/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10060268
>My body weight has changed drastically since I was born, and change isn't necessarily a bad thing, in 50 years no matter what I do, my weight will have changed from what it is today.
>therefore morbid obesity isn't a problem
Why are you so stupid?

>>10060268
>The climate has changed drastically since the earths existence
Take your bullshit pseudoscience back to /leddit/ you leftist faggot.

>>10060289
The difference is morbid obesity is a net negative.
It's a direct up or down from being at a weight best suited to maintain homeostasis for as long as possible.

The climate changing isn't necessarily a good or bad thing.

>>10060295
Climate : the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period.

At one point sections of the earth where in an ice age, those same sections have a drastically different climate then they did back then.

I feel justify in climbing the earths climate has changed drastically before, and I also feel confident in saying that change wasn't necessarily a negative.

>>10060308
claiming* the earth has

>>10060268
>climate change
>global warming
>global cooling

plus all the other bullshit names they've given the exact same phenomenon. It's a natural process. What you should be asking is, does the burning of fossil fuels effect the natural climate change because it's not about "The climate isn't changing" because it is, it's about are we causing it, and is there any actual proof or do hysterical politicians just want to con us into redistributing our wealth so they can profiteer from the ultra shady act of carbon credit trade/offsets.

>>10060300
Consider that humans and the ecosystem we rely on evolved for and have always lived in a climate which has not diverged too much from the one we were in before the industrial revolution. That is a homeostasis. Now consider that human emissions are causing warming more rapid than anything seen in human history, much too fast for the ecosystem to adapt and form a new homeostasis. It's a very apt analogy, and yes it will be a net negative according to every scientific analysis.

>>10060324
>global warming and global cooling are the same thing
Retard.

>It's a natural process even though it's been proven to be caused by human GHG emissions by direct obervation via radiative spectroscopy
Retard.

>>10060300
>humanity thrives only at a specific range of temperatures
>The climate changing isn't necessarily a good or bad thing.
hurr

>>10060333
>radiative spectroscopy
top lel anon

>>10060308
>At one point sections of the earth where in an ice age, those same sections have a drastically different climate then they did back then.

Are you some sort of fucking (((climate scientist))) or something? I told you to take your leftist faggot bullshit back to your leftist faggot leftist site where you came from.

>>10060324
I think every little thing on this earth plays some role in climate change period.
The climate changes thanks to a million different variables, as it always has.

I don't see why people think we can stop the change, or why they think that change is necessarily a bad thing. The "negative effects" of climate change i see mentioned are just natural disasters like droughts, and flooding and hurricanes which have always happened.

When that last hurricane was on it's way to america is saw a tweet with thousands of likes saying.
"See they didn't believe in climate change and now there's a hurricane!"

>>10060335
>top lel anon
This is what the /pol/tard says when he encounters big words he does not understand.

>>10060324
>It's a natural process.
Just another fucking (((pseudo-science))) faggot thinking they know fuck all about anything. (((You))) don't know shit.

>>10060341
>The climate changes thanks to a million different variables, as it always has.
Seriously, we've had enough with your bullshit leftist pseudo science. No one is buying it. Fuck off.

>>10060341
>I think every little thing on this earth plays some role in climate change period.
Ah that must mean they all equally play a role right? Therefore nothing dominates the climate at any one time. I'm so glad you figured it all out by sitting in your room and now we can just ignore every single piece of scientific evidence that shows CO2 is currently the dominant radiative forcing.

Seriously though, kill yourself.

>>10060268
>>10060295
>>10060324
>>10060340
>>10060341
>blah blah blah I'm going to keep burning tons of fossil fuels every year and buying stupid bullshit because I like it and I'll just reject robust science using idiotic, illogical arguments if that's what it takes

>>10060300

Not him but when you get right down to the point society has depended on the current "patterns" for global/regional climate in terms of socioeconomic development over the last several thousand years.

The moment those patterns go away is the moment cost starts to skyrocket because the world economy can no longer depend on consistency anymore. Every market will be forced to readjust itself and there's no book or formula that can state how long that will take. Especially if certain crops and/or animals start to get dramatically effected by this. The obvious two are bananas and honey bees who are already in dangerous spots.

>>10060326
I understand that, human involvement has drastically affected the climate, and is causing it to change at rates never recorded before.
But we've only been accurately recording weather for about 50 years.
And all the negatives of climate change i've seen are just natural disasters that have always occurred. And i don't think natural disasters are purely a bad thing.

>>10060342
>greenhouse
top tier science from this redditor.

>>10060334
I bet the sun will explode and kill us all long before temperatures go out of our comfortable range.

>>10060358
>But we've only been accurately recording weather for about 50 years.
Over 100 years, try again. And we don't need to have recorded it to infer it from proxies.

