/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10163256
Follow the money, Anon. Who could possibly benefit from spreading disinfo over the internet over climate change?

>>10163256

This is the same group who said Trump would crash the economy if elected.

The problem is climate change got political and exaggerated, and compromises like nuclear power were thrown out. You lose a lot of credibility about actually fixing the problem and not taking my money by doing this.

>>10163256
Soon.

Soon.

Anyone who wasn't a retard or shill already knew how bad it could get. I've been saying for years how climate change was going to cause an influx pest/ insect carrying diseases. Anytime I posted links to research about it anti-climate fags steered clear away from it because somewhere in the mammalian brain they knew challenging it would cause them to face their worse fears.

But that's alright though, they can enjoy to influx of Lyme disease.

>>10163270
>Lyme disease
That shit's fucked, I've seen few people die to it in a not good way at all and the sad part is that you're actually right, this summer we had extreme lyme disease epidemic in the southern regions of our central European country.

>>10163256
Because coal and oil industry is desperate. They know this industry is shrinking sharply. Clean energy is cheaper now and people no longer want bad air.

>>10163263

>>10163263
>>10163256

>>10163361
>solar is cheeper and people want clean air
Yes but some of the skepticism arises because the climate change debate is predominately framed and focused in terms of creating an excuse to institute a new derivatives market.

See, 90 companies are responsible for 2/3 of all global man-made pollution. The other 1/3 is generated by 7 billion people.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/20/90-companies-man-made-global-warming-emissions-climate-change

Alas, the globalist’s solution to this carbon output problem is to tax and penalize 7 billion people to make up for the impact on climate caused by the 90 corporations responsible for 2/3 of all global carbon output.

What’s more, and instead of adopting technological and science based solutions to reduce carbon footprint, the biggest polluting corporations are further incentivized to continue business as usual by virtue of Carbon Credit DERIVATIVE financial instruments that enable companies to augment the cost of a carbon tax with profits from speculation in the markets, the same kind of financial instruments that caused the housing collapse of 2008.

Aside from skepticism regarding the above so called “solution” to “climate change”, there’s also the issue of identifying what impacts change in climate the most, as there are factors besides mankind that contribute.

Example Per NASA:
“Even small changes in the abundance or location of clouds could change the climate more than the anticipated changes caused by greenhouse gases, human-produced aerosols, or other factors associated with global change.”
https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/135641main_clouds_trifold21.pdf

That cloud formation has a greater impact on climate, brings into question why so much “chemtrail” geoengineering takes place.

>>10163266
>Trump would crash the economy
Debt grew by 1300 billion in one year - during good times! The 99% will get their clocks cleaned in the next recession, ETA 2020.
People are like the kid enjoying a new Xbox that the alcoholic father gave him, while losing the house to gambling.

>>10163367
>to tax and penalize
He who shit's on the street should pay for it.
Global warming is expensive.
If you think society should pay for you not doing the poo in the loo, you're a communist.
If you don't like paying, find a non-polluting way to make money.

>>10163367
>That cloud formation has a greater impact on climate, brings into question why so much “chemtrail” geoengineering takes place.
>>>/x/

>>10163364
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=new+york+sues+exxon+mobil

>>10163383
>be me
>cite NASA
>be told to go back to /x/
Gee, funny how science strikes a nerve with some.

>>10163376
Sure, everybody should do their party, but taxing human flatulence isn’t going to stop the 90 corporations responsible for 2/3 of all man-made pollution. The problems those corporations cause will persist regardless.

In short, muh Carbon Curators aren’t concerned with science and technological solutions, they’re merely interested in making the poor poo poorer.

>>10163266
>ad hominem
>straw man
How refreshing.

>>10163368
If GDP is higher then we can afford more debt.
It's similar to how banks are willing to lend you more if you have a higher income.

Why is spending more bad?
Keynesian economics suggests that it will help the economic output in the short term.
If cheap money is available, the fed is almost hinting that we should spend.

Anyways, the fed is responding to it and raising interest rates so Trump will have to take his foot off the gas.
If he doesn't take his foot off the gas, then it is time to worry.

Japan is most fucked if a crash happens btw.

>>10163367
>Yes but some of the skepticism arises because the climate change debate is predominately framed and focused in terms of creating an excuse to institute a new derivatives market.
What do you mean?

>Alas, the globalist’s solution to this carbon output problem is to tax and penalize 7 billion people to make up for the impact on climate caused by the 90 corporations responsible for 2/3 of all global carbon output.
If these companies were solely responsible then how are they pushing the cost onto innocent people? Is it because consumers are the ones buying these products, creating the demand? Gee, what a concept. Not to mention that reducing demand in their products is indeed a huge penalty on these companies.

>That cloud formation has a greater impact on climate, brings into question why so much “chemtrail” geoengineering takes place.
Ah, I can see now I'm arguing with a crank.

There will be millions of survivors, likely hundreds of millions.

>>10163367
That's a completely disingenuous quote, they're talking about increased water evaporation due to anthropogenic climate change. So while we know climate change causes increased temperature, it also causes more clouds, which hydrogen is also a greenhouse gas, so it has a high impact on climate.

>>10163432
>taxing human flatulence
>>>/x/

>>10163423
>what is appeal to authority

>>10163494
>that’s a disingenuous quote
It’s a direct quote.

“Even small changes in the abundance or location of clouds could change the climate more than the anticipated changes caused by greenhouse gases, human-produced aerosols, or other factors associated with global change. In order for scientists to create increasingly realistic computer simulations of Earth’s current and future climate, they’ll have to include more accurate representations of the behavior of clouds. For this reason, clouds are an important area of study for the Earth-Sun System Division in NASA’s Science Mission Directorate.”

>>10163475
>>10163497
See >>10163511

>>10163361
Natural gas is the main competitor for coal and oil though, while it is cleaner burning we'll still get problems eventually. At this point we need carbon negative strategies.

>>10163475
The problem is that the climate change debate is framed so as to advocate a non-solution based on taxes and derivitve financial instruments.

As I stated above in the original comment to which you replied:
>“Instead of adopting technological and science based solutions to reduce carbon footprint, the biggest polluting corporations (responsible for 2/3 of all pollution) are incentivized to pollute and continue business as usual by virtue of Carbon Credit derivitve financial instruments that enable companies to augment the cost of a carbon tax with profits generated via speculation in the markets, the same kind of speculative financial instruments that caused the housing bubble that collapsed in 2008.”

>>10163474
>Keynesian economics
you get in debt to get out of a recession.
christ, what a shitstain brain you have

>>10163535
Now you're just pulling things out of your ass, you think people haven't tried to create technological solutions? Literally all of them have failed to some degree or are too slow to implement to save our asses. Unless you can find a solution, the only way is to stop consuming energy and cut our losses.

>>10163256
>muh economy
Last resort of a scoundrel, to appeal to (((economics))).

This is like how they say economy won't survive without more immigration, such bs

>>10163550
Uhhh... anon, how do I tell you this? If you incur debt with a GDP of $10 and pay it back with a GDP of $100, it's not really that bad.
It's almost like the value of money isn't fixed over time and is relative to the overall size of the economy or something!

>>10163256
All the dire predictions of "global warming" and now "climate change" have failed. The only success has been as an excuse for more funding. It's lazy, shit tier 'science' where the conclusion is known before the study is even conducted. The answer to everything is "climate change". To hot, too cold, too just right. All point to an urgent need to "do something".

>>10163368
>increasing debt is bad even though nominal GDP is growing at a faster rate than the debt

>>10163778
Imagine being this retarded lmao

>>10163489
With billions of casualties?

>>10163361
Here is a little secret: coal and oil don't give two shits about the supposed threat of "clean energy". It takes a mountain of subsidies to even make "green" energy appear slightly attractive. They themselves require non-renewable elements mined from the ground to create the batteries and magnets, these 'alternatives' also have their own directly measurable anthropogenic impact on the local climate, and (despite all the harping) wind and solar are only 1.1% of the world's energy supply. You may as well advocate for power created by unicorn farts. And "climate change" is a hypothesis based on human contribution of CO2. CO2 is clean and IS very green. You can't get sick from it short of using it to deprive yourself of oxygen. You exhale it just sitting there. Plants can't live without it and thrive where it's abundant. So "bad air" has nothing to do with the global warming hypothesis. And the human contribution of CO2 is at most 3.4%. The total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is %0.04 percent. It doesn't have a linear relationship to climate. Throughout known history, its lagged temperature change, not caused it. The hypothesis is that this time it's different because we are responsibly for 3.4% of it.

