/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10114054
why should we combat climate change? It’s good for developed world

more

>>10114133
>drawn by mcdonalds workers

>>10114136
based on fertilizing for 50 years to fix soil, before that your fucked
and you still have darkness 6 months a year

>>10114134
based on fertilizing for 50 years to fix soil, before that your fucked
and you still have darkness 6 months a year

>>10114136
you can try this website, it’s a online version of publication in Nature

>>10114144
>you still have darkness 6 months a year
>climate change will cover the Sun in Poland and Central Asia
>this is your brain on climate change propaganda

>>10114145
https://web.stanford.edu/~mburke/climate/map.php

>>10114054
1. I would say wind and solar are very important parts, there are problems with them. Mainly associated my their intermittency. However, there has been great progress in both of these and in my country (Sweden) I recently heard on news that one of the biggest energy companies are now finding that wind is even cheaper than nuclear energy. So im hopeful that the other problems could be solved as well. The intermittency problem is not actually so bad if you have enough wind power plants spread over a large area. Solar is laso very promising and cheap in countries closer to the equator.

2. Carbon taxes is what I personally think would do most to solve climate change but it should be for all sectors to be truly effective. This will make incentive to invest in CO2-neutral tech. And the tax money could be used to cut other taxes (income tax for example) to not make the burden on the individual too large.

3.Nuclear fusion is interesting but it still seems far away even after so many years of research.

>climate change bad!

>>10114167
>other country bad my country good!

Daily reminder that drought and food scarcity and increased prices led to the 2011 Arab Spring revolutions, if you think that African countries getting fucked up doesnt proportionate to western countries at the very least having big problems, youre one dumb bitch.

You guys seem nice. I'll leave you alone. Keep catching flies with honey! See you on common ground.

shouldn't have moved away from nuclear power to begin with. the overreactionaries and fearmongers that are greenpeace and sierra club are responsible for putting billions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere by shuttering nuclear projects and nuclear development. hypocrites, the lot of them

>>10114134
The "catch" to all those type of graphs is that they show relative changes, not absolute changes. A 5% increase in yield in Norway doesn't cancel out a 5% reduction in the USA.

>>10114167
>climate change bad!
Are we looking at the same image? Because that looks pretty bad for most of the world's population to me.

>>10114227
if you didn’t take the hint:nobody gives a shit if Third World starves

>>10114054
according to
https://www.carbontracker.org/reports/2020-vision-why-you-should-see-the-fossil-fuel-peak-coming/

it makes no sense to build fossil plants

>>10114192
>if you think that African countries getting fucked up doesnt proportionate to western countries
only if they allow it, immigrants can’t teleport through walls and bullets

>>10114134
this map is nonsense,
e.g. Germany had a very warm year and a crop failure

>>10114250
>only if they allow it, immigrants can’t teleport through walls and bullets
Countries have an obligation to assist refugees seeking asylum. If you're willing to abandon the agreements you made the moment the actually help someone else then your word wasn't worth shit to begin with.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_Relating_to_the_Status_of_Refugees

>>10114277
buahaha
third worlder detected, pray that Poles send you a loaf of bread in 20 years

>>10114277
>A person who owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion

Starving doesn’t make you a refugee dumbass.
Just work harder to buy food.

>>10114277
By definition in that article, migrants of climate change are not refugees.

>>10114054
>Here are some topics that I think are important:
The answer to those is no
we're too far gone down off the edge and have been for decades. 2C is going to happen, resource shortages are already baked in and political willpower to change or even prepare doesn't exist

basically, shit's fucked and it's all going to come to collect in the 2040s

IT'S ANOTHER THREAD RUINED BY POLISH CROP YIELDS PROPAGANDA SHILL

Why don't you shove those apples up your ass?

>>10114310
you will be eating them out of my ass when draught hits you pajeet and you know it

>>10114303
>basically, shit's fucked and it's all going to come to collect in the 2040s


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)

>>10114303
>we're too far gone down off the edge and have been for decades.
Too far gone for what? It's not like there's some magic line beyond which we may as well give up. Things are going to keep getting worse for as long as we keep making them worse.

lmao

>>10114359
It's so comforting knowing global warming isn't a problem at all

>>10114362
It’s only a problem for Third World, developed countries will benefit immensely

>>10114343
We all know who you are. You are some stupid Trumpet and the sole purpose that you pollute this threads with your shilling is that your God Emperor came out against climate change. You are not fooling anyone. And btw congratulation of getting the whole of Europe to hate you and your shitty country. Way to go retard.

>Prolonged heat and dryness during the summer of 2018 has turned formerly green fields into dusty, dying patches of soil all across Europe, leading to drought across many countries.
>According to the European Commission’s European Drought Observatory, much of northern Europe is under some form of dryness. The areas under “alert” status—where vegetation is currently being stressed—are located across Denmark, England, Netherlands, Belgium, France, Norway, Sweden, Estonia and Latvia.
>Their preliminary analysis found that human-cause climate change has increased the likelihood of this summer’s heat wave by five times in Denmark, three times in the Netherlands, and two times in Ireland. For Scandinavia, the scientists concluded that climate change did increase the odds of a heat wave, but the variability in the data made it hard to say by exactly how much.


https://www.climate.gov/news-features/event-tracker/hot-dry-summer-has-led-drought-europe-2018

>>10114372
You know that at this point the guy is trolling. If not, probably some shill. Don't give him attention. It's what he wants.
And if he really is as retarded/sociopathic/whatever as he seems, it will come to bite him in the ass some time or another.

>>10114379
No, global warming is good, didn't you get the memo?

>>10114379
http://www.freshplaza.com/article/198539/Record-breaking-apple-harvest-coming-up-in-Poland/


Record-breaking apple harvest coming up in Poland
The apple harvest in Poland may turn out to be a huge one this year, which would in turn lead to ultra-low prices for processing fruit for juice manufacture.
Local media reports Witold Boguta, president of the board of Poland’s National Union of Fruit Producers’ Groups and vegetables, has told them the hail caused no losses to the crops. On top of that, the hot and long summer caused an earlier apple harvest than usual, although this hasn’t damaged the fruit as the orchards are irrigated adequately.

Bugota announced that Poland is anticipating a record-breaking apple harvest that is larger than the 4.2 million tonne crop of the year

>>10114387
>>10114380
>>10114379
https://www.hortweek.com/big-uk-europes-apple-pear-harvests-likely-be/fresh-produce/article/1490532


The big story in European apple production in recent years has been the rise of Poland, already the continent’s largest apple supplier and now 72% up on its average production figure for 2009-13 (see graph).

>>10114387
>>10114379
https://www.agrofakt.pl/ceny-owocow-jedne-najnizszych-dziesiecioleciu/

Fruit crops in Poland increase by 60% last year.
Not just apples, ALL fruits.

@10114393
Stop spamming you fucking autist. I hope Poland gets nuked in the near future. Holy shit

Without large-scale deployment of nuclear it is pointless to fight against climate change. So enjoy the ride until the public comes to its senses. And dont forget to vote out the leftists because climate refugees + open borders will be a deadly combination.

>>10114387
>>10114372
Tree fruits crops increase by 65 %
Ground fruit crops increased by 20%
All in 2018
https://www.agrofakt.pl/rekordowa-produkcja-owocow/

>>10114403
>>10114380
>>10114372
the tears of Pajeets who know hunger is coming.Top Kek.
I might send you an apple or two if you beheave

>>10114359
>fake research by deniers shows declining sensitivity
https://youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=QFDnxMp0Hw8

>>10114279
But Poland IS part of the 3rd world

>>10114359

imagine the butthurt if it goes NEGATIVE

>>10114413
Poland has lower homicide and crime than Germany, France and UK.
It’s economy is now considered developed as of 2018.

>>10114419
Also all 3rd world countries m8
And even if it's true, pretty pathetic to only be considered """developed""" in 2018. Sad!

>>10114421
whatever dude, show me which country you consider better to live than Poland? There are a few but I will guess yours isn’t.

>>10114410
Fucking engineers

>>10114424
Most of the actual civilized world lmao

>>10114359
If I understand this correctly climate sensitivity is how prone the climate is to positive feedbacks. So what does this mean exactly?

>>10114424
>Poland
Sorry I don't want my car to get stolen when I turn my back lol

>>10114430
It's fake, it doesn't mean anything

we all dead nigga

>>10114429
ok give some names
France?
UK?
Germany?
USA?

>>10114310
>Why don't you shove those apples up your ass?
or maybe

>>10114432
>Sorry I don't want my car to get stolen when I turn my back lol

More likely to happen in a Western multicultural "utopia" than in Poland. Poland has one of the lowest crime rates in the world.

>>10114462
Eastern Europeans are the most likely to be criminals.

>>10114462
car theft is very common in pooland

>>10114430

scientists believed that sensitivity to CO2 was higher few years ago; new studies published during the years are lowering the estimated sensitivity, which is now almost zero, which is hilarious; so much for the "settled" science, they still don't have a clue on how it works

>>10114462
Poles steal all the time. Especially cars. Crime is the backbone of Polish economy. It's a well known fact.

>>10114483
>new studies published during the years are lowering the estimated sensitivity
LOL some of them are not even published and the rest are just fake research in pay to play journals. See >>10114410

Climate sensitivity hasn't changed much since the 70s.
http://iacweb.ethz.ch/staff/mariaru/BeyondEquilibriumClimateSensitivity/KnuttiRugensteinHegerl17.pdf

>>10114483
>let me lie about climate change
>TRUMP MUST WIN
>MAGA
You pathetic fuck.

>>10114475
>>10114479
>>10114491
nice try pajeeti

>>10114491
>>10114475
Poland homicide rate 0.67
French homicide rate 1.23
Germany homicide rate 0.88
United Kingdom homicide rate 1.20
Belgium homicide rate 1.85
Finland homicide rate 1.42

>>10114537
>>10114541
>pooland

>>10114545
the only thing you can think of is poo

>Climate change fucks niggers
BASED

>>10114475
Actual statistics show that Eastern Europeans are the least likely to be criminals. Gypsies are an exception which sometimes makes it seem otherwise.

>>10114563
an ice age would do the opposite

https://www.iceagenow.info/

>Actual statistics show that Eastern Europeans are the least likely to be criminals.
I bet you're not even Polish. You're some larping Amerimutt

>>10114054
More heat in atmosphere, cheaper heat pump heat.

Keep it up.

>>10114569
>>10114577
He’s right though, Poles have low crime rate

>>10114054
>Carbon taxes. Do they work? It seems like they aren't targeted at the big polluters but mainly at middle class consumers.
Fee and dividend benefits middle class (and below) consumers. Hopefully Canada didn't fuck it up.

Climate Change (tm) is made in bolshevistic echochambers of climate "science" and is promoted by the green-left press. The only winners here are the chinese who get the jobs.

