquid water is going to equal less available water.

Climate change shriekers are literally Hitler.

>>10057402
More liquid water =/= more usable water. Adding energy in the form of heat to the system amplifies the system, so bigger storm surges and more torrential rains flowing into the ocean.

>>10055981

It's less democracy being the problem and more Americans are barely sentient retarded animals that exist in a daze of constant blaring propaganda, suicidal deppression, and stress.

Just look at this website for a great example. 4chan is mostly Americans, and most 4channers could get hosed off the stret with AK-47 fire like dogshit and it would change nothing in the world. Few people would even mourn them

>>10057232
>Expect WW3 instead
Sounds good. At least it'll all be over quickly.

>>10056218
who fucking cares? honestly. Do you think you're some kind of savior, what kind of fucking tyrannical reforms will you have to implement to save this world from itself. Fuck off, Thanos. The current climate change ethos has become a political football that has ground investment and policy to a halt.

Invest (yourself) in clean technology, tell you friends about it, advocate for technology and don't buy chink and indian goods. easy.

Unless you think most people are sub IQ mouthbreathers that need to be forced to be good goys so you guesstimate about the end of the world as we know it can be averted.

Right now you have a doomsday prophecy backed up by every failed climate model. Clap fucking clap.

Technology inline with economic or bust, nigga.

>Oy vey goyim your consumerism is damaging the planet
>How to fix this you ask?
>Simple, we just tax carbon and the (((market))) will fix itself
>Hand rubbing intensifies

If you actually give a shit about the environment your top policies should be something like this

>Massive nuclear expansion
>Ban all consumer plastics
>Stop feeding the fucking third world
>Deploy naval assets to start sinking PRC fishing vessels

>>10056037
>Mass crop failure leading to mass famine, mass flooding of highly populated coast lines
>This is the apocalypse we're talking about, and the science behind it is pretty solid.
I'm 26, will this happen before I die? How is Musk's mars rocket going? Suddenly I regret laughing at it.

>>10057528
>I'm 26, will this happen before I die?
It will if we don't limit warming to 1.5c, which we could reach as early as 2030 through to 2040. So yes, its possible within your life time. Even at 1.5c bad things will happen. Hell doesn't arrive until 2c, which could be here by mid-century, maybe later if we're lucky.

The IPCC believes 1.5c is physically possible, which is good news since last week I considered it literally impossible instead of practically impossible. My advice is to get political and start hammering politicians and other voters to make climate change and the 1.5c target their primary concern.

Musk won't save you.

>>10057542
fuck.

>>10057478
Shut up nigger. People like you need to be rounded and shot.

>>10057542
any other fantasy fairy tales for the goym?

I just wanna know how are we so sure of the causal relationship between industry expansion and global warming?

Look at how the temperature rises
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201713
it doesn't steadily increase

Look at the global oil consumption
https://www.indexmundi.com/energy/
this one steadily increases

what are they measuring and how can it be so bad and also so invincible as to not convince anybody but scientists and the media?

>>10057542
>Hammer politicians so they can agree and implement carbon taxes rather than actually fix the fucking problem

god, this thread is shit.

it's not healthy to preach the same shit, "we passed the deadline years ago" and "we're fucked." piss off and moan somewhere else, you're not helping anyone.

no, i don't believe it's too late, as wacky as that may or may not sound. climate predictions as a whole can't be distinguished like black and white, rather a big grayscale. there are models that we can use to predict what we should expect in the coming few years, but that's it. when was the last time a weekly weather forecast was 100% accurate?

i've started to believe that it's not the ignorance of deniers that's endangering us; it's this cynical mindset that everyone seems to share.

fags need to stop pretending to know what's going to happen. NO ONE knows what is going to happen. it may be too late, or we may still be able to turn things around. yes, we're going to be undergoing heavy changes to the climate and experiencing disastrous weather, i expect no less, but i can tell you one thing: it will be much, much worse if we continue to do nothing.

whether you've read this far or skipped everything above this line, let's assume you're now wanting to change your habits, so

>for the love of god, VOTE climate positive/prioritizing candidates
>stop eating beef. going vegan helps, but not eating meat is a huge step by itself
>lessen consumption of everything
>buy local goods
>limit A/C usage
>sign up for clean energy
>support nuclear energy. if you get past its unlucky reputation, it's a hugely productive source of clean energy
>if you can, drive less, ride a bike, walk
>inform others
>don't lose hope

also, remember that this is not something that takes just motivation or adrenaline to fix. it requires discipline. hopefully i changed some anons' outlooks about this gloomy issue.

even if it is the end, it's better to try and do something about it than it is to do nothing.