>>10163786
you'll see
fiscally responsible my ass

>>10163813
>he still doesn’t understand that a gov’t can pay off debt if it is growing at a slower rate than nominal GDP

>>10163791
ice age was the fear in the 70s despite the attempts to pretend otherwise, there was "global change" in the 80s, "global warming" in the 90s, "global weirding" and the catch all "climate change" after that. Even before the 70s, the headlines altered between fears of "global warming" and "ice age". There is always a crisis to capture the money and politcal capital of the young and stupid and to be mocked by the old and cynical. As the young and stupid get older and see the "crisis" never came, the goal posts are changed around and the game starts over.

>>10163807
>CO2 is clean and IS very green
That bait

>>10163821
Sources please

>>10163807
>coal and oil don't get subsidies
>what are trillion dollar major wars to protect the supply and a naval fleet more than all the other navies in the world put together to protect its flow
>what are massive externalities just forgiven by the government
Fuck off, shill.

>>10163819
Classical economists never had a fixed-rate mortgage or were debtors. If they had, they notice that the $700 payment that was a reach for them in 1988 is fun money in 2018, as is the amount of the debt.
The US can literally never default on its debt against its will. We could refuse, but since our debt is denominated in dollars we could just print it or just do debt as seignorage. If you're Greece and your debt is denominated in Euros, you can't print them, etc.
Debt that is invested in stimulating the economy is generally good and mild inflation is good for debtors, which the US government is and so are most Americans, especially those with fixed-rate debts like mortgages and student loans.
The only people the hard money philosophy benefits are the very (((rich))) who are rentiers to begin with and whose capital is diminished by inflation.
(((The feds))) quest to kill inflation since the late 70s is why we have wealth inequality, not taxes or deficit spending or muh evil corporations. The economy grew from 1933-1973 and during Reagan when that shit was ignored or irrelevant. Since then only blowing up bubbles has made the economy grow.

>>10163256
>>Climate change will shrink US economy and kill thousands, government report warns

this is projection. Fighting climate change will shrink the economy and kill thousands

>>10163568
>technological solutions? Literally all of them have failed to some degree
But, but, isn't this what economists say carbon taxes are supposed to incentivize people to do?

>>10163596
>Im counting on muh perpetual, infinite infinity economic grof foreverz
>Its in muh good book of economics. BELIEVE!

>>10163821

>As the young and stupid get older and see the "crisis" never came, the goal posts are changed around and the game starts over.

This is the kind of statement made by someone who knows fuckall about the issue at hand and generalizes. Protip the crisis is already here but it's too subtle and incremental for the average person to notice. Idiots focus on the big wow factors of climate change the influx of heat waves, storms and cold aka the ""end game"" of climate change. But they don't pay attention to the behavior changes of animals, the vector/ disease rates in regions, the slow soil and crop deterioration. Nor do they pay attention to the regions of the world actually dealing with rising water levels like Bangladesh. Ignorantly say climate change is fake or overblown just because their little part of the world isn't taking the hit yet.

>>10163515
How does that respond to anything I said?

>>10163535
How exactly are carbon taxes not a solution? We already have the "technology" to reduce emissions, we just need an incentive to use them instead of fossil fuels. You're presenting a false dichotomy between the two.

>>10163256
>https://edition.cnn.com/2018/11/23/health/climate-change-report-bn/index.html
>The report was created to inform policy-makers and makes no specific recommendations on how to remedy the problem. However, it suggests that if the United States immediately reduced its fossil fuel use and greenhouse gas emissions, it could save thousands of lives and generate billions of dollars in benefits for the country.

This is my fucking problem right here. I'm not saying Climate Change is a hoax, but no one has a fucking plan, no one knows how to deal with it, yet all of the blame for climate change falls on the right for not doing enough. It's complete BS. Donald Trump will be blamed for this whole thing despite the fact that Hillary would have been unable to do anything either because it's an extremely complex and difficult problem, and throwing money at it doesn't just make it go away.

>>10163364
>Get rid of oil
>All of a sudden no one's cars work
>Trucking industry dies because no one can drive a truck
>The economy crashes

We need to move off oil, and we're moving towards it, but we're not there yet. The technology simply isn't there to replace it. Coal is no better than oil, and nuclear/hydro/solar/wind is either not cheap enough to be viable, or it's not effective enough to meet the power needs we need today.

>>10163874
The Austrian school was right from the get go, we are on the wrong side of history.

>>10163938
True

We need to defund this climate change psuedoscience ASAP, whoever wrote this report should be fired immediately.

>>10163831
Solar and wind can't provide baseband power outside of the tropics, anyone who actually knows anything is aware of this.

If you want off coal for electricity your choices are nuclear and hydro and natural gas, period.

>>10163807
What a mountain of nonsense.

>They themselves require non-renewable elements mined from the ground to create the batteries and magnets, these 'alternatives' also have their own directly measurable anthropogenic impact on the local climate
OK, can you quantify the effect so that it can be compared to that of fossil fuel use? I'm guessing not.

>So "bad air" has nothing to do with the global warming hypothesis.
Funny how you demand accounting of the machinery used to make renewable energy yet you completely ignore where the CO2 emissions come from, primarily burning of fossil fuels that greatly lowers air quality and directly causes harm to people's health. In fact, fossil fuels are by far the most fatal energy source per watt even if you completely ignore the warming effects of CO2. Which brings us to your denial of basic science.

>And the human contribution of CO2 is at most 3.4%.
This is a red herring. The vast majority of CO2 in the atmosphere keeps the earth from being a giant ice ball. It's not that amount of CO2 that's the issue, it's the rapid change in CO2 from that baseline which is the issue. Humans are the sole cause of the rapid increase in CO2 seen since the industrial revolution, and in fact natural sinks absorb more than natural sources emit, meaning we would be responsible for even more emmissions if nature wasn't cleaning up for us.

>The total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is %0.04 percent.
>It doesn't have a linear relationship to climate.
And? More red herrings that have no point.

>Throughout known history, its lagged temperature change, not caused it.
Incorrect, temperature change causes CO2 increase and CO2 increase causes temperature change. The lag indicates which initiates this feedback loop, not that CO2 doesn't cause temperature change.

>>10163961
tl;dr bunch of dumb shit

>>10163921
>gotsa the scale up da green tech and itll be cheaper
>muh economies ob scale will sabe us!!
>its in muh good book of economics
>we jus need to grow the green economy
>tis a win win win win win win win for ebery onez.

>>10163961
>OK, can you quantify the effect so that it can be compared to that of fossil fuel use? I'm guessing not.
Can you?

>>10163256
Climate change is one of the more benign symptoms of out of control economic/population growth.

>>10163956
Right, which is why I am for nuclear and hydro shitbrick

How fucked are we with the climate change? Isn't the battle already lost? Even if we reduce the carbon footprint to the very minimum, the damage is already done and we're talking about prolonging the inevitable for like what, 100 years max?

>>10163256
I heard somewhere Olivine absorbs CO2 and is abundent in over 50% of the earths upper mantle,

Could Olivine solve the climate change crisis?
https://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-weather/stories/climate-changes-kryptonite-the-green-rock-that-could-help-save

>>10163256
yes, of course it's bad for the economy.
the redpill is that the rich in this country are quite happy with america becoming like china or third world countries, polluted as fuck with a tiny ultra rich elite ruling class and a massive poor class of slaves working for them. they are only interested in grabbing their next dollar TODAY and not at all concerned with sustainability.
remember they have the means to just move away once the area is completely shitted up.
now that the shit is hitting the fan the right wing pundits will pivot and convince their base it was actually the insane, rabid left that steadfastly blocked the valiant efforts of the 1% to slow climate change.

>>10163367
>the skepticism
>climate change debate
>the globalists
>factors besides mankind
>chemtrail geoengineering
You missed a few denialist talking points.

>>10163256
>>10163270
>every year climate shills come out with their predictions of glom and doom
>to this day none of these predictions have materialized in the slightest

>>10164193

>>10163842
Central banks goals aren't to kill inflation but to limit its destabilizing potential

>>10164193
>>10164195
But doode the gubment says it’s true and muh scientific consensus so it must be true

>>10163874
this got nothing to do with the post you're replying to

>>10163938
>but no one has a fucking plan, no one knows how to deal with it
because your plan is to keep consuming the resources causing the problem and wondering why not enough is bein done to address it
>yet all of the blame for climate change falls on the right for not doing enough.
the blame falls on everyone doing the fossil fuel burning and promoting apathy and continued consumption, because those are the roots of the problem

>>10164033
You're the one making the claim.