Temperature stopped rising since 1998

Down the toilet goes this pseudoscience

>>10114541
theft and homicide is not the same crime

seems Pooland fags are thieves and morons

>>10114787
This is only true because the world came into existence in 1998.

>>10114787
Green line is the trend since 1998. Where is the pause?

Do deniers ever get tired of having their idiotic talking points proven wrong over as over again?

>>10115011
>giss

which means NASA
since when are they reliable on climate? they'll lose founds if they say something against the narrative

also all those charts have been manipulated to make the trend-line more steep

>>10115054
>since when are they reliable on climate?
Always.

>they'll lose founds if they say something against the narrative
You mean the Republican controlled government won't fund them anymore of they found that earth isn't warming? Why?

>also all those charts have been manipulated to make the trend-line more steep
How?

And which temperature record told you there has been no warming since 1998?

>>10115069
>which temperature record
they are all "interpreted" by humans and "adjusted"
read descriptions below the charts

http://www.climate4you.com/GlobalTemperatures.htm#Quality%20class%201:%20Satellite%20record%20of%20recent%20global%20air%20temperature%20change

>How?

http://notrickszone.com/2015/11/20/german-professor-examines-nasa-giss-temperature-datasets-finds-they-have-been-massively-altered/

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2014/06/23/Global-warming-Fabricated-by-NASA-and-NOAA/

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

https://www.clim-past.net/9/1153/2013/cp-9-1153-2013.pdf

>>10115098
The graph you posted shows consistent warming since 1979. Even though you attempted to cherrypick the data by starting at the 1998 El Nino you still got caught lying. Hilarious!

>they are all "interpreted" by humans and "adjusted"
Why is correcting mistakes and homogenizing data bad? Because it leads to the result you don't like, you pathetic hack, admit it.

>http://notrickszone.com/2015/11/20/german-professor-examines-nasa-giss-temperature-datasets-finds-they-have-been-massively-altered/
>https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2014/06/23/Global-warming-Fabricated-by-NASA-and-NOAA/
These just assume that any changes are done to increase warming. In reality they aren't:

https://www.judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/understanding-adjustments-to-temperature-data

>https://science.house.gov/news/press-releases/former-noaa-scientist-confirms-colleagues-manipulated-climate-records
Oh look, the retard is back to post his debunked propaganda and then slither away without replying to this post!

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

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

>>10115054
>since when are they reliable on climate?
They have always been.

>>10114054
>2. Carbon taxes.
Governments that implement carbon taxes are giving themselves and economic incentive to increase production of fossil fuels. More consumption = more revenue.

>>10115194
Right, that's why cigarette taxes have increased smoking...

>>10115207
Are you trying to refute something?

Last I checked carbon taxers seem to be pretty gung ho about increasing fossil fuel production.

What's up with that?

>>10115216
Yes it is a refutation. Carbon taxes will not increase production.

>>10115207
Cigarettes aren't an essential component of the economy - providing something like 80% of its energy needs.

Keep lying through your teeth to people and keep watching as neoliberal leadership continues being replaced populism around the world.

>>10114054
I approve of this idea if just because of how it'll contain most of the denialist and /pol/ shitposting to one thread.

>>10115220
and yet production continues increasing...

why do you think that is?

>>10115233
>why do you think that is?
I can't wait to hear about how
>production keeps increasings because carbon taxes aren't "optimal" yet.

lolz

>>10115231
call me a racist for saying immigration is too high. off to /pol/ I go... (I've got friends from all races before)

>>10115233
So if you stop eating junk food, but you gain weight, then you conclude that not eating junk food causes you to gain weight, right?

>>10115268
if you can't see how carbon taxes are an incentive for government to encourage increased production/consumption then you don't understand grade school level economics and there is no point in discussing this with you.

>>10115229
>Cigarettes aren't an essential component of the economy - providing something like 80% of its energy needs.
So the government increases consumption of what they tax, but only when it's important for the economy? How does that make sense?

>>10115275
How do they increase production and consumption while taxing it?

>>10115276
do you know what the word incentive means?

>>10115276
>So the government increases consumption of what they tax, but only when it's important for the economy?
>How does that make sense?
nothing you say makes any sense, because you're a fucking idiot.

>>10115280
If there is a tax, the more that's produced, the more revenue they collect.

This is not complicated. Why can't you get it?

>>10115281
Yes, now answer my question.

>>10115285
Why are you avoiding the question? Why would the government not increase cigarette consumption if they want more revenue?

>>10115292
How do they increase production?

>>10115297
I mean I keep wondering what it must be like to have 150 IQ and live amongst people with 100 IQ. But the truth is my iq probably isn't much more than 105... so I'm having trouble understanding why you can't make sense of a perfectly clear and simple statement such as:
>Governments that implement carbon taxes are giving themselves and economic incentive to increase production of fossil fuels. More consumption = more revenue.

What is your iq?

>>10115306
OK since you keep avoiding the question I'll just take this post as you admitting that you have none. Thanks for admitting carbon taxes lower emissions.

>>10115313
I see you are trying to refute something again. How cute. Keep at it lil fella.

>>10115315
You just refuted it. Don't be modest.

>>10115313
BWAHAHAHAHA LOL HAHAHA

>>10115275
This is correct.
>>10115054
This is also correct.
I am trying to let the warmers convert me but it is perplexing that they are always cooking the books. There are well known examples of this kind of stuff and posters throwing up links all over the place. This thread started off so clean. Do the benefits of "fighting dirty" outweigh the disadvantages? Are warmers winning favor this way? You would win me over better with grownup behavior. Maybe I'm smarter than the average brainlet? Call me a retard.

>>10115318
Here it is again, encase you'd like another try: (I'll even correct my typo encase that's what you're getting snagged on.)
> 2. Carbon taxes
Governments that implement carbon taxes are giving themselves an economic incentive to increase production of fossil fuels. More consumption = more revenue.

>>10115313
Juvenile behavior

>>10114054
Advice from an intelligent and open minded skeptic.
I'm going to try to post weekly threads about Climate Change and maybe other anons will be inspired to do the same.
Maybe you'd do better to handle this yourself and not inspire others to do the same. Your capabilities are superior to most of your fist fighting friends.

>>10115325
That's why fee and dividend is better than a real "carbon tax". In a proper fee and dividend system, the government pays back out everything it collects, so no matter the rate it's neutral on the budget.

>>10115368
Your wisdom is acknowledged

>>10115372
Now you too can live with the constant disappointment that it isn't being implemented by the countries that need it.

Oh no, we are DOOMED.

Or you are, in the worst case I'm gonna have longer summers.

>>10115390
>implying the only issue with unrestrained pollution is climate

>>10115390
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming

>>10115405
That is not what I extrapolate. This thread is about climate change. Everyone knows that you should not go around polluting.. Well. I wish everyone knows.

>>10115325
Exactly, so cigarette consumption must have increased due to cigarette taxes, since there is an incentive to do so.

>>10115420
Reducing CO2 emissions is good no matter whether the climate is changing or if humans are behind it. Arguing over climate change itself is a distraction.

Im really scared guys.Is there any hope for us to leave this shithole behind before we wipe ourselves from existance?

>>10115454
Uh. So don't.

>>10115618
Fear not. Are you serious? Would you rather bo on mars?

>>10114552
pootato superpoower

>>10115718
I will be long dead before something like that is an option for more than a group of well trained professionals.
Earth is fucked, if we can make it not fucked for long enough to save our asses then good.
Im sure people will gladly live somewhere else rather tan die.

>>10114054

>Salty environmentalist Chicken Little boi wants a safe space on 4chins

>>10114054
If this climate change is truly so critical for the planet, why is the option of nuclear energy so quickly discarded?

>>10115764
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

>>10115775
So there is no interest in reducing CO2 emissions, thanks for answering.

>>10115764
People are affraid of it for no real reason and theres still money to be made from other energy sources.

>>10114054
Climate change is being taken care of with wireless devices and other measures to rapidly increase the death rate and sterilize as many people as possible. Climate change is mostly irrelevant until that shows evidence of changing.

>>10115798
Where did I say that?

>>10115805
I wish it was that simple.

>>10115819
It is.

I'm not sure what active measures will be taken in terms of reversal in the meantime, but I'm sure it's in the works and will probably be terrible.

I'm not entirely sure what's going on or why, but it is clear there's a sterilization campaign which has already been quite successful and is proceeding unopposed.

>>10115825
Jokes aside we need to stop fucking like rabbits or more specificly help or threaten third worlders into understanding how damaging over population is.

>>10115815
You deflected the question by referring to some logical fallacy that does not even apply here.

>>10115837
Of course it applies. Some people's opinion on nuclear has no bearing on whether global warming is significant. You're the one trying to deflect.

>>10115845
Oh fuck. I don't know who's side I'm on but this shit is dumb>>10115454
Don't matter this way or that. Can't do shit or come to any agreements. Other power options would not make a difference. ??? What the fuck are we trying to achieve?

>>10115854
I don't think that we should "promote " global warming, but warmers are fucking retards and they'll make the point more effectively if they stopp trying to make it.

>>10115854
What the fuck are you talking about?

>>10114054
>Carbon taxes. Do they work? It seems like they aren't targeted at the big polluters but mainly at middle class consumers.
Like a good white man or an engineer you have been jewed; an easy example: x company in your (maybe) country keeps polluting it`s surroundings because some guys in my country offered them some km^2 of land
>solar energy
it`s useful but i won`t tell you how or why
We have a say in our country, done the law, done the scam (every law has a loophole) and some people are very good at finding those loopholes
Ofc i will keep abusing your weird "civilized world" (lmao) laws and isos because it`s giving me money, another example: a family opened a greenhouse and they became rich, they planted an invasive tree because an NGO suggested that
>>10114145
I went to one of those talks (some 1st worlders helped our people with software), those maps are pure statistics and...well...they failed
You are being scammed, there`s worse problems in our planet

>>10115874
Exactly

>>10114054
>should be ignored but will be tolerated
Contradictory much?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zR4kH5tpebY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdoRvly02Bo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYhCQv5tNsQ

>>10115883
Yep, the barbarity took over

>>10115883
Don't plants and shit like carbon dioxide and change it into oxygen for us. That's what I want. Plenty of oxygen

>>10115894
And these things, yeah, I want more of these.

>>10115883
Just the first 2 minutes of that third link is enough to make even the most ardent AGW climate change preacher ponder the narrative they've been sold.

>>10115909
Are chemtrails and weather modification being used to give the appearance of climate change? Agenda 21?

Shouldn't the oceans be acidifying? Is deforestation part of it?