>>10057746
>for the love of god, VOTE climate positive/prioritizing candidates

Lel like any of them actually give a fuck.

>promoting veganism

Literally slow suicide

>>10057796
i don't want to promote veganism, and i'd rather have someone in office who gave a grain of shit and made a dedicated page to caring for the environment than one who doesn't.

i'm only offering anons the best ways they can help, because a lot of them seem distressed.

>>10056040
The "status quo" of the planet and its biosphere has changed over time. In the past (think Mesozoic and late Paleozoic), highly stable long-term warm periods were maintained despite a significantly higher proportion of atmospheric oxygen to CO2 and lower solar luminosity; this was due to the surface configuration of the planet at the time. That is, Pangaea and the one-ocean system were optimal for a global temperate warmth, a system of comparatively very uniform heat distribution that allowed much greater biological productivity at high latitudes and negligible ice caps. Global net surface albedo was substantially lower, and more heat entered the system.

Our current configuration (with its divided oceans, higher-latitude land distribution, and polar vortexes), on the other hand, is much less suited for heat distribution, and features a much greater albedo. This system is more sensitive -- the atmosphere and other potentially variable subsystems have a much greater influence on it. The current natural cycles of warming and cooling that characterise the Cenozoic are a feature of this, with natural variations shifting the planet over tipping points that result in ice ages and thaw periods; for example, certain long-term cycles or rare events cause biological activity to spike/decline and put out corresponding oxygen/CO2 levels, the system is poised to freeze/thaw, and it either does so or returns to equilibrium, depending on additional factors.

Human activity is an unprecedented new disruption of this system. We are influencing and distorting the activity of the biosphere and releasing large amounts of sequestered carbon that were effectively "taken out" of the atmosphere-biosphere system a long time ago, in addition to inputting a very large amount of energy into Earth's systems from our own activities. The albedo is lowering, solar luminosity is greater than in the past, more carbon must be contained in a smaller productive/warm oceanic surface area, etc

>>10057681
It's only not convincing if you haven't done any research. These facts are all readily available online. Check Wikipedia, for a start.
1. Sun radiates energy that largely passes through the atmosphere and is absorbed by Earth
2. Earth, a lower temperature black body, radiates energy at lower wavelengths, a lot of which is absorbed by atmospheric CO2.
3. Increased CO2, which we know is anthropogenic thanks to things such as higher concentration in Northern Hemisphere, where bulk of people and industry lies, and isotopic composition being different from current free atmospheric CO2 as carbon that was sequestered for millenia is released, absorbs increased energy as it's on its way to being radiated to space, warming the Earth.

>>10057314
>i have no argument

>>10056224
oh to be young, naive, full of passion and very stupid
such a timeless combination

>>10055577
she looks cute. I would slap her titties around while she screamed the string of vowel sounds that represented my name.

cont from >>10057934

The scale of the release of sequestered carbon would likely cause the Earth to transition entirely out of the current stable system it's featured for the past several dozen million years. It's important to keep in mind that for the majority of the period over which advanced eukaryotic life has existed, the planet's topography was what kept it warm, not greenhouse gases; historically, e.g. throughout the Mesozoic, oxygen levels trended towards a maximum at the expense of atmospheric CO2 levels, with disruptions corrected very quickly due to the unprecedented global biological productivity of this era. Now we're in an equilibrium that's maintained between greenhouse gases and oxygen, with a massive sequestration in the polar regions that warm-cycles, to our knowledge, have never managed to release throughout the Cenozoic. If our current release of sequestered carbon and other gases does indeed disrupt the system's equilibrium and causes a warming maximum beyond what is currently natural, that is where the positive feedback loops associated with polar carbon release come into play, and the entire biosphere potentially breaks down as the planet warms to levels not previously experienced by higher life forms.

>>10056318
>>10056336
>>10056341
The permafrost and albedo feedback loops would intensify the carbon release and net warming, not correct against it.

>>10056401
Unfortunately dinosaurs were basically in a biological golden age. The current Earth biosphere and topography would not be able to sustain them or the equilibrium that allowed for their existence.

>>10056093
>>10056030
>>10056131

>>10056224
Kek. It must suck to realize you're going to die, and everyone you know is likely going to fail and achieve utter genetic annihilation in the near future.

Nature holds no mercy for your kind.