>And all the negatives of climate change i've seen are just natural disasters that have always occurred. And i don't think natural disasters are purely a bad thing.
Considering you've had zero grasp of the basic facts you're trying to talk about, I don't really care what you've seen. Try reading what scientists are actually saying instead of just making shit up as you go.

>>10060351
No one is rejecting science, the climate is changing as it always has, our involvement is causing it to change faster then regular,but change isn't necessarily a bad thing.

>>10060363
>top tier science from this redditor.
This indicates the /pol/tard's frustration at not being able to understand freshman physics.

>>10060348
Climate change is real and you're retarded.

>>10060369
You and others have literally rejected basic scientific facts in this thread, my guy.

>>10060369
>the climate is changing as it always has
The climate has never changed, you fucking retarded faggot. That's leftist bullshit (((pseudoscience))). You voted for the envirohippy green party, didn't you. pathetic.

>>10060376
please kys idiot

>>10060379
i know you are but what am i?
(not a leftist faggot envirohippy douche like you)

>>10060354
This is a nice point, but even if we all stopped using green house gases the climate will still change regardless.

I common claim is that it's changing too fast, but even still we've been able to adapt just fine, i don't think the affects of climate change are all that pressing or immediate, even with all we do to change it.

The Truth About Climate Change
http://www.vixra.org/abs/1309.0069

pic related is one of the most telling climate change charts. Some guy had downloaded GISS record in 1999, and then he DLed the "same" record later and it had this perfect curve inserted into it.

>>10060383
>envirohippy pseudo science lies
>bullshit meaningless opinions

just stop

>>10060381
you're the same boomer writing a dozen samefag replies per second and failing to properly larp as a /pol/lack because all you know is cynical reddit responses.

>>10060369
>the climate is changing as it always has
How do you folks even consider this to be an insightful statement? No-one would be impressed if an arsonist defended themself with "fires occour as they always have", yet in the mind of AGW deniers it's a compelling argument.

>>10060388
you've already proven you're a fucking moron to everyone on this board, so I don't know why you think anyone would listen to you when it comes to AGW

>>10060383
>I just ignore the effects, and poof, they're gone!

>>10060390
you got me.
In reality I think you're all retarded fucking hicks who literally can't bring yourselves to believe that there might be negative consequences from you and billions of other retarded fucking hicks all million year old fossils because BRAP is so much fun.

>>10060374
I'm not though. The climate is changing. The climate has always changed, and the climate will continue to change.

Change isn't necessarily a bad thing, and change isn't immediate, the negatives of climate change don't pose such an immediate threat as many would like to believe.

I live and florida, and it was non-stop "we'll be under water in x amount of years, and sea levels will be this by by 2020" when i was in school, now that shit is right around the corner, i'm in the keys an absolutely nothing.

>>10060390
I'm also making a point about the utter retardedness and hypocrisy of people who justify ignoring current SCIENCE based on the SCIENTIFIC claim that "the climate will change as it has for millions of years".

Now, piss the fuck off already.

>>10060268
That's because you're a product of tribalism. Tribalistic climate change denial that is not based in facts or evidence, but based on politics and conspiracy.

>>10060395
Because forrest fires do start and they do burn, and they will continue to do so as they alway have.
A change in the climate over a long period of time is not comparable to me pouring lighter fluid in an apartment building and directly setting it ablaze, such a thing wouldn't happen otherwise.
Opposed o the every changing climate.

>>10060374
I really think these people are literally too stupid to understand this stuff. It's like trying to teach a monkey to do arithmetic - completely and utterly futile.

>>10060404
>failed predictions by some random asshole mean measurements showing warming aren't real
same fucking tired, dumb arguments, yet again for the millionth time

>>10060404
People have always died and people will continue to die, so killing is not necessarily bad. In fact, I can't even see any negative consequences to it, only good ones!

This is literally your argument, you delusional faggot.

>The climate has always changed, and the climate will continue to change.
Non sequitur. The current change is unprecedented in human history.

>Change isn't necessarily a bad thing
This change is.

>and change isn't immediate
This change is very rapid and we aren't doing much to mitigate or adapt to it.

>The negatives of climate change don't pose such an immediate threat as many would like to believe.
They pose the threat scientists have determined them to be, which is a lot.

Everything you say is either irrelevant misdirection or a lie.

>>10060396
I don't understand why the number of people who want to call me an asshole is high but the number of people who want to tell me that I did a good job is not just low, it is zero.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-your-company-can-benefit-from-tenth-man-rule-rudolf-melik

>>10060402
I'm not ignoring the effects, i'm saying the effects have always been here and come around regularly all over the world.

I wonder how y'all feel about the little ice age, it'd be funny as fuck if we had another way.

Every single climate change thread the same old vague claims of "THEY LIED!" or "THEY SAID X WOULD BE ______ BY NOW!" without ever being specific about who said what, because all you're doing is spouting hyperbole and parroting conservative commentary that is entirely false and incorrect.