>>10115909
I doubt it. Peeps decide what they want and fuck all logic. I hav honestly tried to ask myself, "what if I'm wrong?" And tried to get convinced because that's what an intelligent, open minded person should do. But these warmers are full of hatred and nonsense

>>10115883
Spamming garbage youtube videos.
Wow, how impressive.

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zR4kH5tpebY
A guy who struggles to read graph calls people who make those graphs "deceptive". The "zoomed out" graphs he makes show the exact same things as the official ones, but he's decided they're less concerning somehow.
The "CO2 levels were higher 520Mya, so global warming isn't caused by humans" argument is extra-special. This guy doesn't even seem to understand what an argument IS, let alone how the make one.

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdoRvly02Bo
It's the Ottmar Edenhofer quote-mining bullshit again. Selectively cutting out parts of a google-translation of what someone said is lying bullshit, and shows pretty clearly you have no interest in what's true.

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYhCQv5tNsQ
This is straight-up propaganda. Fuck off.

>>10115909
>Just the first 2 minutes of that third link is enough to make even the most ardent AGW climate change preacher ponder the narrative they've been sold.
Yeah, "how dare they pick a vertical axis that best shows the information they're presenting" is a really compelling argument.

>>10115918
>Are chemtrails and weather modification being used to give the appearance of climate change?
No.

>Agenda 21?
What the fuck?

>Shouldn't the oceans be acidifying?
Yes, and they are.

>Is deforestation part of it?
Yes.

>>10114054
>what should be done to combat Climate Change.

Nothing, embrace the warmer weather for now and don't force poor people to disproportionately bear the burden of EVERYONE'S desire for efficient transportation. Raising the price of food via controlling energy through financial means essentially pounds poor people into the ground, since their total income has a larger portion dedicated to food costs. Besides, most of the damage comes from poor countries in aggregate (not per capita, but that's simply a consequence of them having such high populations), and they have to move through stages of industrialization til they level out, their birthrates drop and they start actively caring about their environment.

Thankfully as time goes on and technology advances, these behind countries will move through the stages faster, meaning the prolonged massive amounts of pollution that western europe, north america, etc saw over about 100 years will not be repeated. Especially since much research has been done in the meantime so other countries will learn more from our safety standards, lessening the chance of large scale industrial accidents and so on.

Cars are already more efficient than they were in the past, so countries that have their population's wealth grow will see better vehicles on their streets that throw less emissions. Not to mention urban dwellers utilizing things such as ebikes, which may be easier to afford.

Living a recycling, minimal-pollution life is something fine to do, but don't stifle technological advancement. By some current measures it's already to late to do anything, so why not let people act unchained? Maybe someone will find a way.

>>10115933
Are they putting aluminum, barium, and strontium in the upper atmosphere and using directed energy systems to alter cloud formation, weather, and cause natural disasters?

>>10115883
Oh god Natural News never ceases to amaze me.

>I've never seen a truncated y-axis before, this is so deceptive!
>Just ignore that CO2 has shot out of the cycle that humans evolved in and look at this millions of years chart
>See CO2 was much higher millions of years ago before humans existed, so it must be fine for humans
>Average CO2 levels have nothing to do with temperature, just ignore that the greenhouse effect is proven and I chose a timescale at which solar forcings are also significant
>It's the Sun and volcanoes! Just ignore that this is only true over timescales of millions of years, that solar forcing has been decreasing for decades while the temperature rises, and volcanoes's emissions are insignificant compared to modern humans'
>There are many scientists today that are concerned about global cooling, but I won't name any because I'm just making shit up
>The planet won't be destroyed by CO2! Just ignore that no one ever claimed it would, it's humans that suffer the consequences, not "the planet"

Are you a troll or are you really this stupid?

>>10115918
Yes, they're in the process of salting the sky, and thus the earth with heavy metals aerosols, which has a myriad of negative effects on every form of life, trees included, under the guise of "reversing global warming". One of the major effects is colder on average temperature, as the particles linger in the air much like volcanic ash, blocking insolation.

>>10115940
Haven't seen this reaction image in a while, thanks for the nostalgia brother

>>10115909
I watched the first two minutes and it's just the same crap that has been debunked 1000 times before.

>>10115935
Doing nothing will cause much more harm to poor people than mitigation will.

>>10115933
>well sourced documentary which extensively debunks the faith of climate scientism
>propaganda
Pot, meet kettle.

>>10115941
I'm not interested in the religious aspects of climate change. I'm just trying to figure out if depopulation and agenda 21 are about control, or are perhaps a necessary.

I really can't tell what's real at this point. It's very difficult and time consuming to tell. It really comes down to what the purpose of depopulation is. That's the only core element that I know for sure is happening.

>>10115950
Give me any claim in the film and I'll debunk it in a few minutes.

>>10115935
>Nothing, embrace the warmer weather for now and don't force poor people to disproportionately bear the burden of EVERYONE'S desire for efficient transportation.
"Embracing the warm weather" IS forcing poor people to deal with the consequences.
That means continuing to disproportionally contribute to a problem while knowing that other people will disproportionately bear the consequences.

>Besides, most of the damage comes from poor countries in aggregate (not per capita, but that's simply a consequence of them having such high populations)
If you're doing hundreds of times the damage of the average person in India, putting the responsibility to solve the problem on the Indian persons head seems kinda fucked up. If you're assigning responsibility to deal with the problem, then you need to talk about emissions per-capita.

>and they start actively caring about their environment.
Why would they, when developed countries don't?

>Cars are already more efficient than they were in the past, so countries that have their population's wealth grow will see better vehicles on their streets that throw less emissions.
Transportation emissions are still vastly above any kind of sane, sustainable level. Stopping now because "they're slightly more efficient than they used to be" is just plain dumb.

>Living a recycling, minimal-pollution life is something fine to do, but don't stifle technological advancement.
Primitivists are an insignificant fringe group with no influence. The actually credible proposed responses to global warming involve developing more technology, not abandoning it. Accusing people who want to fix AGW of wanting to "stifle technological advancement" is blatant rhetoric.

>>10115962
"Traps aren't gay."

>>10115954
The purpose is the gradual, silent, and utter elimination of the bulk of humanity who are measurably becoming less tolerant of the bullshit which has been sold to them over generations. Realizing that any lie has a shelf life before it backfires on it's creator(s), they preemptively prepared to eliminate all competition for resources who, if left unchecked, would eventually band together and bring them to justice. Their hope is that by killing off the majority, they will be spared the due karma for their deceitful actions. I wish them the best of luck in this endeavor, as they will need it; can't cheat fate forever.

>>10115950
One of those great sources who was tricked into appearing said the film is "grossly distorted" and "as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War Two."

>propaganda
Yup

>>10115981
Likely forced to make that public statement after being threatened with losing his job/pension by the climate lobby, but if not, this completely disproves every claim therein, well done.

>>10115933
>>10115962
It is no secret that there have lies of omission to bolster the warmers argument.

>>10115984
Yes, and I'm sure he was forced to say all of this and deny that he was pressured:

>CARL WUNSCH, MASSACHUSSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY: I was told that this was to be a film about the science of global warming, and that it would be an opportunity for me to explain that it is a very complicated problem, and I would be given an opportunity to explain particularly about the ocean, where I do have some expertise, why I thought one needed to be very careful about making any inferences based upon what we know today.

>Durkin says that I reacted to the way the film portrayed me because of pressure from my colleagues. This is completely false. I did hear almost immediately from colleagues in the UK who saw the film who didn't berate me. They simply said, "This doesn't sound like you, this seems to be distorting your views, you better have a look at this".

>And having had a look at what they did with my comments in the film out of context and cutting away many of the important things that I thought were important that dealt with the science of it, it was a complete distortion of what I had told Durkin I believed.

>this completely disproves every claim therein, well done.
I can disprove any claim it makes, I'm even letting you pick which one. Why don't you answer >>10115962

>>10115980
And now with AI, advanced and automated manufacturing, microwave weapons, controlling that greatly diminished population will be far easier. Possibly with the cattle being killed off as desired.

How will they herd us into the high density cities? Does it matter if there are some stragglers, or will there be some way of killing them off too? (Deployed aerosols, micromachines, etc)

>>10115986
Such as?

>>10115950
>well sourced documentary which extensively debunks the faith of climate scientism
A number of climatologists have pointed out glaring issues with how that film presents climatology, including some who's work was directly included. As far as I can tell, it's seen as barely more credible than "The Day After Tomorrow".

>propaganda
What word would you use for a film designed to damage public trust in science in order to protect a handful of businesses?

>>10115984
>Likely forced to make that public statement after being threatened with losing his job/pension by the climate lobby
Prove it. Conspiracies are easy to allege, you need to actually support your claims if you don't want to get laughed at.

>this completely disproves every claim therein, well done.
What exactly are you asking for? Nobody is going to waste multiple hours dissecting a video that it took you literally seconds to post.

>>10115986
>It is no secret that there have lies of omission to bolster the warmers argument.
You're right. It's not a secret, it's a lie.

>>10115948
The only possible "mitigations" are common sense that no one would disagree with (IE nuclear power, making machines more efficient). Oppositions to these and further junk proposals are dreamed up and propagated by clever misanthropes who see humans as a blight on the planet AKA today's version of hippies.

>>10115963
The consequences are going to happen anyway. Might as well not step on them economically if they're already going to struggle with it in the temps.

Also it's not "hundreds of times the damage" it's far less than that. Per-capita is not useful because the policies are implemented at a governmental level and the "responsibility" for the emissions are not, in actuallity, split up among each individual in a country but rather by those using the most power. Your emissions are a drop in the bucket compared to some shipping company, as well as compared to some random indian bus driver who has been driving the same crappy vehicle that belches smog, carries way more people than it's supposed to and hasn't run properly in 30+ years.

Developed countries DO care about their environment. I don't know if you noticed but even "dirty" cities in developed countries are much cleaner than even the wealthy third world ones ones.

No one should stop transportation, it's necessary for human advancement and shipping is absolutely essential for speedy movement of goods, capital and people. You're free to not partake yourself, if you don't need it, but to push it as something wrong because it is not at "sane" levels yet (due to technology not getting there yet) is a bit nuts, and only asking for people to live tied to the land or the schedules and whims of others while technology slows to a crawl.

Applying energy restrictions and taxes makes energy more expensive, raising their cost of living across the board. Thus you stifle technological advancement by shrinking the pool of people who can afford to dedicate time to participating.

>>10115992
Ask this guy>>10115989
It would help convince me if we can admit that there are wrongs on each side

>>10116048
>CO2 is transparent to visible light and opaque to infrared light
>>10116052
>The vast majority of solar radiation is in wavelengths not absorbed by CO2
Sounds like bullshit, but it's on wikipedia and it's the party line so it must be true.