The /pol/lacks think that climate change is a globalist conspiracy. They do not realise that the actual consequences of climate change are catastrophic for the ecosystems that everyone relies on, and that relocation of food production will not be sufficient to preserve civilisation. Genocide and war are inevitable regardless; if the developing nations are not contained or controlled, gains elsewhere will have been for nothing. That is the mistake the left makes, thinking that everything can be handled within the confines of feel-good liberal democracy and that shitty nations with uneducated, impoverished populations will fix themselves in the current model of "assistance." What good can come of a population explosion of the primitive and uneducated in backwards nations? Idiocy. The right is even worse for declaring climate science a conspiracy, simply because 1) it harms capitalist interests and 2) the left are currently its proponents. "Fuck the left and everything I think they stand for" is idiotic when it comes to matters of science, just as idiotic as e.g. the left is for denying the accuracy of certain racial data. There's been an apparent complaint about this being scaremongering and apocalypse fetishism -- I don't understand it. If the threat is real, then how can any advocacy for an extreme reaction to the threat be scaremongering? Was the US simply the victim of scaremongering in its reaction to the USSR, or vice versa? If the threat is real, then what does it serve you to reject it simply because it's been taken as a banner for your ideological opposition?

The only solution is authoritarian control, not just in governments over their societies, but also in developed governments and their societies over undeveloped societies. Population growth in Africa, India, etc. must be reined in, their economic development managed, their societies regulated. Only when stability and equilibrium has been achieved can civilisation be allowed to return to democracy.

>>10057247
No issues with mass flooding of coastal cities displacing millions of people and their businesses with it, who now have to migrate inward in their own countries? No issues with massive loss of animals as food chains break down? No issues with ocean acidification causing a huge blow to the fishing industry and whatever cascading effects that may have? Who’s gonna make all your shit once the third worlders are dead? You think first world citizens will start working these 14 hour shifts for 2 bucks an hour?

It’s not just one blanket “well brown people will die boohoo” issue. We literally live in an interconnected web of infrastructure that keeps our society going to enjoy the luxuries of modern first world life. If you want to let a bunch of brown people die that’s fine, but fix the issue at hand first. Solve the problems we are facing then resume our typically scheduled bombings in a more eco friendly way. Bullets still work if mounted on an electric vehicle.

>>10057746
Read your whole post and mostly agree, but it’s missing a fundamental change in mindset. People still view climate change as a partisan issue. You tell people to vote for climate supporters, they see this as “vote for democrats” and vote against their own interests out of spite for the outspoken liberals who annoy them.

Said Democrats also tend to not support proliferation of nuclear power over some stupid ass red scare type shit that makes them equate nuclear power plants with nuclear warfare. The only way I see any actual change happening is when people start to go hungry in first world nations, and by then it’ll be too late to stop without some massive genocide.

I need to learn how to fucking hunt ASAP. My family has plenty of guns. Just gotta move up north and start living on a moose diet.

>>10057946
assuming your three points are true
still there's nothing about industry causing this in a way that can be shown.
There's no correlation between the increase of burning fossil fuels and the increase in temperature. One increases, the other one follows no pattern.
Why does climate change depends on models of the future while there's enough history for a clear trend to appear?

why isn't there a chart like pic related that includes water vapor?

>>10058132
found one

>>10058132
>There's no correlation between the increase of burning fossil fuels and the increase in temperature
lol where do you think anthropogenic CO2 comes from? What happens when you burn coal?

>>10058132
>still there's nothing about industry causing this in a way that can be shown.
Look up isotope balance. Carbon from human emissions is measurably different to carbon from volcanoes (C12 poor) or from ecology (C14 rich). Also, failr simple accounting would show the excess CO2 lines up with human emissions.

>There's no correlation between the increase of burning fossil fuels and the increase in temperature. One increases, the other one follows no pattern.
I'm not really sure how to reply to that beyond "that's complete bullshit". There's an incredibly strong correlation there.

>Why does climate change depends on models of the future
It doesn't. Models are interesting because they make detailed predictions of future climate states, but they're not necessary for recognising climate change.

>why isn't there a chart like pic related that includes water vapor?
Water vapour is generally considered separately to other GHGs because of its very short resident half-life. It's held in tight equilibrium, so it's regarded as a feedback rather than a forcing.

>>10056728
the brainlet avatar is fitting for you, lil b.

>>10058131
that's one thing i can't come up with solutions for. people will stand their ground on that and not even consider taking a look at the opposing party's positions.