If you're going to say the science is wrong, or that predictions have failed, please learn to cite the specific studies in which a prediction was made and how it was inaccurate, and who made the prediction and what it involved. You simply cannot just say "THEY SAID FLORIDA WOULD BE UNDERWATER BY NOW!" without citing who said this claim, and being specific about what they meant by "be underwater," because the fact is parts of Florida have felt the impacts of SLR, especially places like Miami that are very low lying and built on a limestone bedrock that is porous. In fact, tidal flooding is becoming a real issue in Miami because of SLR, and it was not an issue a few decades ago.

Another thing, climate change IS RAPID on a geological scale, especially the current trend. These are changes you can easily witness in a human lifespan, that is incredibly rapid in terms of geological time, but that doesn't mean from year to year things are instantaneous. Humans are really bad at noticing long term trends or thinking about the future. The fact of the matter is, the changes caused by global warming are a threat to our civilization and the world economy, plain and simple. We would save far more and despite economic setbacks now, the future would be secure if we took action and reduced emissions.

>>10060417
Because you are schizophrenic and your delusions cause you to confuse your 100% incoherent and illogical rants for mediocre but at least coherent work by sane people. They'll also tell you I'm a shill. Maybe deep down you realize the improbability of a massive conspiracy against one man vs. one of many delusional schizophrenics, but unfortunately that part of you is dominated by the schizophrenic part.

>>10060413
No, failed predictions by scientist, and their scientific research which you climb i'd be dumb to deny. (i don't deny their predictions btw)

It just taught me how exaggerated they are being, there's a lot of money to be made of this whole climate change shit on a socioeconomic level so i can't blame them. At the same time i can't help but feel like it's fear mongering over the inevitable.

Will climate will continue to change as it always has, even if that change is faster thanks to human envolvement it's so slow that there's nothing worth freaking out about. And the changes are not a net negative.

>>10060420
>I'm not ignoring the effects, i'm saying the effects have always been here and come around regularly all over the world.
Saying the effects have always bee here is akin to saying the cause has always been here, which is false. The cause only recently got here, it's an unprecedented cause. The effects are what the science says they are, you still haven't told me why you know better.

>I wonder how y'all feel about the little ice age, it'd be funny as fuck if we had another way.
The little ice age was barely a blip compared to global warming.

>>10060411
>A change in the climate over a long period of time is not comparable to me pouring lighter fluid in an apartment building and directly setting it ablaze, such a thing wouldn't happen otherwise.
Right, but the changes we're currently observing ARE analogous to arson - they're rapid, destructive, generally bad for anyone living there, and caused by human activity. Pointing out the existence of forest fires doesn't make arson go away, and pointing out the existence of slow climate cycles doesn't make AGW disappear.

>>10060425
>"a scientist" made a prediction once
>that means evidence doesn't show a rapid warming trend
>it also means all other predictions, even about different things, are now suspect irrespective of their basis
this is how a moron attempts to reason

>>10060425
>No, failed predictions by scientist, and their scientific research which you climb i'd be dumb to deny.
Name one. (this should be good)

>>10060369
If you can't comprehend how climate change is a bad thing for the continuation of our species, you're actually retarded. How do you think the sulfur cloud produced from the meteorite that struck Earth affected plant life, herbivores, and carnivores destroyed dinosaurs? How do you think the ice age made so many creatures extinct? Do you think humans have the ability and technology to thrive unhindered through a severe change in climate? The effect should be curbed before many people become refugees from environmental change that occur due to the change in environment, sped up rapidly by humans, if they are not killed.

>>10060425
Everything you said is wrong though. The changes are a net negative when the vast majority of human civilization is in the coastal zone. It's a net negative when the most important economical cities lie at sea level and are going to face the impact of SLR without mitigation. Take Bangladesh for example, 150 million + people in a very small country that is almost entirely at sea level and based on a large river delta that will undergo massive changes in the coming centuries as SLR continues, or take any number of cities along the US eastern seaboard.

The claims that things are being "exaggerated" are also unfounded. Be specific in what you mean, what specifically is being "exaggerated," by whom is it being exaggerated, and cite your sources that they are incorrect please.

Also, the notion of "failed predictions" has been debunked over and over again. Be specific, what predictions have failed? Back it up with research showing "failed predictions."

If you're referring to climate models and future outlooks in regards to the temperature record, they have been pretty damn accurate, even the oldest models are pretty accurate, and models have only continued to improve as the math and physics of the models themselves is improved and more variables are taken into account.

>48 replies 11 posters
I'm willing to bet 90% of the autistic "CLIMATE IS ALWAYS CHANGING HOW COULD WE CHANGE IT MORE RETARDS" memes in this thread are OP, jesus christ you are a fucking mongrel

>>10060442
I'm a simple man. I see a climate change thread, I shitpost.