>>10116001
>The only possible "mitigations" are common sense that no one would disagree with (IE nuclear power, making machines more efficient).
Reducing emissions directly is very important since fossil fuels will still be economically attractive. A carbon tax is a common way of doing this, and doesn't have to be regressive.

>>10115990
There's no denying the state of weapon and surveillance technology would make the killing of any stray revolutionary groups or individuals a simple task. The only question which remains is, how long can they maintain their organization before internal mutiny results in self destruction?
Guess we'll have to just wait and see.

>>10116005
Both of those posts are me. One side is much more wrong than the other, which you would see if you actually looked at their arguments.

>>10116014
What if they aren't even fossil fuels.

>>10116015
Guess we'll have to just wait and see if we see.

>>10116022
>What if they aren't even fossil fuels.
Most emissions are from fossil fuels. A proper carbon tax wouldn't only apply to fossil fuels though, it would apply to all carbon emissions.

>>10116118
>As I have understood it, it's already past the point of of "devastating" for a path in the distant future, and we would need radically better technology globally to prevent it as nothing in today's options will cut it short of going back to roman technology or worse.
I'm not really sure how to respond to that beyond "no and also no".
The amount of warming we're committed to is probably somewhere in the neighbourhood of +1.5C. The recent IPCC report clear shows that's going to be bad, but "devastating" is probably putting it too strongly. On the other hand, projections for "business as usual" scenarios put us at exceeding +3.0C, which is fucking terrifying.
At no point has anyone remotely credible suggest "going back to roman technology or worse". I've already told you that's a straw man and yet you're still repeating it.

>Are you asking how to separate what a corporation uses as far as energy goes, from what a person uses in his private life?
Yes. Keep in mind that the energy used by a person isn't just their electricity bill. It's embedded in every product they buy and every service they use.

>If you exclude people who are essentially dirt farmers, then those who are still using inefficient shitty tech are going to emit more CO2/etc than people who are utilizing efficient machines, vehicles and devices.
If they used those devices with the same intensity that would be true. However, actual data shows the opposite. People who can afford efficient lighting buy large houses. People who can afford new cars drive long distances. So even though pushing people towards energy efficiency is important, it's far from a solution by itself.

cont.

>>10115950
>>10115962
Why won't the deniers present a single argument from this doc if they actually believe this crap?

>>10114149
that doesn't change the fact that solar irradiation drops off significantly at higher latitudes, BTFOing denialtards predicting huge crop gains in more polar countries

>>10116014
That's useless since it only raises the cost of living. The cost gets passed on to the consumer and the corporations that use such energy will continue to do so. The alternative gives them an excuse to make worse products, such that they maintain profits as well as stable prices.

Try again. The goal of technology is to minimize the cost of living - the amount of work someone has to put in to get a task done. Making energy more _efficient_ as in, getting the same work out of less energy or more work out of the same enegy, is an effective way to reduce emissions as long as the quality of work does not suffer.

>>10115962
>>10115989
Here's an easy one. If the CO2 molecule is capable of trapping solar radiation bouncing off the surface of earth, which admittedly has more spectral spread than insolation, yet is obviously much more diffuse and attenuated, how is it possible that CO2 would not block insolation in equal if not greater measure to the ratio of diffuse bounced radiation which it allegedly 'traps creating a greenhouse effect'?

>>10116118
>It spreads the effects of the biggest users of energy, such as large shipping companies, out among the general population
>The general population have no responsibility for these companies - an individual's day to day life's energy use is a paltry sum in comparison
Again, I don't think the energy use of the public is seperable from the energy used by the companies the public depends on can be meaningfully separated. They're too tightly coupled.

>There's a significant amount of a poor country's population living with little to know fuel or electricity, being rural, often illiterate and below the poverty line.
All grant that, though I'd consider the best way to deal with that to be splitting up populations on those boundaries before calculating per-capita emissions.

>The people who have access to technology in semi-rural areas, and a large portion of those who live in urban areas, are those who can afford to live somewhat-modernly, bit often use shitty and outdated vehicles, appliances, and their grid power is generally ancient and similarly outdated.
I agree, but I don't see how that relevant.

>Taking the per capita of a poor country thus spreads the "actually using tech" population's emissions out.
No it doesn't. If you're doing the calculations on the basis of national emissions that the richer portion of the countries emissions are already spread out, regardless of whether you adjust for the size of the country.

>>10116014

Addition to >>10116031
It also raises the cost of doing business for those companies that can't eat the carbon tax easily and people who want to start a business need more investment to do so. This makes monopolies and cartels more likely.

>>10116001
>The consequences are going to happen anyway.
What? No.
The consequences are going to be as bad as we choose to make them. Carrying on with "business as usual" is a choice to make the consequences as severe as possible, in return for short-term profit.

>Might as well not step on them economically if they're already going to struggle with it in the temps.
Driving the temperatures up IS "stepping on them".

>Also it's not "hundreds of times the damage" it's far less than that.
Yes, I was exaggerating. It's 2 to 10 times.

>Per-capita is not useful because the policies are implemented at a governmental level and the "responsibility" for the emissions are not, in actuallity, split up among each individual in a country but rather by those using the most power.
Not this shit again.
Which country is closer to a sustainable emissions level: France or Kuwait?

>Developed countries DO care about their environment.
And yet they emit CO2 at a vastly higher rate per capita.

>I don't know if you noticed but even "dirty" cities in developed countries are much cleaner than even the wealthy third world ones ones.
We're discussing greenhouse gasses, not local pollution.

>No one should stop transportation, it's necessary for human advancement and shipping is absolutely essential for speedy movement of goods, capital and people. You're free to not partake yourself
I've just told you this was a ridiculous straw man. I'm not advocating for "stifling technology" or "stopping transportation".

>Applying energy restrictions and taxes makes energy more expensive, raising their cost of living across the board.
That's only true if you completely ignore all externalities, INCLUDING GLOBAL WARMING.

>>10116130
>Sounds like bullshit, but it's on wikipedia and it's the party line so it must be true.
It's basic physics, and has been well known and established for more than a century. If you want to argue it's wrong, you'll need to do more than just say "bullshit".

>>10116026
What if they don't come from buried organic material.

I prefer the word "petrochemical".

Maybe it's just my present state, but this thread has cemented my uncertainty about the nature of climate change. I believe it may well be that it's all about control.

>>10116031
>That's useless since it only raises the cost of living
For whom? Again, there is no reason a tax has to be regressive, and doing nothing would be more economically harmful.

>The cost gets passed on to the consumer and the corporations that use such energy will continue to do so.
They'll use less since it's more expensive.

>The alternative gives them an excuse to make worse products, such that they maintain profits as well as stable prices.
They always have that incentive. Competition keeps quality up.

>The goal of technology is to minimize the cost of living
If you actually cared about minimizing the cost of living then you would support a carbon tax that does so. Climate change is worse for the cost of living than mitigation.

>Making energy more _efficient_ as in, getting the same work out of less energy or more work out of the same enegy, is an effective way to reduce emissions as long as the quality of work does not suffer.
It's not like there is a choice between mitigation and increasingly efficient technology, both can and will be done at the same time. Revenue from the tax can also be used to fund such technological advances.

Please try to respond to my points instead of just repeating the same thing.

>>10116034
>If the CO2 molecule is capable of trapping solar radiation bouncing off the surface of earth, which admittedly has more spectral spread than insolation, yet is obviously much more diffuse and attenuated, how is it possible that CO2 would not block insolation in equal if not greater measure to the ratio of diffuse bounced radiation which it allegedly 'traps creating a greenhouse effect'?
That's literally the greenhouse effect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
>Earth receives energy from the Sun in the form of ultraviolet, visible, and near-infrared radiation. About 26% of the incoming solar energy is reflected to space by the atmosphere and clouds, and 19% is absorbed by the atmosphere and clouds. Most of the remaining energy is absorbed at the surface of Earth. Because the Earth's surface is colder than the Sun, it radiates at wavelengths that are much longer than the wavelengths that were absorbed. Most of this thermal radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere and warms it. The atmosphere also gains heat by sensible and latent heat fluxes from the surface. The atmosphere radiates energy both upwards and downwards; the part radiated downwards is absorbed by the surface of Earth. This leads to a higher equilibrium temperature than if the atmosphere were absent.

In fewer words: The Sun emits mainly visible light. The Earth mainly emits mainly infrared light. CO2 is transparent to visible light and opaque to infrared light. Adding CO2 to the atmosphere has little impact on incoming energy from the sun, but blocks outgoing energy from the Earth. The result is a warmer Earth.

>>10116034
>If the CO2 molecule is capable of trapping solar radiation
The vast majority of solar radiation is in wavelengths not absorbed by CO2, it passes right through it, hits the Earth and is emitted as infrared heat. It is this infrared heat which CO2 absorbs and re-emits. Some of it gets sent back to Earth. So there is no reason to expect that CO2 would block more insolation than the heat it traps. You're right, that was an easy one. If the doc actually argued this then it's utter garbage and not "well sourced" at all. Next?

>>10116039
From what I understand climate scientists are generally in agreement that climate change is unstoppable at this point (at least with currently-possible, reasonable measures.) Thus it's going to happen, you can't stop it with current measures - maybe delay it slightly. Developed countries don't emit more on a _per capita_ basis because it's not a statistic useful to measure on a per capita basis. Your average citizen doesn't use that much energy, it's larger companies, mainly in the transportation business, that do. Countries with lower quality of life have this impact spread more among their population, since their tech level is much lower and so your average citizen uses more energy for their daily tasks - excepting those who are essentially dirt poor and have minimal access to fuel and electricity, which throw the "per capita" statistics out of whack and make it a weasel statistic.

But if you want to sit there and believe that people who actually can and do afford cleaner energy and vehicles are worse at producing emissions than those who are using outdated and dirty old technology, then you should probably go take a seat next to the flat earthers - or at least go stand near the wackos in this thread making chemtrail claims.

>>10116148
How about no, since Nobel prize winning physicists, among many others with basic reasoning faculties can surmise that no substance in reality works the way of "opaque to infrared, yet mostly completely unaffected by the visible spectrum". Some real sci-fi we got going on with this basic 3-atom molecule. No one who can think for themselves actually buys it, regardless of how many bought and paid for academic 'studies' chant "99% of scientists agree..."

>>10116133
>>10116133
>The amount of warming we're committed to is probably somewhere in the neighbourhood of +1.5C. The recent IPCC report clear shows that's going to be bad
Really? I recall around 2010-2015 or so that it was putting us at about +2-+2.5C or somesuch. The prediction lowered, I guess.