>>10164327
>the blame falls on everyone doing the fossil fuel burning and promoting apathy and continued consumption, because those are the roots of the problem
Which is everyone in the world.

>because your plan is to keep consuming the resources causing the problem and wondering why not enough is bein done to address it
What is your plan? To just stop using it? Do you know how far the population cap would fall if that happened? How many people would starve to death?

>>10163966
Thanks for admitting you're full of shit.

>>10164193

>>10164338
I can live without driving and flying and eating meat every meal and ordering cheap Chinese shit on the internet, but maybe normies can't.

>>10164346
Can you live without food? Farming industry would be crippled because lack of power needed to produce food. No trucks to move the food. No power to run the water plants.

You're being utterly unrealistic if you think society could continue to function at its current population cap without fossil fuels.

>>10164355
Most of the emission contribution from agriculture is associated with raising livestock for meat. It's over 80% of the total. Diet change would dramatically reduce this amount, but of course that won't happen.

>>10164355
You're being utterly unrealistic if you think society could continue to function at its current population cap with fossil fuels.

>>10164372
My point is if we just stopped using fossil fuels completely tomorrow, hundreds of millions of people would be dead by next month. I agree we need to get off fossil fuels, but no one is proposing any realistic alternatives.

>>10164358
Our economy is built around more than just food, it's built around industry. Industry that depends on fossil fuels. If that collapses, the economy collapses and resources run out, meaning people die.

>>10164396
>no one

>>10164396
You're the one that brought up agriculture. Humanity has never been better equipped to meet all of our basic needs than right now. Trimming the excess waste is the only long term option other than widespread migration and warfare.

i'm still convinced anthropocentric global cooling--oh wait they changed that--global warming, scratch that changed too--I mean anthropocentric climate change is a meme.

>>10164344
Really jogs the noggin.

You know, looking over the paris agreement it just seems like the biggest polluters of the world are allowed to keep expanding and industrializing while crippling economies that don't nearly as much pollute.

>>10163364
Both make perfect sense when you understand that the "regional environmental groups" are actually socialist/communist globalists and that they are totally in control of Europe/Asia/Africa/South America/and most of the US. Academia is 95% socialist/leftist/communist and yes those words are interchangeable since they all have the same goals.

>>10164651

>>10164646
greenland =/= global
retard

>>10164656
Sorry I forgot the sun dictates less global temperatures than hoomens that should definitely give you money.

>>10164638
>evidence is as flimsy as terminology
maybe if you're too stupid to look at the data and analyze (hint: the temperature is going up)
>>10164646
>Greenland ice core
>proxy reconstruction
>I prefer this evidence over mean surface temperature constructed from actual thermometer measurements
shiggy diggy

>>10164651
Well, in the agreement, the biggest polluters promise China and the rest of the developing world to pay for their industrialization so that they can use "clean" modern methods of manufacturing and energy straight from the West.

So the agreement is literally the entire Western world agreeing to not only abdicate their economic and global positions and to hand over power and build up economically and militarily their direct competitors, but the entire cost will be paid by the West, the rapidly diminishing global minority who is being replaced demographically by people from the developed world because they are poor..

And this all ASSUMES that the developing world will just play along nicely, follow all instructions, and won't fuck anything up.

>>10164659
>I prefer this evidence over mean surface temperature constructed from actual thermometer measurements
feel free to show your surface temperature measurements from the last 10,000 years retard.
>>10164659
>maybe if you're too stupid to look at the data and analyze (hint: the temperature is going up)
hint: maybe you're stupid enough to think the earth lacks cycles and think trends last forever.

>>10164664
>why didn't science start sooner
gee, I guess that means we should throw out the evidence we have now, some faggot said it doesn't go back far enough and hasn't looked at supporting evidence like the C-14 fraction of atmospheric carbon decreasing from fossil fuel use

>>10164668
Guess that means we should throw away any evidence showing the contrary right?

>>10164660
No you literal retard. China is the country that has pledged to reduce CO2 emissions the most in the Paris Agreement.

China promised to reduced by 20% by 2030, and the US by 17% by 2030. Why are people like you so fucking stupid and incapable of googling the most basic shit? China and India are NOT the biggest polluters. One American or Europe pollutes as much as several Chinese or Indians.

To make it fair, all countries should have the same CO2 emissions per capita, but of course, the US and Europe pollute by far the most when it comes to per capita measurements.

>>10164672
there is no evidence showing the contrary, the mean surface temperature has very clearly risen by around 1C over the last century

>>10164676
I don't know why you're arguing with me. China is considered a developing country and all developing countries are promised technology and aid so that they can directly build modern manufacturing and energy systems. What I said has NOTHING to do with pollution levels by countries, I'm just pointing out the FACT that China is considered a developing country under the agreement along with the rest of the third world and parts of the second and that each nation will be given aid so that they can industrialize according to modern standards.

The agreement is literally to prevent each nation from developing themselves, which is expected to produce a ton of pollution. It's mean to cut FUTURE pollution outputs.

>>10164676
>>10164682
And I'd also like to point out that China has the second biggest economy in the world with one of the strongest governments.

>>10164676
>No you literal retard. China is the country that has pledged to reduce CO2 emissions the most in the Paris Agreement.
Nice how they haven't even done that, and are still the worlds biggest polluters.
>the US and Europe pollute by far the most per capita
still doesn't stop the fact the vast majority of chinese peasants having their overlords pollute the planet vastly.

>>10164677
>there is no evidence showing the contrary
Greenland nor africa exist.

>>10164689
Africa temperatures show a rise. Greenland cores are localized and the location is atypical of the average of all of them. Also, ice cores are proxies and not direct thermometer measurements.

>>10163423
> I cited something from a popular organization so it must be true.

Imagine believing this.

Also if you haven't noticed. NASA has been doing a whole lot of slapping their logos on products and movies not much space exploration as of the past decade.

>>10164693
Everything SpaceX does is technically NASA.

>>10163256
The biggest evidence that there is no science here is that climate change supporters won't make falsifiable claims, and they won't put quantitative measures how things will impact.

Suppose avoiding steak will help avoid climate change. Can we tell how much? How many steaks does it take? etc. Without quantitative measure, you have superstition not science.

>>10164693
>>10164694
N-nasa is strong you bigot. Just because we have to go to Russia to go to space doesnt mean anything! Trump wants a space force!

Hiro! Ban these guys! Advertisers are not going to want to place ads on an anti-NASA board.

>>10164692
> ice cores are proxies and not direct thermometer measurements.
well no shit. We don't have time machines, it's the best available method for looking that far back as far as I know. If you have a better means please present it.

>>10164682
What money will China get though???

China doesn't get shit. China is already the largest investor in green technology on the planet. China in less than 30 years went from being solely powered by coal to the most dominant green energy user in the world (most hydro, solar, wind, etc energy). Like nobody else comes even close.

And yet you still act like the US is going to finance China's transition to green energy. Do you have any sources for your claim? Perhaps any figures of how much money the US was gonna spend on China or India? No nothing? As I thought.

>>10164686
>Nice how they haven't even done that,

Actually they have. According to the agreement, China was going to peak CO2 emissions by like 2022, but with newer projections, it's been reduced to 2020 now. China has closed down more coal plants than the rest of the world combined.

>still doesn't stop the fact the vast majority of chinese peasants having their overlords pollute the planet vastly.

They pollute a fraction of what Americans and Europeans pollute. Your average Americans make the average Chinese look like some pro-environment hippy. One single Americans pollutes more than TWICE as much as a Chinese by the way.

>>10164683
Yep. Can you tell me why the second largest economy is the #1 investor in green technology and also the #1 user of green energy? What is the #1 largest economy doing? Oh right, polluting endlessly.

>>10164694
What does this even mean? Are they slapping a brand name on their work too?

>>10164697
Sounds like you're a heretic. God i fucking love science.

>>10164701
>They pollute a fraction of what Americans and Europeans pollute
>They pollute a fraction of what Americans and Europeans pollute
the absolute state, hello chairman mao.

>>10164701
>What money will China get though???

Already wrong. Developing countries will get aid to develop to modern (aka Western) standards. And yes, the West WILL be funding the development of non-white countries. That is a literal fact and the whole purpose of the agreement.

I don't care about the rest of your post because I am NOT arguing about which country pollutes more or which one invests more. My whole point is that the agreement was made to have the West fund it's own death and economic suicide and that China, while doing all that shit and being the #2 economy, will get support, aid, and tech from the West.