>>10060415
>killing is not necessarily bad
It's not, context is important, but this is a flawed comparison.
Killing has both negatives and positives, and these things fluctuate depending on the position of each party involved.

> The current change is unprecedented in human history.
The little ice age was unprecedented in human history as well.

>This change is bad
How so?

>Change is very rapid
No change is very, very slow, scientist are saying parts of florida will be underwater by 2100 now, AT WORST.

>They post a threat as determined by scientist
As determined by anyone who find natural disasters threatening, but these threats aren't immediate, nor are they new, we've always gotten them of varying intensity all throughout recorded weather history.
Here in florida We've just recently have had our coldest winters, the coldest being in 2012, the last time since then being 1981.

>>10060442
The retard just keeps repeating the same dogma over an over without responding to evidence or arguments.

>>10060410
But nowhere do i deny climate change.

>>10060449
you should start a thread to have an informed discussion about the subject and stop feeding in to this autist

>>10060446
>It's not, context is important, but this is a flawed comparison.
Oh NOW context is important! Wow! Well I meant to write killing *you* is not necessarily bad. You of course would agree with me on that.

>The little ice age was unprecedented in human history as well.
LOL no, humans have lived through several glaciation events.

>How so?
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives-advanced.htm

>No change is very, very slow, scientist are saying parts of florida will be underwater by 2100 now, AT WORST.
You're a fucking idiot, that's extremely rapid, unprecedented in human history.

>As determined by anyone who find natural disasters threatening, but these threats aren't immediate, nor are they new, we've always gotten them of varying intensity all throughout recorded weather history.
Are you really this stupid? Bad events in the future are still bad. More natural disasters are still bad even if you've had one before. According to you things getting *worse* than they were is not bad, since bad things happened before. You are literally a retard.

>Here in florida We've just recently have had our coldest winters, the coldest being in 2012, the last time since then being 1981.
And?

Kill yourself, mongoloid.

>>10060450
Yes, you're downplaying and denying that the current trend is almost entirely influenced by human activity.

No one ever claimed that climate change is not natural, as a geologist I've studied the geological past well, hell the entire field of geology is essentially based on understanding the past history of the Earth including paleoclimatology. However, claiming that there is little to no human influence, or that humans are incapable of influencing the climate or that emissions are trivial, or that CO2 is a trivial part of the atmosphere is just an outright lie that is not based in our understanding of the Earth's atmosphere.

We understand pretty damn well, despite the scale of the atmosphere and the Earth's climate, as well as its complexity, why this is happening, and it's primarily because of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. We can directly measure the influence of anthropogenic CO2 by studying isotopes of carbon in the atmosphere to see how much is from human influence. Of course, the vast majority of carbon in the atmosphere is from natural sources, as there's a natural carbon cycle that is relatively balanced by emission from decaying plants and absorption and trapping of carbon in the Earth due to erosion and sinks like the oceans. The fact is, on top of this natural cycle, humans are dumping vast quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere every single year that has upset the balance of the system and led to more CO2 being absorbed into the oceans, causing a more acidic pH of the oceans. It also causes a buildup in atmospheric CO2ppm from a pre-industrial average of 270ppm to the current average of ~410ppm. This is not insignificant whatsoever and it's 100% attributed to human activity as the other factors that would influence this are not present.

>>10060450
>I don't deny the climate is changing, I just deny everything scientists have said more specific than that

>>10060423
I don't have the primary symptoms of schizophrenia

>>10060432
>The effects are what the science says they are, you still haven't told me why you know better.
I'm not going to pretend to have research every part of the world, but scientist with their 1000x peer review studies have told me all sorts of absurd things about floridas sea levels, and our overall temperature and where they will be by 2020.
We've been experiencing our coldest winters this decade, despite predictions, and sea levels aren't anywhere near why they where projected to be.

So i don't exactly buy the hype with the exaggeration of the affects of climate change, when the predictions are nothing but false for me.

>saying the effects have always bee here is akin to saying the cause has always been here, which is false. The cause only recently got here, it's an unprecedented cause.
No it's not, the cause can be different but the affects are ultimately how they have always been year in and year out. There is no dramatic change in the climate over such a short period of time, and our climate has consistently defied expectation.

>the little ice age doesn't count xD
lmfao, the little ice age occured for over 4 centuries, "global warming" wasn't a meme until 80 years ago.

In fact scientist climb the admission of green house gases is what stopped the little ice age, even though the mass exhaust of such wasn't scene until 100 years after it had ended.

>>10060471
>Delusions, disorganized thinking, lack of ability to function normally
You have most of them.

look at how the political climate has changed. You see what they did to TT today and everyone is like, "Yeah that's fine," but I imagine not too many decades ago that thing would have been unacceptable. Indeed, it probably would not have happened before the political climate changed.