>It's embedded in every product they buy and every service they use.
>Again, I don't think the energy use of the public is seperable from the energy used by the companies the public depends on can be meaningfully separated. They're too tightly coupled.
That's not their responsibility, what the fuck are you on about? If you hire a plumber and he's driving a beat up old truck from the 70s that's not on you. Hell by hiring him you actually are helping him potentially get rid of it for something more efficient! If you buy some product you can't possibly tell where everything is sourced from and how much energy goes into it. That is not on the individual consumer to have to deal with. People who actually can afford to give a shit need to take the time to understand the market and make improvements so companies will change to better technologies. Because the technologies would literally be better, more efficient.

I am arguing against collectively "punishing" people for using energy on the basis of a national-level because that's an unjust way of tackling the issue. If you want to get shit done, invest (yes, literally go invest, with your money) in people developing technology that will make tanker ships, aircraft, trucks, shipping containers, etc more efficient and encourage others who have the funds to do so as well. It will work far better than simply saying that products and services all need to be more expensive. And you need to look at investing in companies and individuals that exist in poor nations so they can more quickly elevate past subsisting on junk tech.

>>10116037
Bigger companies use more energy than smaller ones, it's not a flat cost. And again, you are not considering the costs of climate change.

>>10116045
It all comes from buried organic material. How is this relevant anyway?

>>10116063
Orwellian newspeak.

>>10116065
>>>/x/

>>10116150
Yep. We don't need to need to be fools for either team. I bet your own reasoning is your best course of action.

>>10116046
>For whom?
Everyone, for everything. Energy is a basic component of all production, it raises costs across the board.

>They'll use less since it's more expensive.
No, they'll acquire less "nonessentials" as their essentials take up more cost. This can mean a child's college fund has far less put into it by his or her parents because they have higher food, electricity, clothing, etc prices.

>They always have that incentive. Competition keeps quality up.
It's an alternative to making the product cost more. If you raise costs across the board due to energy taxation then that means competition isn't a factor because all the players get hit with it. At worst, companies that are less-local get priced out of a specific market due to transport costs and it allows for more of a monopolistic situation.

>If you actually cared about minimizing the cost of living then you would support a carbon tax that does so. Climate change is worse for the cost of living than mitigation.

Climate change is unstoppable at this point so your options are either doing nothing in the hopes that we can figure out a way to do something with a greater percentage of the 7-odd billion people able to participate in the advancement of humanity or effectively punish people collectively to little effect on your desired outcome.

>It's not like there is a choice between mitigation and increasingly efficient technology,
Efficient technology leads to more mitigation.

>Revenue from the tax can also be used to fund such technological advances.
Irrelevant as it only means that SOME people will get funding if they're the RIGHT people, anyone else be damned, and the funding still pays them within a market of increased costs. So the net effect is fewer people working on such things.

>>10116163
>invest in people developing technology that will make tanker ships, aircraft, trucks, shipping containers, etc more efficient

Do you honestly believe the technology is undiscovered? That in the 150+ years of the machine revolution, no one has found a way to significantly reduce, or even eliminate fuel consumption? Simply ludicrous to believe that when this technology was discovered, that any monied energy interest group would have any reason to promulgate it, which would leading to their own downfall, rather than buy out and sit on the patent(s) indefinitely, and silence/assassinate anyone who dared attempt to rediscover and promote it.

>>10116054
>From what I understand climate scientists are generally in agreement that climate change is unstoppable at this point. Thus it's going to happen, you can't stop it with current measures
That's not how it works. Global warming isn't a SimCity disaster, where either you meet some set of conditions and a bad thing occurs or you don't and it doesn't. It's a sliding scale of emissions and effects, where the more we contribute to the problem the more severe the consequences will be. At this point we've emitted enough CO2 that we're virtually guaranteed to see some amount of bad shit in the next few decades, but we still have complete control over how bad things actually get before we reach a sustainable level of emissions.

>Developed countries don't emit more on a _per capita_ basis because it's not a statistic useful to measure on a per capita basis.
I don't see how that's the cause. If you're trying to measure responsibility for contributing to AGW then you need to do it per person. Otherwise you're pointlessly demonising large countries and excusing the emissions of small countries. Hence my example of France and Kuwait.

>Your average citizen doesn't use that much energy, it's larger companies, mainly in the transportation business, that do.
The energy used by the public isn't separable from the energy used by the companies that the public works at, hires, and purchases from. How would you even go about trying to make that distinction?

>Countries with lower quality of life have this impact spread more among their population, since their tech level is much lower and so your average citizen uses more energy for their daily tasks
That's simply not true. Energy use is still very strongly correlated with quality of life.

>But if you want to sit there and believe that people who actually can and do afford cleaner energy and vehicles are worse at producing emissions than those who are using outdated and dirty old technology
They measurably, objectively ARE.

>>10116163
>I recall around 2010-2015 or so that it was putting us at about +2-+2.5C or somesuch.
source?

>>10116159
>no substance in reality works the way of "opaque to infrared, yet mostly completely unaffected by the visible spectrum".
Those properties are basic predictions of QM, and are easy to directly verify.

>>10115306
lmao at least you know you're a brainlet

>>10116170
ok conspiratard, I suppose the earth is flat too and the moon landing is fake and getting vaccinated as a kid is why you're paranoid.

>>10116172
I don't have one, I'm operating off my memory, sorry.

>>10116076
>Everyone, for everything. Energy is a basic component of all production, it raises costs across the board.
You're still not responding to my point. The carbon tax does not have to be regressive.

>No, they'll acquire less "nonessentials" as their essentials take up more cost. This can mean a child's college fund has far less put into it by his or her parents because they have higher food, electricity, clothing, etc prices.
Again, you're assuming the tax is regressive. You're also assuming that all emissions are tied to "essentials."

>It's an alternative to making the product cost more. If you raise costs across the board due to energy taxation then that means competition isn't a factor because all the players get hit with it.
Competition still exists, so the incentive is not simply to lower cost of production. If your product is made worse then someone else can make a better product and profit by gaining market share, even if their margin is lower.

>Climate change is unstoppable at this point
This is deceptively vague. Reducing emissions will reduce future warming, even if you can't stop warming already in the pipeline. So you're presenting a false choice.

>Efficient technology leads to more mitigation.
And?

>Irrelevant as it only means that SOME people will get funding if they're the RIGHT people, anyone else be damned, and the funding still pays them within a market of increased costs. So the net effect is fewer people working on such things.
You're just pulling this out of your ass.

And yet again you ignore the economic costs of unmitigated climate change. You can't tell me which decision is better if you don't take into account all costs and benefits. You're just spinning your wheels.

>>10116180
>I don't have one
I'm afraid that I don't have any reason to really believe you then.

>>10116180
ok NPC/shilltard, I suppose I'll leave this here for the sake of the thread.

http://www.panacea-bocaf.org/mraevgray.htm

>>10116081
>That's not how it works.
As I have understood it, it's already past the point of of "devastating" for a path in the distant future, and we would need radically better technology globally to prevent it as nothing in today's options will cut it short of going back to roman technology or worse.

>I don't see how that's the cause.
>The energy used by the public isn't separable from the energy used by the companies that the public works at, hires, and purchases from
> How would you even go about trying to make that distinction?

???
Are you asking how to separate what a corporation uses as far as energy goes, from what a person uses in his private life?

>Energy use is still very strongly correlated with quality of life.
>They measurably, objectively ARE.
If you exclude people who are essentially dirt farmers, then those who are still using inefficient shitty tech are going to emit more CO2/etc than people who are utilizing efficient machines, vehicles and devices. The reason you don't use per capita is, and I will spell it out for you:

1. It spreads the effects of the biggest users of energy, such as large shipping companies, out among the general population
2. The general population have no responsibility for these companies - an individual's day to day life's energy use is a paltry sum in comparison
3. There's a significant amount of a poor country's population living with little to know fuel or electricity, being rural, often illiterate and below the poverty line.
4. There are few massive-production corporations in these poor countries
5. The people who have access to technology in semi-rural areas, and a large portion of those who live in urban areas, are those who can afford to live somewhat-modernly, bit often use shitty and outdated vehicles, appliances, and their grid power is generally ancient and similarly outdated.
6. Taking the per capita of a poor country thus spreads the "actually using tech" population's emissions out.

>>10116019
Sorry I'm late. I figured they were both you. And you seem quite knowledgeable >>10116028
This denier is willing who be wrong if I'm wrong and have no need to watch bullcrap videos to inflate my ego and prove I'm wright when I may be wrong. Who is the greater fool? The greatest fool or those who follow him?>>10116019
I think it would a lot to win favor to be realistic and acknowledge mistakes and pious lies. You do know what I see or hav looked at. I've seen enough to know we need to straighten things out and get more people on the same side.

>>10115883
>health ranger science

>>10116180
>ok conspiratard
Imagine being so naive as to believe someone with interest in making money at any cost would do something bad to get as much of it as possible.

>>10116178
This "brainlet" is right as rain

>>10116195
>http://www.panacea-bocaf.org/mraevgray.htm
>check activism section
>"Governments have, over and over again, not addressed the following evidence, which affects the populations of all countries. Many times the elected government officials have acted independently with open disregard of the interests of the public. For example- Hidden Agenda: The Fluoride Deception. Biological Effect of Fluorides"
>Other examples include Aspartame, Pesticides, Food additives,Free energy suppression , Irradiated food, Mercury in vaccines.
>MSG

w ow

>>10116205
Anon, a company that has lots of money is less likely to hurt the environment than a company whose cash supplies are low.

>>10116218
All of those things are hazardous. No one is looking out for your health, you're not being protected, and the world is a severely broken and dysfunctional place.

Get over it so we can fix it. Especially the poison water. I'd like to be able to take a drink when I go to town. It's natural to be afraid, but you must be brave. There's a lot of work to do. No one else is going to fix it.

>>10116216
t. said brainlet

>>10116170
>>10116180
Simpletons. Of course technology has been suppressed to protect the industry. Nobody's called the earth flat. That shit is juvenile to argue in such ineffective manners. Those same financial interests are now evolving with the times and making money from both directions. Now that fossil fuels are more expensive and less abundant. Why not create Big Green as well as Big Oil to hedge the bets?

>>10116225
The only "afraid" I'm feeling is for your mental state and the people who might be in the path of your weapon when your nihilism leads you to attack someone as a way to avoid suicide

>>10116159
>no substance in reality works the way of "opaque to infrared, yet mostly completely unaffected by the visible spectrum"
A material opaque to visible but transparent to IR can be seen on most remote controls. I don't see why you'd assume the opposite couldn't exist.

>>10116218
Want to play a game of five truths and a lie with that list?

>>10116231
I intend ultimately to leave the cattle to their masters, as I always have. Tempting as it may be to try to beat a man into wakefulness.

>>10116224
You would think this is true and it would be the best long term business practice to give honest value to the customers to gain trust and loyalty but, recent. Actions of Volkswagen and Wells Fargo show how a few idiots can let things get stupidly out of control. I would have loved to think that corporations would do the right thing in this day and age and have argued for trust and looser regulations. I was wrong. There has to be a middle ground to let capitalism breath but prevent fucked up shit.