So stop trying to dickwave China as #1 in green or how bad the US is because I am NOT arguing about that or even mentioned anything about that. I am pointing out the problems of the agreement and the logic within itself.

>>10164697
>climate change supporters won't make falsifiable claims

Like what? CO2 ppm levels today? Like the fact that the last time we had this level of CO2 ppm was 3 million years ago?

When every space agency on the planet with tools and instruments to measure atmospheric changes agrees that climate change is a thing, there's little doubt to be had, guy. Whether it's NASA, JAXA, Roscosmos or CNSA, there is a scientific consensus that humans are speeding up climate change beyond what the current environment can tolerate.

>>10164700
the better evidence is direct thermometer measurements

>>10164708
measuring things that tend to be close tend to do that, and and don't tend to give you a full picture of whats happening.

>>10164723
mean't for
>>10164719

>>10164708
>Using ONE variable out of hundreds.

Not only are you use one variable, but it is largely a debatable one considering the US could be polluting a billion times more than China but it's excluded because it's "managed" pollution, and not the mismanaged plastic waste your chart shows.

Anyway, the whole point of the Paris Agreement and climate change was about CO2 levels, not other pollution. The whole threat of global warming comes from the increasing CO2 ppm levels which threaten to cause a temperature rise that will wreck the planet.

>>10164718

> we had this level of CO2 ppm was 3 million years ago

Is that fallsifiable?

> there's little doubt to be had

How do we determine cause and affect here. Sure we can get a good idea that X variable is increased, but since these are at such a large timescale we can't do experiments to find causes.

But, lets suppose your right about everything.

Can you quantify how much better we will be doing by using reusable bags, or by using electric vehicles, or by raising taxes, or any of those things? Can you compare US contribution to other countries?

>>10164715
Can you give any figures? I'll happily show you my sources

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_the_Paris_Agreement

China, Percentage of greenhouse gases for ratification : 20.09%.

United States, Percentage of greenhouse gases for ratification : 17.89%.

The US couldn't even pledge to reduce the most greenhouse gas emissions despite having a large per capita CO2 emission.

So where are you sources about China getting free money and technology from the West? I'm legitimately curious. And the only threats to Western economic dominance is from China and India. I can see India getting free money and tech because the US is trying to win it over as an ally against China, but it simply sounds retarded when you say the US will help China reduce CO2 emissions, when the US itself cannot reduce CO2 emissions as much as China does.

>>10164727
>Not only are you use one variable, but it is largely a debatable one considering the US could be polluting a billion times more than China but it's excluded because it's "managed" pollution, and not the mismanaged plastic waste your chart shows.
>Xi is trying this hard to convince people on a mongolian basket-weaving forum that china isn't polluted
>Paris Agreement and climate change was about CO2 levels, not other pollution.
people not in the agreement are doing better than those who are in it.

>The whole threat of global warming comes from the increasing CO2 ppm levels which threaten to cause a temperature rise that will wreck the planet.
correlation ≠ causation. It is only one factor and the level it does affect the planet is disputed.

>>10164736
From the text within the agreement itself. I read the whole thing to see what all the hubbub was all about and as usual, it sounds nice but the implementation is retarded and will do more harm to the people helping than good.

https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/english_paris_agreement.pdf

>>10164718

A media guide to reporting on climate change.

Is there a storm a warm day? -> report it as evidence that climate change is real. Preferably escalated by Trump's most recent abstaining from globalist trade restrictions.

Is it a cold day, or decades of stable temperatures? -> its just the weather. Climate describes long term changes, not individual events. Stupid people don't understand science.

Is a species growing or doing well? -> Must be the new regulations or activism protecting them.

Is a species doing poorly? -> Climate change. Lack of regulation.

Didn't NASA recently state we are entering a very cold period due to a lack of sun spot activity?

>>10164735
>Is that fallsifiable?

It's data. Feel free to build a satellite that can measure atmospheric CO2 levels, then go dig up some soil and analyze older CO2 levels from it. Yes, it is falsifiable. Every single space agency is competing with the other to look the best, but they all agree that climate change is a thing.

>Can you quantify how much better we will be doing by using reusable bags, or by using electric vehicles, or by raising taxes, or any of those things?

Well, in most countries over 70% of pollution comes from industrial sources. So even if we all used reusable bags or electric cars it will change little on the short term. The point though is to help corporations push into newer greener alternatives due to the changing markets. You've got German automakers investing large amounts of money in electric cars not because they're more profitable, but because they are the unavoidable future.

Here's something you should know, with or without humanity, the Earth will survive. We can use every single nuke in our arsenal to blow this planet to hell and all we would be doing is just scratching the surface, Earth will survive and go back to normal in due time. It is not the planet at risk, it is humans. We are living in climates that we can tolerate, but climate change is making the climate more extreme in both ways (areas that are cold get colder and areas that are hot get hotter).

Sadly, we all need to work together on this one. The two countries that can afford to not care about climate change are Canada and Russia, since a lot of their ice will melt and become fertile land. But for the rest of the planet, we are going to get fucked really badly.

>>10164739
The US is literally the only country not in the agreement. Nicaragua and Syria have joined since. There is indisputable evidence that we are speeding up the process of climate change beyond what our environment can tolerate naturally.

>>10164741
Can you specify on which page it says the West would be giving money to change for green tech? Because I cannot stress how much of an insane claim that is. If you said India instead, I would understand, considering there is geopolitical merit in helping India rise as a counterweight to China, but giving green money to the largest investor of green tech on planet? Sounds truly ridiculous.

The implementation will definitely do good. The only debate is : Will it do enough good to change anything? Over the last couple of years, China has reduced CO2 emissions by as much as what all of the UK emits in an entire year. But any reduction made is usually filled up by other countries. So the Paris Agreement can only work if everybody pledges to work on it. If even one large country dissents, all falls into disorder.

>>10164745
That's wrong. It's not always that a storm or hurricane is attributed to climate change.

There hasn't been stable temperatures bud. We've had some of the hottest years in recorded history in the last couple of years, and it keeps getting worse. The heatwaves this year were particularly bad.

Again, you're making broad vague statements. Some species are threatened by climate change, and others are threatened by direct human activity like hunting and poaching. Sounds like trolling. But I do agree the media is dumb when it comes to reporting on climate change.

>>10163256
>and kill thousands
Latinos and niggers will breed that back in a few years. Was that newsworthy ?

>>10164723
We do have the big picture though, and it clearly shows that CO2 levels are a powerful forcing.

>>10164747
Sunspots are mainly tied to an eleven-year cycle. We might be leaving the modern period of high-activity, but (AFAIK) that's both slow and still uncertain.

>>10164652
prove it

>>10164727
MUH CO2
THINK OF MUH CO2
NEVER MIND WE'RE LITERALLY EATING OUR OWN PLASTIC NOW MUH CO2!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>10164840
>Sunspots are mainly tied to an eleven-year cycle.
Why 11 years? is that a law? couldn't it change?

>>10163786
>nominal GDP is growing at a faster rate than the debt
it isn't tho?
That's the whole fucking point
Also not taking into account the per-capita rate of growing, which is slowing down considerably

>>10163364
Given most of the "solutions" involve More Taxes, I think you put the environmentalists on the wrong tier of the chart. They go down bellow the scientists.

Remember how ethanol fuel was supposed to stop our dependence on gas? Except all it did was increase the price of corn.

>>10163256
Issue is economy shrinks from climate change but it also probably either grows much slower or shrinks from the measures required to combat it. I don’t know about other countries but in the US it cleanly divides along the line of Repubs being anti-doing shit about climate change because the economy shrinking in 50 years isn't their problem and higher growth right now helps them get elected and the Dems are pro-doing shit about climate change because the lower growth right now doesn’t inhibit their goals much.

>>10164004
When you pretend to be retarded in an attempt to make fun of another poster, it kind of just gets across that you're actually retarded since all you can do is attempt to trivialize everything he said instead of digesting it.

>>10164154
Stupid shit that people in denial try to pull out of their asses. If this were even remotely a factor, CO2 levels have risen sharply completely in spite of it

>>10164646
Oh look it's yet another fake graph from the deniers claiming that ice core data ends in the present when it actually ends in 1855 (it takes a long time for the ice core to actually form), not to mention they're trying to trick people into thinking global temperature is the same as Greenland temperature. Here's the actual situation we're in.

>>10164697
>can't quite out my finger on this one problem
>oh well, better give up and go play video games and stuff my fat face.
Die faster please.