>>10060422
>changes caused by global warming are a threat to our civilization and the world economy,
We're talking about climate change buddy, two entirely different beast.
Also, florida has just recently been having it's coldest winters in recorded history, kind of contradicts a lot of global warming memege

>>10060433
>they're rapid, destructive, generally bad for anyone living there, and caused by human activity.
They aren't rapid, they are regular, hurricanes, droughts and flooding have always been destructive and genuinely bad for anyone living in their wake.
And they have always always happened, and they have always always killed people all over the world for as far back as recorded history involving natural disasters goes.

Arson is setting something on fire, in this analogy the building is already on fire, and it's always been on fire, and fire is completely regular.

>>10060480
Global warming = increase in global average temps because of climate change. Global warming is an impact of climate change.

>>10060480
No, it doesn't contradict anything and if you were educated on the subject you would understand this. The recent cold winters are due to a weakening of the jet stream, when that occurs, cold, continental arctic air permeates into the continental US and reaches as far south as the gulf coast. I live in Louisiana, and winters have not been that much colder than average, though this year we had a week or so of colder temperatures that got below freezing (killed all my tropical yard plants).

At the same time, you're ignoring the yearly record breaking summer temperatures in the southeast US and elsewhere in the world. In fact, Louisiana broke several temperature records this September where it was over 100F for like 4 days straight.

>>10060485
No they actually are rapid, California and Washington along with BC have experienced horrible forest fires that have gotten significantly worse every few years due to increasing temperatures and droughts. We also broke heat records in Seattle and Vancouver the last few months. You have no idea what you're talking about and are deserving of a spade through your brain stem faggot.

>>10060472
>We've been experiencing our coldest winters this decade, despite predictions
"Global warming" doesn't mean "each year will be warmer than the previous year". Unusually cold winters will continue to occur.

>and sea levels aren't anywhere near why they where projected to be.
Source?

>There is no dramatic change in the climate over such a short period of time
What? The changes in the climate are directly measurable. Look at Marcott et al for an example

>the little ice age doesn't count xD
The LIA was a mild, regional event. AGW is both global and significantly more severe.

>In fact scientist climb the admission of green house gases is what stopped the little ice age
Source?

>>10060485
>hurricanes, droughts and flooding
What? The analogy was with AGW, not natural disasters.

>They aren't rapid
+1.4C/century is rapid as hell. Point to the last time that happened.

>they are regular
The changes we are seeing are well outside any regular occurrence.

>>10060472
>but scientist with their 1000x peer review studies have told me all sorts of absurd things about floridas sea levels, and our overall temperature and where they will be by 2020.
Like what? I've asked you multiple times to name one, and you haven't.

>We've been experiencing our coldest winters this decade, despite predictions,
Who exactly predicted Florida would not experience a record breaking winter? Do you understand how weather works?

>and sea levels aren't anywhere near why they where projected to be.
Where were they projected to be exactly? Why do you keep making these vague claims?

>So i don't exactly buy the hype with the exaggeration of the affects of climate change, when the predictions are nothing but false for me.
You can't even give me a single example of a prediction, stop lying.

>No it's not, the cause can be different but the affects are ultimately how they have always been year in and year out.
No, the effects are CHANGES, pic related. Things staying the same is not an effect, retard.

>lmfao, the little ice age occured for over 4 centuries, "global warming" wasn't a meme until 80 years ago.
>minor amount of cooling that was barely noticeable globally is worse because it also happened very slowly compared to global warming
You can't be this dumb, you must be trolling.

>In fact scientist climb the admission of green house gases is what stopped the little ice age, even though the mass exhaust of such wasn't scene until 100 years after it had ended.
No they don't, it was the sun's output increasing.

Literally every sentence you type is wrong. Doesn't this tell you something?

>>10060440
>what specifically is being "exaggerated,"
The speed at which climate change will actually have any meaningful effect on people

>by whom is it being exaggerated,
(You)

>>10060268
It doesn't matter what you believe, your great grand children will die fighting over scraps of food. The biosphere is already collapsing.

>>10060475
What delusions do I have? A delusion is wrong belief which is easily disproven.

What evidence is there of disorganized thinking? That I have say ten different things altogether to make a statement of the most advanced concepts in physics to an uneducated yet glorified charlatan?

How can tell that I am unable to function normally when I deliberate spurn what is accepted as normal? To demonstrate inability you would first have to observe an attempt.

Everyone knows you are evil, and even though they are stupidly more afraid of you then they are of me, they will cheer for when I humble you and your people.

Also, what do you tell yourself is the reason why God made me good-looking while your friends are ugly as fuck?

>>10060463
>You of course would agree with me on that.
I do agree.

>LOL no, humans have lived through several glaciation events.
such as?

>https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives-advanced.htm
None of these things are a net negative, and the most catostrophic effects would take place over a long series of time, given us time to prepare.