>>10116237
Those are rare exceptions which get decked when they do happen. You're just becoming aware of the exceptions more and more due to acceleration of information spread.

So what exactly is going to happen?
Is the air not going to be breathable anymore?
Will the athmospere completely disintegrate?

>>10116241
>which get decked when they do happen
You mean when they get caught and can't buy their way out of it.

>>10116226
If you read through. I think that it has been well argued and sufficient alternative solutions presented that "Aristotlian logic" and all that show that the brainlet and nobody's refuted it for a while, till people starting coming in and breezing through the posts to pick things out and call people brainlet. Real nice debating.

>>10116242
>Will the athmospere completely disintegrate?
Yes, it will turn into a gas.

Unless something much bigger happens, you'll be able to breath just fine. Rising temperatures would cause a lot of other things but you don't have to worry about asphyxiating.

>>10114248
>it makes no sense to build fossil plants
We're not anywhere near peak coal or gas. They're not going to stop making economic sense unless we can get a fee put on them.

>>10116250
Better option: make better solar/nuclear/etc power so no one would willingly use coal or gas if they could help it.

>>10116241
Rare but significant. My reasoning tells me that if some are busted, there are more wow are not. How hasn't seen shady shit going on in the company that they work for? I am a capitalist and a denier, but I'm not gonna just puke out the sound bites. We need to stop being dicks and change the zeitgeist of the situation. I am ashamed of my teams and think that the other side is guilty of more wrong. I do not know how many mistakes come from good intentions but, it seems like the intent is sinister from reading this crap. I am intentionally ill informed. I do not watch news and shit. I learn from people and think for myself.

>>10116254
Or so that coal or gas can be better utilized where it is necessary at a reasonable rate. That nuke stuff is also a can of worms that should be opened carefully.

>>10116254
The problem isn't "not good enough nuclear" it's that it has such bad PR and such a huge cost to start up that no one will give it a chance.

>>10116268
Nuclear is inefficient trash. Most of its volume is devoted to dealing with being a high pressure system, and all to spin a turbine. All those active failsafes, all that space, all that fuck around. To put pressured vapor through a turbine. Retarded.

Nuclear is trash for morons and whores. Now LFTR on the other hand... that'd be a proper reactor.

>>10116286
>Most of its volume is devoted to dealing with being a high pressure system, and all to spin a turbine. All those active failsafes, all that space, all that fuck around. To put pressured vapor through a turbine. Retarded.
The Rankine cycle is an incredibly efficient way of turning heat into usable work.

>Nuclear is trash for morons and whores. Now LFTR on the other hand... that'd be a proper reactor.
LFTRs would also need steam generators and turbines.

>>10116322
Naysayers

>>10116286
>Nuclear is inefficient trash.


You are an idiot. Even conventional nuclear plant has literally two orders of magnitude lower footprint for the same energy output than renewables.

First nuclear plant turned on in 1954. We had a solution to climate change staring us in the face since then. You dont need inefficient and costly renewables. You dont even need expensive electric cars, synthetize hydrocarbon fuels can be directly used in current vehicles. Technology existed to be carbon neutral back in the 80s.

>>10116354
Dangers of radioactive crap? And what to do about it? Seems more feasible to shoot that garbage into space than it did in the 80s. I'm just a dumbass. Please splain to me/us.

>>10116242
summer will last 4 days more on average
more farmland in Russia
plants will grow faster and stronger because CO2 is literally their food
Sahara is already greening

http://www.co2science.org/about/position/globalwarming.php

>>10116354
nuclear is not competitive, it never was and never will be, that's why almost no new plants have been build for decades and many old plants will retire soon.

>>10116370
Dangers of radioactive crap are vastly overrated. A nuclear accident is bad but nuclear plants produce so much energy that statistically speaking, more people will die falling from wind turbines than radioactivity, assuming same energy output. Especially modern passively safe reactor designs are great.

As for nuclear waste, storing it underground is a perfectly viable solution. Waste from breeder reactors is only dangerously radioactive for a few hundred years anyway.

>>10116388
You can expect a runaway global warming if you wait for a carbon neutral energy source to be competitive. Energy sources need to be heavily subsidized.

>>10116394
Would there be a point, with the hundred years and the volume of waste, that we are running out of holes to dig or that shits all over the place? If not: we should just knock off bithcing about warming and start whining for more nuclear power. Yes?

>>10116380
>http://www.co2science.org/about/position/globalwarming.php
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_the_Study_of_Carbon_Dioxide_and_Global_Change
>The Center was founded and is run by Craig D. Idso
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_D._Idso
>He is the former Director of Environmental Science at Peabody Energy,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peabody_Energy
>Peabody Energy, headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri, is the largest private-sector coal company in the world.
Wow, that's not a conflict of interest at all.

>>10116462
muh autority

if you want to deny that CO2 is food for plants you need evidences my dear anon; I'll wait

>>10116245
>I think that it has been well argued
thinks the brainlet
your argument is retarded, no offense, and it shows a complete lack of what incentives are

>>10116467
>if you want to deny that CO2 is food for plants
Agriculture is vastly more complicated than "CO2 is plant food". To begin with, any CO2 fertilisation effect is also going to apply to weeds. There's no good reason to take the word of the co2science folks at face value.

>>10116532
>Agriculture is complicated
Maybe if you're a brainlet

>>10116543
ooh look city boy talk tuff
>pull your fucking socks up, retard

>>10116242
food security fill break down.
here's how it will start
https://youtu.be/Mc_4Z1oiXhY?t=23m10s

>>10116242
food security will break down.
here's how it will start
https://youtu.be/Mc_4Z1oiXhY?t=23m10s

>>10116242
food security will break down.
here's how it will start
https://youtu.be/Mc_4Z1oiXhY?t=23m10s

>>10116532
>word of the co2science folks

unfortunately for you they cite sources, DECADES of studies for almost every plant:

http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/dry/o/oryzas.php

http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/photo/o/oryzas.php

>>10116563
Did you even look at those links before posting them? Those are only considering the impact of CO2 fertilisation. As I said, agriculture is more complicated than "CO2 is plant food".

>>10114247
>Implying the third world isn't already starving
Not much will change for them anyway

>>10116569

they put the same plants in 2 separate chambers: in one they add CO2 while in the other they don't; and then they measure the differences

do you even know how science works? a controlled-environment chamber? no? then go back to /x/ please

>>10114277
Refugee status is only given to those who are are escaping a government or persons, due to them persecuting you. You don't get it if you've got famine or poverty in your nation.

>>10114303
25 yuropoors were deposited to your shill account, have a nice day.
Yours truly,
EU apparatchik brainwashed by IPCC fearmongering

>>10114303
And you suggest we just sit on our hands and just wait for an apocalypse?
Things will get worse that is a fact but to think we cant do anything to extend our life on this planet is plain ignorant.

>>10116591
Dumb burger

>>10116600
I'm yuropoor you commie fuck. But from a (part of) country which already went through communism. Not nice to see EU aparatchiks doing the same shit Stalin's aparatchiks were doing couple decades ago.

Nutrition of crops decrease as CO2 rises.
http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/5/eaaq1012
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature13179.epdf?referrer_access_token=NJhSmv7tpunudrrtivnkFdRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0PMO7CPYghaROZ8qcdXJ1XpBQ-HSZ0qsiW_gsnZNm-k2tQbZpybQuj_TyTm_QE_T7II9y4nRL-jY0UkROfWdT1gKl8inozNpx7iEhuEDrAXV4OF9U2pi2UA5HkRg7rU5_1uY_vWWfqLda1lI3ZX1HIH&tracking_referrer=news.nationalgeographic.com

>>10116610
>>>/pol/

>>10116583
I can't tell if you're being serious or not.
I understand that the CO2 level is the only thing being varied in those experiments. My point is that that isn't directly analogous to the consequences of global warming.

>>10116618
>anyone who doesn't agree with Merkel's agenda or publishes data that goes against it is silenced (libel lawsuits in Germany are fucked) or ran over by the propaganda machine of our media
>Merkel reincarnates stasi to further silence her opponents
>you're /pol/ if you don't like this
Do the world a favor and drink a gallon of bleach, commie bastard.

>>10116625
Well, retards should be silenced. Nothing wrong with that.

>>10116625
How did you get all of that from a "gb2 /pol/"? Clearly you belong there.

>>10116159
The caliber of deniers has really gone down lately. I think most of them have given up except for the really deluded quacks like this.

>>10116628
What about when Merkel gets replaced, you would be on the wrong end of that gun, ready to be fired at you.
If you think it's retarded, maybe win with arguments, not propaganda and lawsuits. I'm just waiting for Merkel to reincarnate gulags for climate skeptics, EU skeptics, anti-immigrants and all the groups of people her government finds undesirable.
>>10116629
By the fact that you spout "hurr pol" when you see "commie". I'm sorry, but that's precisely what you fearmongering aparatchiks are acting like.
Now tell me the fairy tale about the peak oil, please. We were supposed to hit peak oil for several decades now (same with climate change - every couple years you have to curve-fit your "models"). Each time your cult of ecoterrorists misses a prediction, you come up with a new perturbation of your obviously flawed model and go fearmongering again... "t-this time we're surely r-right".

>>10116641
>>>/pol/

>>10116644
>>>/b/

>>10116641
>gulags for climate skeptics
I don't give a fuck about the rest, but that's a good idea. Well done, poltard

>>10116163
>I am arguing against collectively "punishing" people for using energy on the basis of a national-level because that's an unjust way of tackling the issue.
This is hilarious. What would be unjust is to have people punished for the energy use of others via global warming! People are going to pay one way or another for the cost of pollution. The only question is who pays for it, those who pollute or those who suffer?

>>10116646
We won against trash like you one time already. It will be the same this time around, except now we won't show mercy.

>>10116652
>we
lol. 'You' won against nobody you fucking basement dwelling NEET

>>10116641
> I'm just waiting for Merkel to reincarnate gulags for climate skeptics, EU skeptics, anti-immigrants and all the groups of people her government finds undesirable.
Good idea, desu. We need to get rid of this filth. Otherwise we are susceptible from outside influence. It's ridiculous that Israel and Russia can control our electorate so easily.

>>10116653
t. 12yo zoomer brat
>>10116656
Great idea indeed. There would be no doubt about Merkel's intentions at that point, no matter how brainwashed you are. I love the Merkel-Stalin parallels, Putin doesn't come close to her in the similarities.

>>10116648
> The only question is who pays for it, those who pollute or those who suffer?