>>10058177
why are you misrepresenting my argument. if you're right, please tell me why measured increases in temperature and burning fossil fuel are not correlated?
what do you think of this graph: >>10058136 ?
>>10058178
Suppose the C02 aligns, I'm not saying it doesn't what I'm saying is the temperature increase doesn't follow CO2 increase (assuming most of it comes from human activity derived from using fossil fuel)
> I'm not really sure how to reply to that beyond "that's complete bullshit". There's an incredibly strong correlation there.
how about showing me the strong correlation? this shows there isn't:
Look at how the temperature rises
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201713
it doesn't steadily increase
Look at the global oil consumption
https://www.indexmundi.com/energy/
this one steadily increases

>>10058279
>Look at the global oil consumption
>https://www.indexmundi.com/energy/
I don't really understand what you're trying to prove with only thirty years of oil consumption, but sure why not. I'd still say the correlation is pretty damn strong.

>>10058366
sorry but what are the parameters to your graph?
I'm showing you two graphs
one is time vs oil consumption
two is time vs global temperature
they are increasing independently of each other.

The vast majority of Millennials take climate change seriously. I'll assume Zoomers do also.

So can we make it until the Baby Boomers die off? Can we still fix the climate even as the Boomers age and die? Because they seem to be the ones holding things up.

>>10058454
Probably not, since Boomers hold all the important political positions in the USA, and vote conservative well into old age. My suggestion is talking to your parents, grandparents, and assorted elderly types and beg them not to vote for conservatives anymore, not until this is dealt with.

>>10058393
>sorry but what are the parameters to your graph?
What "parameters"?
It's your oil consumption graph scaled and lined up against GISTEMP. Feel free to actually calculate the level of correlation if you want, but eyeballing them shows they're clearly pretty close (given the small interval).

>I'm showing you two graphs
>they are increasing independently of each other.
You actually need to demonstrate that, just asserting it isn't going to convince anybody.

>pic
Oh boy, it's that garbage again. Pulling is quote like that without context from a Google-translation of what someone said is incredibly dishonest.

>>10056021
There are still river dolphins in the amazon.

>>10058454
Is making hysteric instagram posts really "taking climate change seriously"? Millennials are spoiled children and quickly change their mind about anything they realize takes effort or diminishes their comfort.

>>10056524
>sorry sweetie fruit harvest in Poland was 60% higher this year.

Yeah beause there's still plenty water in various forms of reserve to irrigate.

Once that's gone, BOOOM!

>>10057253
Anything that makes Africa less shitty helps people stay instead of deciding to flock to Europe.

Birth rates are known to go waaay down as soon as there's reliable healthcare and a moderate pension system.

>>10057352
Reminder: The prize in economics is not a real "Nobel" prize.

>>10056048
>>10056037
>>10056515
>>10056513
Just plant more potato

>>10056033
Yes lets dump all nuclear waste in Eastern EU and Africa,that will solve the energy issue.

>>10056022
there's nothing wrong with burning wood, its carbon was already part of the environment. burning fossil fuels releases carbon that was previously permanently removed from the environment

>>10059034
>there's nothing wrong with burning wood
The smoke it produces is pretty bad for the local environment.

>>10059011
>potato, the miracle plant that doesn't need water
ok bud

>>10059034
The longer you can keep it out of the atmosphere the better. That's assuming you're getting wood from trees that died naturally. If you're killing trees for fire wood, you're fucking shit up.

>>10057247
We're pissing away precious topsoil on all of that excess agriculture and shitty practices like monocropping and tilling. Unrestrained capitalism is just a shit system.

>>10059144
It's OK, the market will learn when the land is already ruined and there is nothing to do done about it.
#BestEconomicSystem
#ImpossibleToImproveUpon
#CapitalismWillStillExistEvenIn3000BecauseWeAchievedPerfection

>>10058707
>You actually need to demonstrate that, just asserting it isn't going to convince anybody.
the graphs show it. If you look at them you can see one goes up and down each year, following a trend independent of the constantly increasing oil consumption. Have you actually seen graphs that correlate? pic related is a famous one.

>>10059144
>topsoil guy at it yet again

We are not going to run out of dirt.

>>10059343

did you forget the dust bowl?

>>10056464
It's not like we're going to continue expanding the population forever. If the concern for climate change is preserving human life than we have more to change than emissions. Plus it's futile to try and keep the planet a snow globe where nothing changes and all species stay static forever

>>10059329
>up and down each year
The global warming trend is over several decades, it's not a trend between two years.