>Unprecedented in human history
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101201120605.htm

>more natural disaters as bad
There's nothing which definitively proves we're getting natural disasters are a more consistent rate, or that they are necessarily any more dangerous.

>>10060465
No i don't, i specifically said that human activity has caused the climate to change faster then it every has throughout all of recorded history right here
>>10060358

My thing is, this change isn't a net negative, and it will take place over an absurdly long period of time so there's nothing to freak out about.

>>10060364
How are you so fucking retarded? Agriculture has very specific ranges relevant to climate.

>>10060486
Yeah, you're breaking heat temperatures but heat temperatures have remained consistent here in florida, yet our winters are hitting all time lows this decade.

These are changes, and neither of them are necessarily a good or bad thing, sure your tropical plants died, but they literally don't belong there.

>>10060383
>adapt just fine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impacts_of_ocean_acidification_on_the_Great_Barrier_Reef
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_of_the_Amazon_rainforest
Unless you proclaim to have a complete understanding of the relevant sciences and have found the new field of planetology like you are pardot kynes you are retarded.

>>10060494
And we've hit all time colds here in florida and all across the equator now that i'm looking it up, forrest fires are good for the environment, not a net negative.

>>10060522
>What delusions do I have?
Which ones don't you have? You believe you're a genius, messiah, god, related to various historical figures, the victim of a global conspiracy, good-looking. You checked off all the boxes.

Your "papers" are filled with non sequiturs, numerology, and baseless "connect-the-dots" inferences.

You're homeless and can't maintain either an education or a job.

I'm sure you've been diagnosed with some mental illness, but of course, that is all part of the conspiracy.

>>10060446
>No change is very, very slow, scientist are saying parts of florida will be underwater by 2100 now, AT WORST.

HAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAAHA
You think that 80 years is slow with respect to geology. Jesus actual christ, how did you graduate high school?

>>10060524
>None of these things are a net negative
Are you insane? Where are you getting that from?

>>10060524
>There's nothing which definitively proves we're getting natural disasters are a more consistent rate, or that they are necessarily any more dangerous.
Except the centuries of recorded data. You are either retarded, a sophist, or a trolling autist.

>>10060480
>If it cold in da winter den how global warming
Oh yeah all the record heat waves, drought, and storms becoming a yearly thing is complete coincidence.

>>10060497
>Unusually cold winters will continue to occur.
These aren't "cold" winters. These are the COLDEST winters in recorded history.

>source
I've been looking for early articles from the 90s like the ones i read in school but lets just say the internet wasn't exactly popping back then, and so i can't just google and pull one up. And yes, you can say this invalidates everything my saying, but ask any floridian, the climate change meme and rising sea level fear mongering was shoved down our throats all throughout school.


>What? The analogy was with AGW, not natural disasters.
Scientist are saying climate change is causing natural disasters, and while i don't deny this, natural disaster have always happened at a consistent rate and they will continue to.

>1.4/xwntury is rapid as hell
maybe in terms of the earth which is millions of years old, not so much for human beings who max out at about 100 years at the very best.

>the changes we are seeing aren't regular
nope it's same old same old

>>10060364
Before the sun even dies, barring climate change the earth will be too hot for life in less than a million years. This is the last chance.

>>10060289

Retarded analogy. Faggots like you would have no problem with anorexia then? And your "solution" would be to take food from fit people "developed/western world" and give it to already fat people "eastern/developing world".

>>10060505
And maybe that's how it should be.

I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE

>>10060503
Record heat waves and storms are the new normal and litterally killing people. Availability of fresh water is decreasing and many staple crops can only tolerate a few degrees in change and are already reducing yields.

>>10060551
heat waves, droughts and storms have always been a yearly thing

>>10060553
We could go vegan, become gay, study Buddhism get rid of technology, and take turns breathing and well set the earths clock back a couple hours at most.

This debate is now closed. The coming decade will be a make-or-break decade for our species. All hands on deck.

>>10060539
>genius
have IQ test to prove, also genius level results like OP pic related
>messiah
Jews believe that anyone who can accomplish the mission of the messiah without dying first is the Messiah. I will believe I am him when I accomplish the mission. Until then, that is only what I'm trying to do with my life. What are you doing with yours? Pathological sadism? Noice!!!!
>god
It is my Hebrew name, I probably got it from you.
>related to various historical figures
I have suspicions in this regard, they are different than beliefs
>good-looking
pic is highly symmetrical
>The victim of a global conspiracy

A wrong belief is only a delusion when it is easily disproven. None of those things you cite can be classified as delusions. Your rhetoric is very weak like you, your soul, and your collapsing power base.

>>10060561
RECORD heat waves you illiterate.

>>10060553

>This is the last chance.

Pffft. "Climate scientists" were saying that 15 years ago. "We only have a couple years to act before it's too late! Give us your money now!" That scare mongering didn't come true then and your scare mongering won't cone true now.