>>10164715
You really don't understand. If we'd hav3 stayed in, WE would be selling solar panels to China. Now China sells them to us. They're already set to lap us on clean energy because our dumb fucking asses thought it clever to support our glorious coal miners and bankers instead of scientists and engineers.

>>10165274
it's so sad

I wish one of these days we might have a thread about climate change that discusses some solutions instead of just engaging with the brainlets from /pol/

>>10163263
The climatologists. You know, the ones that modeled nuclear exchanges by assuming every single strategic target was a tokyo sized city made of gasoline soaked rags...
The ones that are shit at modeling and ignore a few hundred millions years of data to focus on a few hundred years of data in order to further an agenda...

>>10165002
Per capita debt doesn't matter unless you are comparing it to GDP per capita, which is also a stupid thing to do.
We can safely quadruple our amount of debt without worry because we have more than a trillion dollars of welfare annually (solely on the federal level) that we can cut once the communists die.

>>10165263
>doesn't even go back 100,000 years
Sophist

>>10165720
barely any proxies go back that far, but leave it to denialtards to conclude nothing can be concluded if their arbitrary, irrelevant standards aren't met

>>10165708
>climatologists ignore a few hundred millions years of data to focus on a few hundred years of data
What the hell are you on about? Palaeoclimatology is a major branch of climatology, and without proxy records we wouldn't have nearly the same level of knowledge about how the climate reacts to forcings. The reason the last 200 years gets so much attention is because that's where human activity shows up.

>>10165708
>The climatologists. You know, the ones that modeled nuclear exchanges by assuming every single strategic target was a tokyo sized city made of gasoline soaked rags
Are you OK there anon? Did you miss your medication today?

>The ones that are shit at modeling
See >>10164344

>and ignore a few hundred millions years of data to focus on a few hundred years of data in order to further an agenda...
What data have they ignored?

>>10165720
Weird how you didn't say the same thing for >>10164646

Almost like you are a complete hypocrite with no intellectual integrity.

Average global temparature has dropped 0.56 Feb 2016 to Feb 2018.

Also, why is Al Gore his energy consumption significantly higher than average while he blames others?

>>10163266
Only the FED is capable of doing so by increasing interest rates.
What do they (central banks) want?

>>10165263
>Using a graphic with the last part entirely based on computer models
They can turn out to be true, but what if they turn out to be wrong?

>>10166280
>Average global temparature has dropped 0.56 Feb 2016 to Feb 2018.
Also, why is Al Gore his energy consumption significantly higher than average while he blames others?
Do deniers actually think this sophistry convinces anyone? Are they mentally ill?

>>10166280
>Average global temparature has dropped 0.56 Feb 2016 to Feb 2018.
How can climatologists POSSIBLY explain this OBVIOUS cooling trend?

>why is Al Gore his energy consumption significantly higher than average while he blames others?
Why not ask him instead? Climatologists don't study Al Gore.

>>10166283
>They can turn out to be true, but what if they turn out to be wrong?
Not much. The foundation of our understanding of AGW is basic physics, not palaeoclimatology.
That would mean our predictions are a lot less accurate than we think, but not necessarily in the "too extreme" direction - things might be worse than we thought.

>>10166283
They have been correct so far >>10164344

We can only reason based on our best understanding at the current time.

Endless discussions don't change anything. Just do something about it. E.g. put some solar panels on your roof! Stop global warming and make money!

>>10166366
>might be worse
IS worse, IPCC has a systematic underestimating bias to the way it processes data
https://youtu.be/Mc_4Z1oiXhY?t=8m30s

>>10164344
explain the graph to me. what line is the recorded temperature and what is the wideass range?

>>10166765
this video has been debunked a thousand times stop posting it

>>10166978
>i have no argument

>>10166996
what? why are you shilling this video in every thread? why is your reply always the same? are you a bot?

>>10167071
>why is your reply always the same
because you don't have an argument.
can't you read?

>>10167102
putting your fingers in your ears and shouting doesn't mean this video hasn't been debunked numerous times. a journalist isn't a reputable source, he loves to embellish his stories built around a kernel of truth with catastrophic images and makes claim that have simply turned out to be wrong.
it really makes me wonder why you keep shilling this video in every thread tho, are you connected to it in some way? what's the motive behind your actions?

>>10166972
That's all explained in the legend, what don't you understand?

>>10167122
it's a summary of interviewing army, scientists, policy makers
You have not given an argument,
just bullshit oil shill run-of-the-mill ad hominem

>>10163367
>muh chemtrails

This is how we know deniers are getting desperate

just keep ignoring facts and enjoy being flooded

>>10167151
>what don't you understand?
the things i asked you to explain here >>10166972
apparently you don't know either but isn't stopping you from posting it

>>10166972
>>10167182
The red, orange and blue lines are four different temperature records. The grey area is the range spanned with 95% confidence by climatologist's projections, made at the time represented by the vertical dotted line. As you can see, since the vertical line the actual temperature has stayed pretty close to the middle of climatologist's projections, which gives us confidence that those projections are realistic models of how the world will change.

>>10167153
t. pic related

>>10167206
>i have no argument
You plan actually saying anything about the climate?
Of course not, oil shill.

>>10167182
As I already said, all of those things are explained in the legend. Which part of the legend don't you understand? I'll gladly explain it to you if you simply tell me that you tried to read the legend but don't understand it. However this would be quite worrying as most of the labels should be familiar to you if you are here to seriously debate climate science.

>>10167206
see also
https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

>>10167199
>>10167215
Pretty wide confidence interval there don't think. The temperatures might have actually dipped below 0 signifying cooling and these so called climate "scientists" would have still been technically correct

>>10167214
>my only source of "knowledge" is a 10 year youtube video of a journalist whose claims have already been proven wrong

>>10167169
Huge sways of land like the area north of Netherlands have been the flooded without human impact. The ice is thickening on the south pole, however not as fast as it should due to 50 year earth tilt cycle.

>>10167223
>i have no argument
"proven", you keep saying, give examples.
Also explain what has improved since 2010

>>10167169
Huge sways of land like the area north of Netherlands have been the flooded without human impact. The ice is thickening on the south pole, however not as fast as it should. So humans do have an impact tho not catatrophic.

>>10167220
The lower bound is warming so there is no way to get a long term cooling trend inside the ensemble range. You should educate yourself on basic math and climatology before trying to debate as if you know anything.

>>10167169
global warming confirmed hoax

>>10167220
>Pretty wide confidence interval there don't think.
Of course it's wide, it's a 95% confidence interval. With lower confidence you'd have a narrower interval. Also notice how close the records run to the black line representing the centre of the projections.

>The temperatures might have actually dipped below 0
0 anomaly is only barely inside the 95% interval for a couple of years after the forecast starts. (2001, 2003, 2007, 2010)

>signifying cooling
That wouldn't signify cooling, that would signify a cool year. The two are VERY different things.

>>10167236
>The lower bound is warming
is also below 0

>>10167242
>If it's cold it can't be warming.
God help us all.

>>10167232
australian wheat production look it up

>>10167245
BUT
POLISH
APPLES

>>10167246
what?

>>10167245
Australia got a few lucky years, thanks to La Niña, but that doesn't change the decades-long trend.
Right now all their news are full of bitching about droughts,fires, and sand storms.

La Niña:http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/updates/articles/a020.shtml

>>10167242
0 is just an arbitrary baseline, it has nothing to to do with the trend. The trend is the change in temperature. If you move 0 up or down the change in temperature doesn't change.

>>10167254
it's the complete opposite. australia got a couple of bad years because of droughts, that's when the journalist prophesied the apocalypse "this ain't a drought guys, that's the new normal". meanwhile in the real world australian wheat production is as good as ever in line with its average, no not a few lucky years, 10 years straight of both la nina and el nino

>>10167266
>australia not getting dryer
[citation needed]

>>10167271
do what?
>australian wheat production is kil
[citation needed]

>inb4 his source is a journalist trying to sell his book

>>10167274
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/06/all-about-the-land-drought-shakes-farming-to-its-indigenous-roots

>>10167285
lmao called it >>10167277
come on dumb nigger we're talking wheat production, find the statistics, post the cold hard numbers, stop dancing around it with these stupid liberal arts essays

>>10167296
No argument as usual, just some more ad hominem.
No surprise, you're an empty barrel
Go back to licking texaco's boots

>>10167296
>we're talking
climate change you numbnut

>>10167234
Sea level is rising, this is a fact, this is a result of global warming because it only happens if glaciers are melting. Netherlands is doomed, this nation will cease to exist if sea level rise is not stopped. Same is true for Florida and every coastal city. Even DC will vanish.