>Have you actually seen graphs that correlate? pic related is a famous one.
This shows gas going down while violent crime increases, for example 1967 to 1969, so according to you it doesn't show a correlation.

>>10059396
>The global warming trend is over several decades, it's not a trend between two years.
If you look at geological time, the possibility of a correlation is blown away. The climate of the planet has been changing dramatically independent of human industry for thousands of years. So it looks more like selecting a portion of reality that fits the expectations of the studies. Or how is AGW a real thing if you have to look at it a certain way for it to make sense?
>it doesn't show a correlation
If it were a graph demonstrating AGW you would rationalize the non-correlating part with some "science".

>>10059416
>If you look at geological time, the possibility of a correlation is blown away. The climate of the planet has been changing dramatically independent of human industry for thousands of years.
There is little evidence that the global mean surface temperature has changed so dramatically in a matter of decades outside of cataclysms. Natural variation typically takes orders of magnitude larger amounts of time.

>>10059440
>outside of cataclysms
Shit, even cataclysms happen slower than what is happening now. The KPG Mass Extinction that killed the dinosaurs happened over millions of years. People like to think the meteor came down and caused an instantaneous ice age. Most dinosaurs didn't even notice, and lived normally for generations afterward. The present-day Holocene Mass Extinction is even worse.

>>10059440
>>10059482
What about the correlation between global temperature and solar cycles? Much clearer than the correlation between CO2 and temperature (which don't clearly correlate at al).

Don't you think climate change could be attributed to the sun instead?

>>10059740
Where did you find that graph? No citations in the image and reverse search finds nothing.

>which don't clearly correlate at all
You are so full of shit.

>>10059740
nope, sunspot cycle is a shit predictor

>>10056484

positive feedback is a good thing. It's negative feedback that you have to worry about.

>>10059416
>If you look at geological time, the possibility of a correlation is blown away.
If you look at geological time, human civilization is blown away too. This is laughable. You tried to hide the correlation by zooming in and now you are trying to hide it by zooming out. But it's still there.

>The climate of the planet has been changing dramatically independent of human industry for thousands of years.
And now it's changing an order of magnitude faster than the dramatic changes in the last 600,000 years because of human industry. What is your point?

>So it looks more like selecting a portion of reality that fits the expectations of the studies.
It looks like you have no response to the fact that there is a correlation on the timescale at which climatologists say that CO2 is dominating the change in radiative forcing, and are attempting to distract with irrelevant timescales.

>If it were a graph demonstrating AGW you would rationalize the non-correlating part with some "science".
Is that supposed to be bad? You sound like you're trying to be sarcastic.

>>10059781
did you consider the possibility that Co2 follows the temperature and not the other way around?

>You are so full of shit.
explain the lack of correlation between these two measurements:
temperature - https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201713
oil consumption - https://www.indexmundi.com/energy/
this one steadily increases

and why is everyone in this thread ignoring this graph >>10058136 ?

Also guys, is this fake?
https://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/climategate-emails.pdf

>>10059859

yes.

>>10059844
>and why is everyone in this thread ignoring this graph
Because the graph literally says nothing about how additional CO2 affects global temperature....

>>10059844
>>10059873

this.

you might have that 5% of CO2 has more heat retaining efficiency than 90% of water vapour.

total percentages are meaningless, it's like comparing the amount of metals in the earth crust and noticing that gold is a minuscle amount but has a much higher value.

>>10059872
Oh ok, because the e-mails show the scientists trying change the data to get the result they want. More ideologically motivated than scientifically.

>Because the graph literally says nothing about how additional CO2 affects global temperature....
Can you show me how CO2 affects temp? I already showed you two graphs that don't correlate. One show oil consumption, the other shows temp. They don't match.

>>10059877
>you might have that 5% of CO2 has more heat retaining efficiency than 90% of water vapour.
Is this statement true or possible?

>>10059890

well that guy is a conspirationist, no doubt that there's some bad science done by morally corrupt people, sadly.

no it was an example to illustrate the mechanism, not the actual percentage.

by the way methane is even more effective than CO2 at keeping heat

>>10059859
This should clear things up
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg

>>10059844
the fact that CO2 followed temperature in the past does not mean that CO2 can never precede temperature

>>10059907
>that guy is a conspirationist
very scientific ad hominem

>>10059959
could, might, is possible... don't sound like settled science.

We agree CO2 has increased since the industrial age
We agree it is a greenhouse gas that helps trap heat, heating the earth to a degree.