People who cause it and not people who don't. Joe Average who switched to LED lights and all that jazz to be energy efficient as he can reasonably be is doing what he can within reason. Saying he has to pay for the carbon debt of corps like American Airlines or Maersk is retarded. You're stopping your division of groups for the analysis at the country level because it's a convenient way to demonize first world countries as a whole instead of using a (BARELY) more nuanced analysis that takes into account which people are using the most as individuals, governmental or corporate entities, specifically. The fourth largest shipping company in the world, COSCO, is Chinese by the way, the largest (Maersk) is Danish. How much does Maersk contribute to Denmark's CO2 statistic? How little does COSCO, despite being enormous?

>>10116704
>Joe Average who switched to LED lights and all that jazz to be energy efficient as he can reasonably be is doing what he can within reason. Saying he has to pay for the carbon debt of corps like American Airlines or Maersk is retarded.
So because he switched to LEDs we can just ignore that he demands the services and products these companies provide? You're retarded.

>You're stopping your division of groups for the analysis at the country level because it's a convenient way to demonize first world countries as a whole instead of using a (BARELY) more nuanced analysis that takes into account which people are using the most as individuals, governmental or corporate entities, specifically.
Where did I say anything about countries? I'm talking about individuals. The only fair way to divide costs is to pay the full cost of what you do. Otherwise someone else suffers for your decisions. Companies will pass on any cost to the consumer because that is ultimately who decides to buy. Government funds are simply taxpayer dollars. It all goes back to individuals regardless.

Arguing with you is a waste of time, you just repeat the same crap over and over without responding.

>>10116563
who cares, that won't happen in the real world since the subtropics will lose 50% - 75% of its rain - that's the latitudes where all the world's bread baskets are

>>10116641
>muh predictions
No amount of failed predictions by various random assholes will change the basic scientific facts that the climate is warming and human activities are causing it. It's not going to be good, idiots asserting the agricultural gains will be yuuuuge aside.

>>10115845
No, it does not apply in any valid manner. Nobody outright rejects feasible solutions to presumed problems unless something fishy is going on.

>>10116729
>human activities are causing it
My dog's activities are also causing it. That's not what climate skeptics are arguing about. It's the shoddy models and people drawing conclusions from them.
When you have a consistent model, you can assert "human CO2 output is effectively the cause of GW". As of now, the only accurate assertions that one can draw from the models is "climate is getting warmer", any finer detail is lost in margin of error.

>>10114054
>I'm going to try to post weekly threads about Climate Change
I hope you regret this

>>10116737
No one denies well evidenced science unless something fishy is going on. Tell me what it is.

>>10116749
https://youtu.be/6VUPIX7yEOM?t=2m

>>10116749
>That's not what climate skeptics are arguing about.
Sure they are, look in this thread or any denier blog.

>It's the shoddy models and people drawing conclusions from them.
Which models are you talking about?

>When you have a consistent model, you can assert "human CO2 output is effectively the cause of GW".
We already do.

>As of now, the only accurate assertions that one can draw from the models is "climate is getting warmer", any finer detail is lost in margin of error.
We know the climate is getting warmer by direct observation, not by models. Why are you posting bullshit about what you clearly have no knowledge of? Did you really think you'd get away with this in the science board?

>>10116641
>We were supposed to hit peak oil for several decades now
we did, there's a reason oil production has switched to nonconventional sources

>>10116749
https://www.skepticalscience.com/fixednum.php
Yes, I'll take a 5 and a 6 with a side of 31. Throw in some 29 and 36 for good measure

>>10116749
>muh models
You guys don't have anything other than "the predictions," "the models," or outright lies, because the robust evidence of warming in the instrumental temperature record and lines of evidence such as C-12:C-14 ratio of atmospheric carbon are too difficult to dispel. Every single computer model of climate could be a crock of shit and it still wouldn't change these facts that already strongly suggest AGW. All before you start adding the rest of the empirical evidence, and definitely before you start adding in supplementary tools like computer models.

>>10116761
>>10116774
but what about Poland's increasing harvests and apple production?
checkmate

>>10116761
>any denier blog
Where do they deny that it's getting warmer?
>Which models are you talking about?
The ones used by IPCC in their ensembles.
>We already do.
No. If you went to Wall Street with your models, you'd be broke in 5 years.
If you showed your models to CERN number-crunchers for peer-review, they would tell you to publish them at vixra.
>We know the climate is getting warmer by direct observation
Indeed. That's not what climate deniers have problems with. They have problems with "hurr durr human cause GW because model say so".
>>10116767
So peak oil doesn't actually mean we're running out of it, just that we need to use new technology.
>>10116768
>skepticalscience.com
>>10116774
>strongly suggest GW*
The evidence for the A is pretty weak, even despite the tremendous effort to find it.

>>10116786
not sure if joking or really stupid

>>10116789
>So peak oil doesn't actually mean we're running out of it, just that we need to use new technology.
>finite resources are actually infinite guys

>>10116789
>The evidence for the A is pretty weak, even despite the tremendous effort to find it.
I already mentioned some direct empirical evidence of this, C-12:C-14 ratio of carbon in the atmosphere, which I notice you ignored entirely to assert the evidence is "very weak."

>>10116789
>>skepticalscience.com
>I have no argument
Well, it's not like I didn't know that.

>>10116795
>we'll run out of oil in 20 years guys
>actually in 30 years
>oh wait, in 40 years, this time it's surely right
>scratch that, it's 50 years
We're nowhere near the peak. Sure, we'll run out some day. But that day is much further than you fearmongering retards like to say.
>>10116800
Neither CO2 emmisions, nor CO2 concentrations are significantly correlated with global mean temperature.
>>10116816
Why bother with your website when the comments rebutting their shit get deleted all the time? No point in arguing with someone who's promoting this style of "debate".

>>10116789
>Where do they deny that it's getting warmer?
There's one in this very thread >>10114787

Here's a blog: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/10/svensmark-global-warming-stopped-and-a-cooling-is-beginning-enjoy-global-warming-while-it-lasts/

>The ones used by IPCC in their ensembles.
Which are the shoddy ones that people are incorrectly drawing conclusion from?

>No. If you went to Wall Street with your models, you'd be broke in 5 years.
>If you showed your models to CERN number-crunchers for peer-review, they would tell you to publish them at vixra.
I'm sure, since the models are for predicting global temperature, not markets or particle collisions. They do a very good job of projecting the climate. Pic related is from 15 years ago.

>Indeed. That's not what climate deniers have problems with.
A lot of them do, as you can see in this very thread.

>They have problems with "hurr durr human cause GW because model say so".
It's not just because models have shown this, it's also because we know the greenhouse effect exists, we know the amount of CO2 humans are emitting and we know exactly how much infrared heat is being radiated towards the Earth from CO2 by direct observation. But even if you ignore all this, the models have been successful and you have presented no better alternative. I don't see why you are denying them and making shit up.

>>10116819
>Why bother with your website when the comments rebutting their shit get deleted all the time? No point in arguing with someone who's promoting this style of "debate".
>I still have no argument
YIKES

>>10116819
>Neither CO2 emmisions, nor CO2 concentrations are significantly correlated with global mean temperature.
Source: My ass

>>10116819
>Neither CO2 emmisions, nor CO2 concentrations are significantly correlated with global mean temperature.
...

BUT THINK ABOUT THE APPLES GUYS. THE APPLES

>>10116840
SO MANY POLISH APPLES

>>10116819
>We're nowhere near the peak
>meanwhile we're switching to shitty unconventional oil that isn't suitable for maintaining our oil based civilization and can't even make up for losses in conventional sources
>meanwhile new oil discoveries have been in near constant decline for almost a decade now
yikes

>>10116822
>Which are the shoddy ones that people are incorrectly drawing conclusion from?
All of them?
>They do a very good job of projecting the climate
They do good job at projecting the climate trend*. From your graph alone you can see that it's useless beyond "it's warming".
>A lot of them do, as you can see in this very thread
I see most of them saying something like "it'll be bad for third world".
>>10116833
>20th century
What about the past x millions years where it did not?
>>10116845
>reserves roughly double every decade
>but we're running out
yikes©

>>10116852
>What about the past x millions years where it did not?
What about them?
You can't meaningfully compare events on different timescales like that. There are facings that govren the climate on long timescales but that don't matter to us, and CO2 is a climate forcing on human timescales but a feedback on longer ones.

>>10116852
>All of them?
Name one.

>They do good job at projecting the climate trend*. From your graph alone you can see that it's useless beyond "it's warming".
So did it project the temperature accurately or not? I'm confused.

>I see most of them saying something like "it'll be bad for third world".
It will be quite bad for everyone. But regardless, there are many deniers that deny it's even warming.

>What about the past x millions years where it did not?
Millions of years ago, the Sun was weaker. Humans were also not pumping massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, since they didn't exist. Ignoring this will not help you understand today's climate.

>>10116552
this video is so dumb and over the top. catastrophist alarmist call it what you please.
when he talks about australian wheat production for instance, saying how two years prior they were the second largest exporter and now the could export very little because of a drought which he claims is the new norm and not just a drought... well the data is in and australia is producing as much wheat as ever and just a few years after this lecture it produce a record 29.9 million tons of wheat.
in fact world wide wheat production has never been higher.
in fact we produce so much more food in excess of what we need that i really struggle to see how famines could become a thing. maybe people will have to drastically cut down on ridiculous copious wasteful amount of unnecessary crap and won't be afforded the opportunity of being morbidly obese at will, and that'd be a good thing in my opinion

>>10116920
Producing more wheat doesn't mean global warming didn't reduce yield.

https://www.agric.wa.gov.au/climate-change/how-wheat-yields-are-influenced-climate-change

>'Median wheat yields modelled for the South West Australia projected declines between 26% and 38%, under a ‘most-likely’ case for RCP 4.5 by 2090, and between 41% and 49%, under a ‘most-likely’ case for RCP 8.5' (Taylor et al. 2018)

>>10116920
>i really struggle to see how famines could become a thing
they were a major thing less than a century ago, they're still a major thing in large parts of the world

>forge data
>oh no glabal is warming
>????
>profit

>>10116947
last time famine were a real thing was 2 whole centuries ago...
if you're talking about artificial genocidal famines as if they're indicative of anything you're pretty dumb

>>10116937
>Producing more wheat doesn't mean global warming didn't reduce yield.

it means exactly that you moron, yield and production are synonyms (that means they have the same meaning in case you need that extra help)
as for you're link "wheat production would be declining instead of growing if it weren't for advancements in agriculture"
big fucking whop too bad reality isn't a static model and technological advancements are a thing
>worldwide wheat production in 1996: 578.6M tonnes
>worldwide wheat production in 2016: 749.5M tonnes

>>10116964
>duh data is forgedd
>see these e-mails I don't understand? hoax!