>>10167314
not an argument

>>10167315
there's no argument to be made the number speak for themselves. wheat yields in australia are as good as they've ever been

>>10167317
article clearly shows that droughts have got worse and worse

>>10167323
>>10167324

>>10167324
BASED GUARDIAN ARTICLE

>>10167316
>it only happens if glaciers are melting
Not true, the ocean temperatures are rising which causes thermal expansion. This is also a significant part of sea level rise

>>10167329
https://www.agric.wa.gov.au/climate-land-water/climate-weather/drought-and-dry-seasons
"Long-term records show that our climate is becoming warmer and drier"

>>10167338
>drought have gotten worse therefore wheat production has decreased even though it's actually been increasing

>>10164355
Farming industry is a shitshow that needs to stop anyways.

>>10164697
Just because I can't predict exactly when you get cancer from smoking a pack of cigarettes daily doesn't mean there is no science involved in telling you that smoking in fact does cause cancer where it would not happen otherwise.

>>10163423

They literally are spraying the entire world with chemtrails now: aluminium nano particulate and fly ash and the rest of their horrible concoction.

They literally are blasting the airwaves with frequencies from their weather warfare arrays which are all over the world now(althought claimed its just observation equipment; massive lie there).

>yet fucking shills everywhere claim it's a conspiracy theory

Humans are the only reason that the climate can change. Stop asking questions.

>>10164208
having an unpopular opinion doesn't make it true, retard

>>10167603

>>10167606
Wow I wonder who could have written this...

>>10167613
russian orange cocktail man going to destroy the planet.

>>10165047
Are you saying that the hidden motive on the part of regional environmentalists is to lie about climate change in order to get more funding? (not taking into account the activists because they don't get funded) Even when you try and twist it in the worst way possible, the oil companies still come out sounding like bigger assholes.

>>10167603
you are delusional

>>10167609
Chemtrails are admited and real.
Small particles are meant to reduce global warming by reflecting sun rays.


Ionosphere is studied with ways of interaction. Which is even more fun, because of the tiny metal particles somewhere in between doing their job.


What's hard to understand about it?

Is there a limit on how much CO2 concentrations can raise global temperature? I read that it's not a linear relationship and that as CO2 conc. increases there will be less as big of an increase in temperature.

How much does global temperature need to rise to fuck our shit up?

>>10163423
>NASA said something about clouds
>therefore chemtrails are real and anyone who says otherwise is one of (((them)))
>>>/x/

>>10164175
>the globalists
>You missed a few denialist talking points
but the globalists [read globalization] is actually a huge contributing factor to the problem, via global shipping and global air travel - not to mention the obscene amount of consumerism that the think is cool.

>>10164175
>the globalists
>You missed a few denialist talking points
but the globalists [read globalization] is actually a huge contributing factor to the problem, via global shipping and global air travel - not to mention the obscene amount of consumerism that they think is cool.

>>10168092
You're thinking is that negative feedbacks will kick in and reverse the trend as ghg increase.

Current indications are that its the exact opposite, and positive feedbacks will amplify the effects of increasing ghg.

>>10164333
No actually, I am not him. I wanted to know if you could produce the numbers you're asking him to produce.

>>10167619
You have to go back >>>/pol/

>>10165047
>Remember how ethanol fuel was supposed to stop our dependence on gas? Except all it did was increase the price of corn.
Damn, it's almost like it was 100% the corn industry that was lobbying for ethanol fuel.

>>10163368
CS fag spotted

>>10163270
>lyme disease
>tfw live in pa
The ticks must be stopped.
>>10163361
I thought it was natural gas that was competing the most.

>>10167778
>Chemtrails are admited and real.
Wrong.

>Small particles are meant to reduce global warming by reflecting sun rays.
Meant by whom?

>Ionosphere is studied with ways of interaction.
With what?

>Which is even more fun, because of the tiny metal particles somewhere in between doing their job.
Are you having a stroke? This sentence makes no sense.

>>10168486
Yes, there are many studies that can easily be googled. Unfortunately for anon, they all conclude that the battery is only a minor part of the environmental impact of BEVs and that ICEVs have a much larger environmental impact. And contrary to his claims, the largest advantage of BEVs over ICEVs is in their toxicity.

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/es903729a

>>10166366
>it's going down on the 1 minute trend, surely this means that the price will crash altogether

>>10163256
>thousands
>out of 7.5 billion

oh no.

>>10164208
Why are unscientific morons like you even on /sci/?

>>10169134
i just skimmed through, but it appears to not take into account the impact of significantly beefing up the electrical grid. not surprising. with these kinds of studies you can go quite insane considering all of the indirect impacts of hypothetical changes.

Global warming is 100% real and humans are the primary cause.
Unfortunately there's nothing you, me, or anyone else on /sci/ can do about it. The guys who run the world don't care that future generations are fucked as long as they can make some cash now.

>>10163256
>cnnkek

>>10169467
The study is about the current impacts per distance driven, so that's irrelevant. It also has nothing to do with the points being refuted.

>>10169479
its relevant for anyone wanting to convert the entire transportation sector to evs. im not as good at googling as you are, maybe you could find that study as well. thanks

>>10167619
golden calf holy! REEEEEEEEEEEE

>>10167341
>my dick now gets hard with bluepill so i'm still young

>>10169470
>i have no argument

>>10169470
https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/

>>10165263
>le hockeystick graph
only in (((climatology))) is it acceptable to conjoin low resolution data and high resolution data without doing modifications

>>10169485
Convert the entire transportation to EVs in what way? If you increase nuclear and renewable energy infrastructure and tax emissions, then electric vehicles will naturally be adopted both because they are more cost efficient and better for the environment. The idea that the goal is a total instant switch to EVs and not savings via improved efficiency and less environmental damage is just a retarded strawman. Is that your argument?

>>10169545
The resolutions are close enough to compare. If there was warming in the past like there is right now then we would see it: https://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/04/03/smearing-climate-data/

>>10169545
>only in (((climatology))) is it acceptable to conjoin low resolution data and high resolution data without doing modifications
Consider actually reading Marcott's paper, rather than just looking at the pictures.

>>10167333
which is also a result of global warming

deniers will never learn
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRGgbcU7FmI

>>10170001
based daily show poster

>>10167266
Queensland is experiencing the worst heat wave on record at the moment. Forest fires are threatening communities that have never before been subjected to them. The drought has still not broken, it's been years and farmers are still destocking

Can denialism be classified as a form of mental illness. These people have no ability to think objectively. They could be cooked alive and they would still deny that the pot is hot.

>>10170222
how many million tons was last year's yield? are the numbers out for this year?

>>10170245
>https://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2017-01-11/queensland-cattle-projections-2017/8081998
>This year the state's cattle herd is expected to be the smallest since 1993 with a total of 25.9 million head, largely due to the sell-off prompted by many years of drought.

>>10170213
back then it was a once-in-a-century event, now it happens every year, see the difference?

>>10163256
>kill thousands,

wasn't the original concern it would kill BILLIONS? seems like quite an improvement.

If you wanna slap some panels on my house and give me a free tesla go for it. Otherwise im using what I got man sorry

>>10170289
we were talking about wheat

>>10170289
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-45123925

>>10164698
Space is important, you fucktard

>>10170320
no they weren't and neither are an every year occurrence now
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Florida_hurricanes#Florida_major_hurricanes

>>10170525
Great so don't complain when your energy use gets taxed.

>>10170544
>major hurricanes
>not flooding
How mentally ill are you that you think this pathetic sophistry convinces anyone?

>>10170559
ok post the data then let's see

>>10169548
wow you really are a nasty little man, aren't you.

>>10171045
Says the guy passive aggressively posting sarcastic questions instead of making an actual argument.

>>10170570
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/publications/techrpt86_PaP_of_HTFlooding.pdf

>>10171122
no passive aggression.
no sarcasm.
I just wanted to see if you ever looked into it or not. you come across as a guy who knows everything, afterall. so you implied I was a retard, and I called you a nasty little manv (regretfully).
I will not ask you any questions again. you seem like the type who has "never lost a debate in your life".

>>10163266
The problem is dumb fucking retards spew lies about how it isn't happening or about how it's a secret conspiracy to make money, because apparently people don't currently make tons of money polluting and causing the problem.

>>10171573
LOL why do you care whether I've looked into it? Are you here to discuss the topic or to complain about me? Your whining is a complete waste of time.