What we don't agree on is:
The increase in temperature is directly caused by human created CO2.
Other causes are negligible.
Models are accurate at predicting the increase in temp and it's effects.
The positive feedback of CO2 has been proven.

>>10059955
checking it out

>>10059740
What about it? Are you suggesting influencing solar cycles is easier than limiting CO2?

CO2 is the only variable we can possibly control after a fashion.

>>10059804
You have your definitions of positive and negative the wrong way round in the context of feedback, brainlet.

>>10059804
Yeah, and when your test for cancer/STD/terminal stupidity comes back positive, that's good for you. And for us.

>>10059981
Real question is if preserving nature harms economy or just certain individuals.

>>10059981
>What we don't agree on is:
>The increase in temperature is directly caused by human created CO2.
https://skepticalscience.com/Are-humans-too-insignificant-to-affect-global-climate.htm

>Models are accurate at predicting the increase in temp and it's effects.
https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

>The positive feedback of CO2 has been proven.
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-temperature-correlation.htm

Not him, but why should he waste time on these myths when they have been debunked since they were conceived.

>>10059416
>The climate of the planet has been changing dramatically independent of human industry for thousands of years.
Sounds like bullshit pseudo science to me. Fucking leftist.

>>10059844
>did you consider the possibility that Co2 follows the temperature and not the other way around?
Did you consider the fact that it's both? CO2 causes warming via the greenhouse effect. Warming causes more CO2 to evaporate from the oceans. This is basic shit you would know if you knew anything about climatology.

>explain the lack of correlation between these two measurements:
There is no lack of correlation. Pic related.

>And why is everyone in this thread ignoring this graph >>10058136
Because it's outdated.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2004EO390005

>>10059981
>could, might, is possible... don't sound like settled science.
i never said any of those words, i was merely pointing out your logical flaw

>>10059890
>Oh ok, because the e-mails show the scientists trying change the data to get the result they want.
Where does it show that? And before answering, try googling the quote you are inevitably going to take out of context. I know you won't though, since you aren't actually trying to figure out the facts.

>>10059984
>Are you suggesting influencing solar cycles is easier than limiting CO2?
I'm saying that if you start your search knowing what you're looking for you won't care about other stuff you find in your way. Why if the correlation between global temp and solar cycles is more obvious that the CO2 ones, that need data adjustment to match expected results, it isn't taken into consideration for the AGW models?
>>10060010
almost like that site has an agenda
also: counter arguments are not debunkings
you're falling for the settled science meme that not even scientists agree is a real thing.
>>10060011
my alignment is true neutral
>>10060031
more ad hominems, surely you are on the side of truth

>>10060043
truth is an "agenda", lol

>>10060050
proving AGW is an agenda

>>10060043
>almost like that site has an agenda
>more ad hominems, surely you are on the side of truth

>>10060060
if someone came up with a rock-solid disproof of AGW they would be the rockstar of the scientific world

>>10060043
You didn't answer my question, where do the emails show scientists trying to change the data to get the results they want?

>>10060043
>almost like that site has an agenda
Almost like that site uses scientific sources, unlike you.

And yeah, you can debunk a myth if that myth has no evidence supporting it and you have evidence proving that it's not the case.

>>10060043
>Why if the correlation between global temp and solar cycles is more obvious that the CO2 ones
Sunspots and temperature haven't correlated since the 80s. Try again.

>>10060043
>Why if the correlation between global temp and solar cycles is more obvious that the CO2 ones
Sunspots and temperature haven't correlated since the 80s. Try again!

>>10060043
>almost like that site has an agenda
found the agenda-bendah

>>10060063
I've been reading that site, it's like going to the vatican site to find out if religion is fine.
>>10060064
like the guy who proved that there's no discrimination against women in STEM?
>>10060066
I've been posting graphs from neutral sites that measure things independently that show no correlation. You've been posting graphs created by people looking for something specific that prove that the thing they got their funding to find exists. How can something like that not be biased? How can you say an agenda doesn't exist?
>>10060065
still going through the emails I don't want to get it from fanatical wikieditors
https://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/climategate-emails.pdf

>>10059859
the "trick" they referred to is "removing known bad data points". the data series they were modifying was a reconstruction data set based on tree rings. scientists found out that within certain parameter rangers, tree rings are a good proxy for temperature, but there are limits beyond which they're terrible proxies. the data series they edited contained data points they knew were unreliable, so they removed those data points and replaced them with more reliable ones

it's literally what ANY scientist would do.