>>10060552
>maybe in terms of the earth which is millions of years old, not so much for human beings who max out at about 100 years at the very best.
Cool. Let each generation build their own economy and infrastructure from scratch. That'll show those freeloading libruls. Taking advantage of established systems, bah!

>>10060566
77 used to be my favorite dubs but lately it's 66
One might say that I like 77 and 66 too.

>>10060552
>These aren't "cold" winters. These are the COLDEST winters in recorded history.
So? Florida is just one place. One place being very cold for one year isn't incompatible with a global warming trend.

>natural disaster have always happened at a consistent rate and they will continue to.
No.

>maybe in terms of the earth which is millions of years old, not so much for human beings who max out at about 100 years at the very best.
1.4C/century is damn fast even on human timescales. We're already seeing impacts on agriculture.

>nope it's same old same old
What the fuck? Look at temperature data, look at atmospheric composition, look at sea levels, look at any measurement of almost any property of the climate.

>>10060570
>Pffft. "Climate scientists" were saying that 15 years ago.
And now the bad things they predicted 15 years ago are starting to come true. The new predictions are for even worse shit in the new few decades.

>>10060524
>such as?
Pic related.

>None of these things are a net negative
Do you really think anyone believes these blatant lies, you pathetic hack?

>and the most catostrophic effects would take place over a long series of time, given us time to prepare.
And who's going to pay for that?

>There's nothing which definitively proves we're getting natural disasters are a more consistent rate, or that they are necessarily any more dangerous.
There's nothing you've done to show any of the effects here >>10060501 aren't bad or won't happen.

>>10060556
>Retarded analogy. Faggots like you would have no problem with anorexia then?
Oh the irony. If I say morbid obesity is bad I must be saying anorexia is good! You just doubled down on the stupidity.

>And your "solution" would be to take food from fit people "developed/western world" and give it to already fat people "eastern/developing world".
>Americans are fit
>Africans are fat
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>10060388
yo i actually just spent the time to read through that essay. that was so trash it's not even worth it to explain all the ludicrous errors. if you can't see why that piece of literature means nothing to folks that have studied the science of climate change, as accelerated by humans, as well as those who are considering it as a truth or falsity, you're too dense for this board.

>>10060581
>you're too dense for this board.
I'm too something for this board in any case

>>10060388
>http://www.vixra.org/abs/1309.0069
Oh shit, it's THAT paper. Source of one of my favourite denier graphics.

>>10060268
>sea levels will rise on average 10 inches
HOLY SHIT, WE'RE ALL GONNA FLOOD
ISLANDS WILL BE LOST
CITIES WILL SINK
TOWERS WILL FALL

in reality, we can and already have built dikes in coastal areas for 1:200 yr events
it's not fucking hard and certainly not costly

the hyperbole surrounding climate change has really done the subject a disservice

the fact is scientists don't even know what will happen if the global average temperature rises 2 degrees other than the obvious that ice will melt and hotter temperatures means more intense climate events like storms and heat waves. We already have the technology to easily adapt to the aforementioned.

>>10060630
>HOLY SHIT, WE'RE ALL GONNA FLOOD
Maybe try thinking before you post? 10 inches is big for a change in global average.

>in reality, we can and already have built dikes in coastal areas for 1:200 yr events
Adding 10 inches on top of every event makes even minor events into 1:200 yr events, and turns 1:200 yr events into disasters.

>it's not fucking hard and certainly not costly
Protecting a small amount of coastline is easy and cheap. Needing to protect a vastly larger amount of coastline is hard and costly.

>the fact is scientists don't even know what will happen if the global average temperature rises 2 degrees
They have some pretty good predictions, and they're not fun.

>We already have the technology to easily adapt to the aforementioned.
Depends on what you mean by "have the technology". Also, adapting to agricultural failure is a lot harder.

>>10060630
>it's not fucking hard and certainly not costly
Tell that to New Orleans.

>>10060647
longer growing seasons = agricultural failure
hmmm

>>10060358
Look man, it's taken several million years for the animals that make up the delicate balance of nature to adapt to their environments. If it gets even warmer in the desert or in the coral reefs, that balance is fucked and it would set off a chain reaction. Animals provide so much help in maintaining an environment, they're like employees that work for free. Now they're gonna die and we need to invest a shitload of money into infratructure and processes that may not be as effective despite the tremendous cost. Crop yields are also projected to go down as a result of the warming, not up. Russia might have more green grass to be seen, but it doesn't matter because a lot of their soil isn't suitable for farming, at least not with the biotech we currently have.

The thing about global warming is that for all the research we've done and the projections we've made about what could happen, there could still be massive, unforseen conseequences not fully understood by our current science. Whether the world ends or not, wouldn't you rather have it be cooler? Summer's hot enough already.