>so you implied I was a retard
The only way I could have implied you were retarded is if you did indeed make up a straw man of full transition to EVs being a good in and of itself. So I guess you finally gave me the answer to my question. Good riddance.

>>10163256
>The Trump administration publishes a report saying man made climate change is real and that it will have significant, negative consequences.
>/pol/ keeps saying it's all a globalist conspiracy theory
You can't make this shit up.

>>10171746
It wasn’t his admin its an gov research group that works with a bunch of executive agencies that was commissioned a while ago. the trump admin is looking to stack the next report with stooges to skew the report from the last 4 they’ve released, this won’t actually happen because he has no control over this shit, one of the few instances where bureacracy is good, but its against his regime’s wishes that this was released. /pol/ is ultimately just shilling for right leaning industry who donate massively to “right” causes and candidates and trying to protect its cash cows. They’re doing exactly what libs do with wall street and silicone valley. You’ll see some soc dem leaning dnc stooge write an op ed about income inequality which bernie or whoever praises then the rest of the party takes hundreds of millions later that year from Boeing and Google employees, its all perverse on both sides.

>>10171746
sad

>>10171438
>data only goes back to 1950s if you're lucky
>most of the time people only started to keep a record on this after the alarmists came on the scene in the 80s
>minimal if at all increase likely attributable to random statistical variation or to people being more concerned because of the alarmists

>>10172062
>random statistical variation
sure bud, that's why the red is just as much on the '50s as it is after 2000
....oh wait it isn't

>>10172155
there's no red in florida, nigger

>>10172168
there's no red in '50s, retard

>>10172155
and there is a reason

see also

>>10172176
exactly no red in florida whatsoever. good job moron

>>10172181
not even wrong, florida has had flooding problems always because of its geography, the blue simply reflects that they have been prepared always, much like the Dutch have.
The sea levels have risen globally, 22cm since 1880.

>>10164652
/pol/ is on a different domain now, faggot

>>10166283
>but what if they turn out to be wrong?
Woe is me, imagine the suffrage of humanity if we invest into clean practically limitless energy and then turn out to be wrong about climate change.

Imagine all the time wasted cleaning up the environment for the good of the biosphere if we weren't actually all going to die horribly to some ecological disaster.

Truly such a future scares me immensely.

>>10163256
LOL dude

cnn??

>>10170537
No, we were talking about climate change

>>10172062
>la la la I can't hear you!

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0964569116300278

https://sealevelrise.org/states/florida/

>>10166283
>could be wrong
t. plays-russian-roulette-with-his-kids

>>10172249
>>wheat production in australia will never be the same i tell ya we're all gonna starve
>ok what are the numbers then
>>look here cattle
>ok but we were talking about wheat
>>MUH CLIMATE CHANGE
you're a retard, no offense

>>10172250
Amazing how these (((studies))) and (((activist))) sites paint a completely different picture from the real data >>10172062

Really makes me think

>>10172297
How are they different? The picture in >>10172250 is even from the same study as >>10172062

Really makes me think you can't read.

Climate change denial should be criminal offense.

I'd argue this is worse than Holocaust denial because pseudo neo-nazis aren't working toward another Holocaust, while the climate change deniers certainly do by spreading disinformation and outright sabotaging attempts to save the environment.

>>10172316
>from 1-2 floods a year to 2 maybe 3
>OVER 250% INCREASE IT'S OVER PAL
yeah it's bs

>>10172275
>wheat production in australia will never be the same

video doesn't even say that, retard

>>10172336
>neo-nazis aren't working toward another Holocaust
Unfortunately they would do it if they could.
Also, not every climate change denier is a neo-nazi, but all neo-nazis are climate change deniers.

>>10172393
He just says 10 million tons is the new norm

>>10172415
[citation needed]

>>10172431
your video shill. watch it again

>>10170544
>hurr rare events are bad but aren't happening more frequently

>>10172386
>durr they happen more frequently but they're rare

Funny how deniers constantly contradict themselves. It's almost like they have no consistent position and no intellectual integrity.

>>10172482
funny how climate "scientists" can extrapolate a trend out of a 2 year stretch based on a ≈30 year record and precisely pinpoint the cause of such dubious increase to MUH CLIMATE CHANGE ignoring all possible alternative/concurrent explanation

>>10172559
>sea level rise causing increased flooding is somehow an extrapolation of a trend
You just constantly lie, it's pathetic.

>>10172718
so it's a one-off event, not indicative of anything. glad we agree

>>10172749
What? Sea level is still rising.

Thank you for illustrating to everyone reading this thread how dumb deniers are. Keep posting, please!

>>10172784
>Sea level is rising
sure is buddy

>>10172802
Glad you agree.

>>10163368
You think that national debt is like a debt you would owe to me dont you?

>>10163368
It's funny how now the conservatives are reusing the Liberal arguments re. national debt.

>>10173041
We owe it to China and pension funds.

>>10173054
When Trump does it it's great. When Obama does it it's bad. Never mind the fact that Obama was dealing with one of the worst recessions in decades while Trump is deficit spending when the economy is already in the boom part of boom/bust. That's the logic of conservatives. The moment a democrat is in the White House again, you can bet that conservatives will start moaning about debt and deficits again.

>>10173469
>implying conservashits understand the purpose of deficit spending
let's not even mention lolbertarians

>>10173469
> implying a recession makes adding huge amounts of debt okay
Whenever I think liberals can't get any more retarded they find new ways to be even more retarded. A recession is the absolute worst time to be adding more debt. Tons of debt causes recessions, and more debt makes recessions worse. The first thing that you need to do when you're in a hole is to stop digging, and the way you do that in a recession is by balancing the budget.

>>10173754
>the time to balance the budget is when the economy is sluggish, unemployment is high, people are hurting and businesses are going out of business
>the time not to balance the budget is when the economy is booming, employment is high, tax revenue is high and need for expenditures is lower
lolbertarian understanding of economics

>>10173881
> the time to balance the budget is when the economy is sluggish
The government printing money is what causes the economy to be sluggish.

>>10172336
>people vocally opposed to new taxation should be thrown in jail

the fact is no one really knows if its even possible to get off fossil fuels 100%. in the mean time however, government is always happy to collect new taxes. it probably is impossible to get off carbon 100% desu. so the logical thing to do would be to address unsustainable economic/population growth in the mean time. of course that is totally unacceptable to you though.

>>10173754
You're talking to Friedmanesque keynsian infinite resources are infinite types.

all ponzis fall apart eventually.

>>10163256
People are reading the research and realizing it doesn't add up. Climate change is caused by chemtrails and ground based phased array radar and possibly HAARP. The climate is experiencing warming at the wrong altitude, the physics of it is all wrong, and beyond deforestation, increased CO2 shouldn't be a problem. CO2 has been far higher in the past, and ecosystems change in response. There's a reason we're not Venus, it's because we're not as close to the sun.

The biggest threat to the Earth is a permanent freezing over. Which is what we're headed towards if we mindlessly trigger ecological collapse by stripping away all the carbon.

>>10174064
>fossil fuels
Orwellian newspeak. Or might as well be. We have no evidence these are strictly caused by decay of biological material and not a natural process deep in the Earth,

Petrochemicals is closer to a neutral term.

>>10163364
thanks for this. i think its basic enough even for most /pol retards to understand

>>10163364
This image is inaccurate, as these activist groups can be generated by false information, and the UN is a major source of funding / link in control structure of climate science.

Oil companies are polluting fucks in many ways, but the other side is not as independent and grassroots as this image is trying to imply. There are massive interests involved in and capable of doctoring climate science.

The goal is not to manipulate economies for the sake of it, it's likely control. Which is why we're seeing a sterilization and relocation agenda play out. California's bullet train happens to connect to regions slated to be megacities as outlines in UN Agenda 21.

I don't trust anyone at this point. Something much bigger than the run of the mill scientific fraud and manipulation is clearly going on. I've spent what seems like my whole life watching scientific fraud and studying control structures, and something isn't quite right. Everyone is lying.

>>10174076
>>>/x/

>>10174064
>climate change denial
>people vocally opposed to new taxation
Well you heard it directly from the retarded denier's mouth, he denies reality because he doesn't want taxes!

>if we can't get off fossil fuels completely then shouldn't mitigate
I honestly can't tell if this is an elaborate troll or mental illness that prevents any rationality and self-awareness.

>>10170227
wont be me getting cooked

>>10174105
Newspeak isn't a thing and doesn't work? Give me a break.

>>>/stfu/

>>10173041
i lold

>>10174072
>Climate change is caused by chemtrails and ground based phased array radar and possibly HAARP.
You have to go back >>>/x/

>The climate is experiencing warming at the wrong altitude, the physics of it is all wrong
No it's not.