>>10060086
>like the guy who proved that there's no discrimination against women in STEM?
i said "rock-solid"

>>10060086
>I've been reading that site, it's like going to the vatican site to find out if religion is fine.
I believe he was pointing out the irony of you attacking a source's agenda and then complaining about ad hominems in the same post.

>still going through the emails I don't want to get it from fanatical wikieditors
But you do want to get it from fanatical conspiracy theorists with no knowledge of climatology...

Do you have any self awareness?

>>10060107
I'm getting it from the emails themselves and they look damning enough from an ethical pov. have your read the emails?
>>10060107
how is that ironic? I say that site has the stated goal of proving wrong climate skeptics, how's that calling them stupid or whatever?

you guys don't wanna argue, you just wanna feel like you're right.

let's suppose you guys are right (which I don't deny, I just doubt)

what would be a good way to stop the evil CO without ruining the world's economy and people's way of life less than the temperature increase would?

How does your no emission world works?

>>10060127
any climate solution is necessarily a multi-faceted one. a good first step is replacing coal power with natural gas, that's how the USA met most of its reductions targets over the last twenty years. transitioning from natural gas to solar, geothermal, tidal, and nuclear power is the endgame.

>>10060122
>>I'm getting it from the emails themselves and they look damning enough from an ethical pov. have your read the emails?
There's nothing there except idiots taking quotes out of context and misrepresenting them. Give me any example you want.

>how is that ironic? I say that site has the stated goal of proving wrong climate skeptics, how's that calling them stupid or whatever?
So you don't even know what an ad hominem is?

>you guys don't wanna argue, you just wanna feel like you're right.
You're the one that doesn't want to argue. Where are the responses to my posts?

>>10060076
>>10060023
>>10059837

>>10060133
can we do it in 10 years?
before this newly predicted apocalypse?

>>10060127
https://www.globalpolicy.org/social-and-economic-policy/global-taxes-1-79/energy-taxes/45870-setting-the-optimal-carbon-tax-level.html

>>10059859
>>10060086
>>10060122
The e-mails show scientists performing what is known as systematic error bias correction. There are two kinds of errors in empirical measurements: systematic and random. Systematic errors are due to things such as a ruler being marked 10 cm when it is actually, physically say, 9.91 cm from the zero end of the ruler to the 10 cm mark. In other words, these are errors due to biases of the measurement instruments themselves, which can be determined if the instrument is examined and its results compared to a more precise method of measuring the same thing. Random errors on the other hand are exactly what the name suggests; errors that are intrinsic to measurement, but which have no systematic cause and follow some probability distribution.

Systematic errors can be corrected if the reasons for the biases are understood. This is what those scientists were doing: correcting systematic errors from knowledge of the instruments used to obtain the raw temperature values, and the biases of those measurements. This is empirically valid if done with a sound methodology. There is no scandal, only the appearance of one to the uninformed, or to willfully deceitful denialists that can't stop bringing this lie up.

>>10060137
technically possible, yes. realistically? fuck no. we still have fucking inhofe in the senate. the social and economic reorganization necessary to deal with climate change in an effective way is untenable in the current climate. we're fucked.

>>10060135
>There's nothing there except idiots taking quotes out of context and misrepresenting them. Give me any example you want.
rom: Joseph Alcamo <alcamo@usf.uni-kassel.de>
To: m.hulme@uea.ac.uk, Rob.Swart@rivm.nl
Subject: Timing, Distribution of the Statement
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 18:52:33 0100
Reply-to: alcamo@usf.uni-kassel.de

Mike, Rob,

Sounds like you guys have been busy doing good things for the cause.

I would like to weigh in on two important questions --

Distribution for Endorsements --
I am very strongly in favor of as wide and rapid a distribution as
possible for endorsements. I think the only thing that counts is
numbers. The media is going to say "1000 scientists signed" or "1500
signed". No one is going to check if it is 600 with PhDs versus 2000
without. They will mention the prominent ones, but that is a
different story.

Conclusion -- Forget the screening, forget asking
them about their last publication (most will ignore you.) Get those
names!

>You're the one that doesn't want to argue. Where are the responses to my posts?
this graph contradicts your claim. we probably can find contradicting graphs for each graph we post.