Imagine being such a contrarian that you avoid the shit in front of your eyes and vote for politicians that will cause the extinction of mankind because a green haired liberal SJW might possibly think the same thing

>>10060672
not if it means i have to pay 2x more for gas and all my utility bill quadruples with green bullshit and carbon taxes

im not here to save the fucking manatees pal

>>10060701
>not if it means i have to pay 2x more for gas and all my utility bill quadruples with green bullshit and carbon taxes
You're going to end up paying even more than that if we do nothing. Basic every prediction puts avoiding the catastrophic end of AGW as cheaper in the long run than struggling through it.

I'm very skeptical that we can avoid this anymore. I can't wait to see the look on conservatives' faces when we're all dead.

>>10060268
>The climate has changed drastically since the earths existence
GRADUAL CHANGE IS OKAY, SUDDEN CHANGE IS BAD. WHAT'S HAPPENING NOW IS SUDDEN YOU FUCKING IDIOT

>>10060268
https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

>>10060411
>as they alway have
sure bud
https://www.livescience.com/62297-greenland-biggest-wildfire-warning-sign.html

>>10060268
Fuck off back to pol if you only once mentioned voting.

Why would the weather changing drastically in the span of 100 years matter? I mean I'm sure most species can evolve to adapt to the new climate in a few generations. Also the fact most of our cities and farmland were built with the presumption that the climate would be one way and it's going to be radically different could be a positive thing. Let's look on the bright side and stop being fearmongers

>>10060268
>Correct me if i'm wrong
you are wrong

>President Trump, in comments to reporters Tuesday on the South Lawn, seemed unaware of the IPCC, as the body is known, and expressed doubts about its determinations. The remarks put him at odds with most world leaders, as well as with scientific fact — a familiar position for the brash former businessman who has long ridiculed climate concerns.

>“It was given to me. It was given to me, and I want to look at who drew, you know, which group drew it,” the president said, as Hurricane Michael edged closer to the Florida’s northern Gulf Coast, threatening devastating flooding, which scientists say is exacerbated by rising sea levels.

>Trump said some reports were good, while others were not as good.

>“Because I can give you reports that are fabulous, and I can give you reports that aren’t so good,” he added.

How the fuck did this brainlet get elected? He doesn't even have an introductory understanding about global warming. He literally knows nothing. 3rd graders understand it better than he does.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/10/10/who-drew-it-trump-asks-of-dire-climate-report-appearing-to-mistrust-91-scientific-experts/

>>10061058
Let's look at the negative sides of our activities and stop being naive optimists or denialists.

>>10060268
It sucks but nothing can be done at this point. Humans aren't going to stop polluting. So let us embrace our post-apocalyptic future with open minds

>this is the trend
>yeah but you LITERALLY cannot prove the trend might change by itself
What kind of a brainlet bases their future on the trend suddenly changing for the better?

>>10060268
yeah. it's a meme. all these decades and libshit scientists still haven't been able to provide a single shred of empirical data that supports their claim of anthropogenic climate change

rapid climate change is a good thing.
overpopulation get solved, only the strong or smart survive, new technologys will come, we will get forced to leave the planet, etc.
mankind will become stronger and smarter in the end.

>>10061058
>I mean I'm sure most species can evolve to adapt to the new climate in a few generations
we're ALREADY seeing extinctions from climate change

>>10061373
>How the fuck did this brainlet get elected?
brainlets who are angry about being inferior voted for the guy who hates education.

>>10060660
Yeah youre right all of the agricultural infrastructure will just magically move to the new area one morning.
xddddddddddd
At this point you might as well start bashing your head with a rock and hope you luck out and become a savant.

>>10060568
>A wrong belief is only a delusion when it is easily disproven
The delusion is strong with this one

>>10061459
>luck out and become a savant
kek

>>10060684
/pol/ in a nutshell.

>>10060268
>the Climate Change meme
Lrn2meme fgt pls

>>10060485
>They aren't rapid
That's bullshit. I have seen it happen in my lifetime. In the early 90's here in Western NY, snow would start late-October early-November and it wouldn't thaw until late-March early-April. Last year I don't think we went 2 weeks without a complete thaw. I also don't think we had a single day below zero fahrenheit. In the 90's we'd had weeks of below zero fahrenheit. And it wasn't just a freak year either. In 2016 we had high 70's in November.

I'm not a total climate change fanatic. I don't think it will be the apocalypse or whatever. I also think a lot of scumbags try to make money on shit like carbon credit scams and other fearmongering. But I DO think it's going to be a major problem and that we need to seriously do something about it. You think the migrant crisis is bad now, just wait till the famines start.

>>10061425
I don't think you get how famines work. They don't just kill off the extra people, they kill off everyone. See, our biggest food sources only produce twice a year. So for ~6 months the world mostly lives on its stored supplies. If there's too many people for those supplies to last till the next harvest, there will be none left for ANYONE.