>>10116973
>it means exactly that you moron, yield and production are synonyms (that means they have the same meaning in case you need that extra help)
You're an idiot, my point has nothing to do with production vs. yield. If X decreases yield and Y increases it more, then X still decreases yield.

>big fucking whop too bad reality isn't a static model and technological advancements are a thing
Again, you are completely missing the point. Yield would have been higher than it is if not for global warming.

>>10116984
How will more wheat lead to famines again?

>>10116992
Where did I say anything about famines?

>>10117024
maybe you shouldn't inject yourself into a conversation in which your input is absolutely devoid of point :^)

>>10116752
https://thebulletin.org/2015/02/timeline-the-ipccs-shifting-position-on-nuclear-energy/

>>10117104
So the IPCC supports nuclear power, what is your point?

>>10114253
>e.g. Germany had a very warm year and a crop failure
That's a redneck climate change denial-tier argument, though
>if klimat cheinj iz hapenin wey did it snows den

>>10114054
>2. Carbon taxes.
Carbon taxes are a fake proposed by financial elites to distract people from implementing real solutions, which would involve addressing unsustainable economic/population growth - which they depend on to fund their opulent lifestyles.

Reminder that 1/3 of ghgs are produced by the richest 10%, and that these people's lifestyles will not be affected by carbon taxes.

How do climate scientists determine what percentage of GHG emissions is from volcanism when we have absolutely no idea how many active submarine volcanoes there are?

>>10117777
Correction. 50% of ghg are produced by richest 10% (and these people's lifestyles will not be affected by carbon taxes)

>>10117789
>the purpose of carbon taxes is to affect the lifestyles of rich people

>>10117788
Because they do have an idea of how many active submarine volcanoes there are.

Why do deniers constantly lie?

>>10117777
>Rich people emit more so they won't be effected by carbon taxes
Brilliant argument.

>>10117827
I'm not a denier. Climate change is real, dangerous, and at least some of it is man-made. But it's a fact that we don't actually know how many active submarine volcanoes there are.
http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/submarine

We know there's around 60,000 sea mounts, but most of these are totally unexplored, and so could be active volcanoes.

>>10117840
>But it's a fact that we don't actually know how many active submarine volcanoes there are.
But we have estimates.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2011EO240001

We also don't necessarily need to know how many volcanoes are emitting to estimate the total emissions.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4e58/5f447a80c2965cb72c56945e4e9b2306833f.pdf

>>10117788
By analysis of changes in isotope balance.

>>10117777
>>10117789
>Carbon taxes are a fake proposed by financial elites to distract people from implementing real solutions
Taxes are a normal and widely accepted response to externalities.

>Correction. 50% of ghg are produced by richest 10% (and these people's lifestyles will not be affected by carbon taxes)
Irrelevant. Even if they don't change their behaviour, the companies they use will have to in order to stay competitive.

>>10117828
Rich people have ample savings, and a bucket list. The carbon tax puts a slightly larger dent in their savings and it will not affect their bucket list.

You people might as well tax another essential of life such as water or air, it will have the same effect on ghg emissions.

>>10117828
Furthermore, rich people will simply pass on the increased costs of their bucket list to people below them on the socioeconomic spectrum.

Just as corporations will pass on increased operating costs on to consumers.

God you people are disgusting.

>>10117868
>Believes in the fallacy of endless economic growth on a finite planet powered by miraculous technological inventions created by mythical creatures known as "scientists".

You're just another devotee of the toxic cancerous religion/philosophy known as economics.

>>10117879
How exactly would they do that?

>>10117879
>rich people will simply pass on the increased costs of their bucket list to people below them on the socioeconomic spectrum.
Are you seriously invoking "trickle down economics"?
The economy doesn't revolve around keeping luxuries of the top 10% cheap, and the taxed money doesn't just disappear.

>Just as corporations will pass on increased operating costs on to consumers.
That's going to make them less competitive. Customers will just switch to another (less emitting) company's products.

>>10117891
>Believes in the fallacy of endless economic growth
Where did I say that?

>>10117876

Why would we tax air? Breathing isn't leading to an imminent breakdown in the equilibrium of the climate system.

>>10118221

What am I saying? It's ALREADY led to a breakdown in the equilibrium of the climate system. The house is visibly on fire and we're still debating whether or not it's burning.

>>10117895
Why not ask me how corporations pass on costs of more regulations to consumers?

They just do...

>>10117900
>Are you seriously invoking "trickle down economics"?
It's more like the opposite of trickle down, in the sense that only the shit, waste, and garbage that rich produces trickles down all over the poor.
>The economy doesn't revolve around keeping luxuries of the top 10% cheap
source?
>That's going to make them less competitive.
Only if they produce something that people don't absolutely NEED, which oil companies do.

>>10118224
>we're still debating whether or not it's burning.
not me.
I'm just saying your focus on carbon taxes (and only carbon taxes) and other "market based solutions" as an incentive to develop "clean technology" is not going to work.

>>10118312
I'm asking you something else though, and you're deflecting.

>>10117788

>>10116754

>>10118221
>Why would we tax air?
Because, just like carbon taxes, it will slow economic/population growth, and that is the root cause of all of these issues. Modern consumerism/decadence has a cost far beyond ghg emissions, whether you like to admit it or not.

>>10118342
If you can answer my question , I'll do my best to answer yours.

>>10118352
Why? If you can't answer then just concede your argument is bullshit.

>>10118364
I'm sure you're a big supporter of the "gotta pay talent" principle.

Why wouldn't a hot shot doctor/lawyer charge more if that's what it takes to have a nice yacht? And the shit trickles on down.

Go fuck yourself.

>>10118347

I would argue that decadence and energy consumption arise mutually. The more access a population has to energy, the higher the probability of indolence and apathy.

You are exactly right, though; population and economic growth ARE the root cause of these issues, but you aren't extrapolating on your own conclusions. They are the root cause because in order to grow, civilization requires energy, and the consumption of energy (at this time and in this era) goes hand in hand with fossil fuel emissions.

There is just no way of escaping this. It's an a priori conclusion that can't be avoided.

>>10118322
>It's more like the opposite of trickle down, in the sense that only the shit, waste, and garbage that rich produces trickles down all over the poor.
That's still just trickle-down. Claiming that making the rich slightly richer will help the poor is equivalent to claiming that taxing the rich will harm the poor.

>Only if they produce something that people don't absolutely NEED, which oil companies do.
They still have to compete against each other. Implement a carbon tax or ETS will hurt the relative competitiveness of the worst polluters in every industry, regardless of how much people want their stuff.

>>10118342
>rich people pass the costs of carbon taxes on down to people lower on the socioeconomic spectrum to maintain their lifestyles
>corporations charge consumers more to offset the costs of increased regulations

>I'm asking you something else though, and you're deflecting.

It's really cute how you try to pretend those phenomena are totally different and unrelated, when in reality its pretty much the exact same thing written in different words.

>>10118387
Because market price is not solely determined by the supplier's whims. I'm done with your crank bullshit.

>>10118402
>That's still just trickle-down.
Not at all. "trickle down" applies to wealth/prosperity where the rich get the first dibs and the poor taste the benefits later on. I'm talking about a trickle down of hardship/adversity, which is the exact opposite.
>They still have to compete against each other.
I see where you're coming from but the benefits you're counting on from that would only manifest if different companies aren't already virtually optimized for efficiency, which I would argue they are due to decades of competition and development.

>>10118332

I'm not concerned with arguing the merits of a carbon tax; I'll cross that bridge once I come to it. There are still millions of Americans, to include the President of the United States, who *believe* (asterisks for emphasis) at least one of three things:

1) Climate change is not happening, it's not man made, and it's not an immediate existential threat.

2) Climate change IS happening, it's not man made, and it's not an immediate existential threat.

3) Climate change is happening, and it IS man made, but it isn't an existential threat.

As long as your thoughts on climate change do not fall in to one of those three categories, I am satisfied.

Pic definitely related.

Additionally, for your convenience, I will link one of Shakhova et al's papers which led them to the aforementioned conclusion.

>>10118427

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15872

The link in question, and a data set from the paper depicting methane escaping through gas migration pathways in increasing quantities.

>>10118427
>As long as your thoughts on climate change do not fall in to one of those three categories, I am satisfied.
They do not.

>>10118424
>trickle down of hardship/adversity
I should add also that a carbon tax (like any regressive tax) will almost certainly gain momentum as it moves down the socioeconomic spectrum.
watch for more people living on the streets (as well as more yachts) as a consequence.

>>10118424
>but the benefits you're counting on from that would only manifest if different companies aren't already virtually optimized for efficiency
They're optimised for efficiency under current conditions, where contributions to AGW are an externality they don't have to pay for. The entire point of a carbon tax is to get them to re-optimise for conditions where they DO have to pay the cost of emissions.

>>10118439

Bueno. :)

Just out of curiosity, if not a carbon tax, what? Are you an accelerationist? If there is a solution, would you like to find it, and if so, do you think it's even possible, and if it's not, do you think humanity will ultimately survive?

>>10118448
>They're optimised for efficiency under current conditions, [ignoring AGW]
>them to re-optimise for conditions where they DO have to pay the cost of emissions.

And if these two optimizations turn out to be essentially the same?
or in order to reoptimize we are simple shifting externalities to some other area such as massively increasing open pit mining or more nuclear meltdowns?

I suppose in your mind any externality is preferable to AGW as long as you can maintain economic growth.

>>10118453
phone is about to die so Ill have to be quick (back tomorrow). I do believe there are better solutions than carbon taxes although they politically unpalatable. I am not an accelerationist, but I dont think humanity will ultimately survive.

>>10118480
>I dont think humanity will ultimately survive.
Why?

>>10118480

Alright, I'll see you tomorrow brah.

>>10118491

You know, unfortunately, I don't think his pessimism is entirely misplaced.

However, if pic related can survive 6C, I don't see why we can't.

>>10118530
>I don't see why we can't.
sure we can, all 20000 of us

>>10118559

A horrible, unspeakable tragedy - but not one without precedent, and most importantly, NOT without survivors.

>>10118530
That doesnt awnser my question.

>>10118474
>And if these two optimizations turn out to be essentially the same?
Then either the harm from global warming is far smaller than we thought, or that business wasn't contributing significantly to global warming.

>or in order to reoptimize we are simple shifting externalities to some other area
Then deal with those externalities as well.

>I suppose in your mind any externality is preferable to AGW as long as you can maintain economic growth.
What?

>>10118608

I answered your question indirectly by making an obscure reference to a geological time period known as the end permian mass extinction.

Climate change was hypothesized to be the driving force, and it was the closest the planet ever came to complete sterilization.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian%E2%80%93Triassic_extinction_event

>>10118427
it isn't an existential threat you catastrophist dick

>>10118559
And that's a bad thing because...?
besides t'll be closer to 2 billions still unfortunately