>>10060149
you already posted that graph and it's already been shown to be garbage >>10059793

>>10060152
by an equally valid graph

Mike,
Thanks.
I am always worried about this sort of things. Even if you have 1000
signitures, and appear to have a strong backup, how many of those asked did
not sign?
Also, I happen to be of the opinion that the US proposal for Kyoto is too
ambitious. But of course I am thinking of real policies, not of
negotiation-rhetoric.
Finally, I think that the text conveys the message that it is a scientific
defense for the EU position. There is not any. Even DG11 finds a hard to
defend (at least, in the draft version of their attempt -- I don't think the
final version has appeared yet). Whatever you think about long-term goals,
2010 is pretty soon. At the moment, no country has any experience with
serious emission reduction POLICY. Minus 15% is serious, particularly because
of the effort that will be spend on the monetary union and because the UK and
Germany are too optimistic on their baseline emissions. Rash action instead
careful thinking may well run serious, international climate policy deep into
the ground.

these guys are they scientists or activists, can you tell?

>>10060152
Dear Eleven,

I was very disturbed by your recent letter, and your attempt to get
others to endorse it. Not only do I disagree with the content of
this letter, but I also believe that you have severely distorted the
IPCC "view" when you say that "the latest IPCC assessment makes a
convincing economic case for immediate control of emissions." In contrast
to the one-sided opinion expressed in your letter, IPCC WGIII SAR and TP3
review the literature and the issues in a balanced way presenting
arguments in support of both "immediate control" and the spectrum of more
cost-effective options. It is not IPCC's role to make "convincing cases"
for any particular policy option; nor does it. However, most IPCC readers
would draw the conclusion that the balance of economic evidence favors the
emissions trajectories given in the WRE paper. This is contrary to your
statement.

This is a complex issue, and your misrepresentation of it does you a
dis-service. To someone like me, who knows the science, it is
apparent that you are presenting a personal view, not an informed,
balanced scientific assessment. What is unfortunate is that this will not
be apparent to the vast majority of scientists you have contacted. In
issues like this, scientists have an added responsibility to keep their
personal views separate from the science, and to make it clear to others
when they diverge from the objectivity they (hopefully) adhere to in their
scientific research. I think you have failed to do this.

>>10060155
by a graph that wasn't complete garbage. the graph the other anon posted doesn't use distorted endpoint data

>>10060155
Are you stupid? This guy is saying the science that informs policy should be robust and not deceitful in order to hopefully be effective? It's easy to dream up conspiracies when you can't fucking read.

http://www.assassinationscience.com/climategate/1/FOIA/mail/0880476729.txt
http://www.assassinationscience.com/climategate/1/FOIA/mail/0932158667.txt
http://www.assassinationscience.com/climategate/1/FOIA/mail/0938018124.txt

>>10060163
he's writing to your climate scientists complaining about their methods, learn to read yourself you fucking idiot.

>>10060163
what about this one you fanatical cunt

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>
To: ray bradley <rbradley@geo.umass.edu>,mann@virginia.edu, mhughes@ltrr.arizona.edu
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk,t.osborn@uea.ac.uk


Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim's got a diagram here we'll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. Mike's series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.

Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK

>>10060175
>that e-mail is on my side if I say it is
some conspiracy then, the conspiracy of being a faggot retard that is woefully ignorant of what he is attempting to criticize

>>10060176
see >>10060143

>>10060149
>rom: Joseph Alcamo <alcamo@usf.uni-kassel.de>
>...
So what?

>this graph contradicts your claim.
That graph was already shown to be outdated in the posts you conveniently ignored. See >>10060023 and >>10060076

>>10060175
Which methods? You're just being vague without saying anything. There is nothing in these emails you posted but some guys talking about endorsing a political statement and some other guys disagreeing with them. Nothing to do with the the science.

>>10060176
Yes what about it? It's funny that you don't even try to describe what's going on in these emails.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_documents#Climate_reconstruction_graph

>>10060228

It says trick right there in the email. This literally confirms that the Jews are using "global warming" to trick whites and pit the races against each other. What more explanation do you need.

>>10060086
>I've been posting graphs from neutral sites that measure things independently that show no correlation. You've been posting graphs created by people looking for something specific that prove that the thing they got their funding to find exists. How can something like that not be biased? How can you say an agenda doesn't exist?

How do you know they are neutral? And how do you know the mainstream science is not?
And if you think graphs prove something, then you are lost and should come back when you figure out how science is actually done.

>>10060011
Yeah cause leftists receive all those contributions from coal and are heavily invested in oil companies. Fuck them.

>>10056510
>being this scared of brown people

>>10056510
if you're afraid of being killed by a mob maybe you should take a good hard look at yourself and consider what you've done to make them want to kill you