>increased CO2 shouldn't be a problem.
So the greenhouse effect doesn't exist? Please tell me more about your expert view on physics.

>CO2 has been far higher in the past, and ecosystems change in response.
That completely ignores the problem: CO2 doesn't normally change this quickly and ecosystems don't have time to adapt.

>There's a reason we're not Venus, it's because we're not as close to the sun.
The climate does not have to become Venus for it to be extremely harmful to us.

>The biggest threat to the Earth is a permanent freezing over.
How and when would that occur?

>Which is what we're headed towards if we mindlessly trigger ecological collapse by stripping away all the carbon.
No one wants to strip away all the carbon, we want to go back to pre-industrial levels, the climatic optimum.

Are all deniers massive drooling retards who can't form a coherent argument?

>>10173041
It's going to fuck up health care, and other concrete things like that.

>>10174129
>Unicorns are animals that exist
>>>/x/
>Animals don't exist??? Give me a break.

You know you're an /x/tard when even you know you're mentally ill and try to avoid owning up to it.

>>10174102
one thing that really makes almost no sense to me is how the un is projecting global population to level off by 2100, yet they are constantly pushing for more and more economic growth. Do they not realize that population leveling off would be an absolute disaster for economic growth? So they are essentially openly predicting a global economic depression by 2100, and saying it's a good thing? And if it's a good thing in 2100, why isn't a good thing today? Contradictions are everywhere if you look.

>>10174137
>You have to go back >>>/x/
Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance.

So you've rejected a core element. Alright.

>So the greenhouse effect doesn't exist?
Of course it does. Where are you getting this?

>CO2 doesn't normally change this quickly and ecosystems don't have time to adapt.
I believed this as well, and lived for many years under the looming shadow of imminent ecological collapse. The fact is it seems more like the ecological destruction is being spurred by other human activities. I've always been told there was evidence that the ocean was acidifying, that some organisms could no longer form calcium carbonate at the proper depths. I will have to look into this further, but can imagine some other causes.

>The climate does not have to become Venus for it to be extremely harmful to us.
Harmful to current geopolitical power structures. Note that chemtrails are very much a NATO thing, and Russia is among the countries that stopped subjecting its citizens and farmlands to this.

>How and when would that occur?
Acidification of the oceans and a period where the bulk of the sunlight is either absorbed at a high altitude or reflected. Acidification is also a cause if it kills organisms responsible for production of oxygen. If a climate is formed where this becomes a fixed or self maintaining state, a permanent freeze could occur.

>No one wants to strip away all the carbon
I have no evidence of that. Give them the tools, and they'll use them. Further, relative concentration of carbon is important. Such facilities are going to remove carbon and can cripple plant growth in the immediate area by permanently taking CO2 out of circulation in some areas.

Has some capacity for abuse.

>>10174144
Not a coherent argument.

>>10174166
Wireless devices, vaccines, and possibly GMO foods. It's bluntly scientifically proven that they all sterilize people. Look at what the UN did with the tetanus vaccines in Kenya.And gardasil.

>>10174172
>Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance.
My investigation found that unicorn farts are making you mentally ill. Don't try to refute this without investigating it.

>So you've rejected a core element. Alright.
So you don't even want to try to support a core element of your argument? Gee, that makes me really confident that you know what you're talking about.

>Of course it does. Where are you getting this?
So then increased CO2 should be a problem, thanks for admitting you were wrong.

>The fact is it seems more like the ecological destruction is being spurred by other human activities. I've always been told there was evidence that the ocean was acidifying, that some organisms could no longer form calcium carbonate at the proper depths. I will have to look into this further, but can imagine some other causes.
Exactly, it's being caused by unicorn farts. No need for me to present scientific evidence or refute the scientific evidence that the ocean is acidifying because of CO2 emissions, because I can IMAGINE unicorn farts are doing it!

>Harmful to current geopolitical power structures.
Harmful to people.

>Note that chemtrails are very much a NATO thing
They're very much a made up thing indicative of your mental illness.

>Acidification of the oceans and a period where the bulk of the sunlight is either absorbed at a high altitude or reflected.
How is acidification going to cause the Earth to freeze over?

>I have no evidence of that.
You mean you have no evidence that anyone has ever proposed removing all or even most carbon from the atmosphere, you pathetic mongoloid. I know it's very hard to express yourself correctly when you're this stupid, luckily I can help you.

>Not a coherent argument.
Yes, being obtuse and attempting to avoid the point of contention is not a coherent argument, thank you for again admitting your mistake.

>>10174172
>Wireless devices, vaccines, and possibly GMO foods. It's bluntly scientifically proven that they all sterilize people. Look at what the UN did with the tetanus vaccines in Kenya.And gardasil.
See >>10167609

>>10174076
>We have no evidence these are strictly caused by decay of biological material and not a natural process deep in the Earth
1. fossil fuels are not produced through decay, but rather the absence (or incompleteness) of decay, allowing reduced organic matter to be incorporated into buried sediment.
2. fossil fuels ARE produced through a natural process deep in the Earth; it's called kerogenization, and it acts on buried organic carbon
3. we can literally find body fossils of plants in coal and sterane biomarkers in petroleum, not only proving that they're organically derived but allowing us to determine what organisms they came from

>>>/x/ you delusional schizophrenic

>>10174203
>My investigation found that unicorn farts are making you mentally ill.
The statements are on a different level. Considering your intellectual honesty would be helpful in your ability to reason.

>So you don't even want to try to support a core element of your argument?
Look up sometime. Realize those X's and grids in the sky that gradually spread out and within a few hours turn a clear blue sky to an absolute haze for the next few days aren't "persistent contrails" and in fact aren't "contrails" at all. They're aluminum oxide nanoparticles, barium stearate, and strontium. People in my area have tested the soil and tested snow and rain. It's high in aluminum. There are no industrial operations around here and never have been.

>So then increased CO2 should be a problem
Non-sequitur.

>Exactly, it's being caused by unicorn farts.
I see you're having fun.

>Harmful to people.
So let's ban bonfires on the beach, and woodstoves (in some areas) but just ignore the behemoth Monsanto's massive deforestation operations in Latin America. Let's ignore our use of livestock. Let's ignore everything that actually matters and focus only on activities that output a trivial amount of carbon, but if able to be controlled, have profound effects on the behaviors of large populations. Ultimately crippling food production (mechanized farming) and distribution, forcing the development of large megacities.

>How is acidification going to cause the Earth to freeze over?
It won't alone, there needs to be other elements. It helps via death of marine life causing collapse of certain terrestrial systems.

>You mean you have no evidence that anyone has ever proposed
You start to be able to predict pretty easily. Note that taking CO2 out of circulation takes oxygen out of circulation. Note that the next wi-fi (WiGig) operates at 60GHz. A frequency at which the spin properties of diatomic oxygen will be altered such that they no longer properly bind with hemoglobin.

>>10174203
>Yes, being obtuse and attempting to avoid the point of contention is not a coherent argument, thank you for again admitting your mistake.
Not a response.

>>10174208
Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance.

Try pubmed. Search "EMF" or something. Papers on impairment of fertility usually come up in the first three pages these days. It's very well researched.

Also, refer to magras and xenos. 1990's.

>>10174248
I did it for you. First 5 pages (skipped all the papers about brain, endocrine, and other organ damage)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30445985
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30028652
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30023251
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30009952
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29886390
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29884549
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29884548
Most papers seem to use power levels and modulation identical or comparable to modern devices, from briefly skimming the abstracts.

Magras and Xenos:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9261543
End result, in rats irreversible population infertility within 5 generations.

>>10174274
mice, rather.

>>10174234
>The statements are on a different level.
They're on the same level. Now go back to your containment board already.

>They're aluminum oxide nanoparticles, barium stearate, and strontium.
No it's water vapor that contains trace amounts of aluminum naturally.

>People in my area have tested the soil and tested snow and rain. It's high in aluminum. There are no industrial operations around here and never have been.
Aluminum is the most common metal in the Earth's crust, 7%. Jesus Christ, have you given a single iota of critical thinking to any of this nonsense? Fuck off already.

>Non-sequitur.
How is rapid warming not a problem?

>So let's ban bonfires on the beach, and woodstoves (in some areas) but just ignore the behemoth Monsanto's massive deforestation operations in Latin America.
Why?

>Let's ignore everything that actually matters and focus only on activities that output a trivial amount of carbon, but if able to be controlled, have profound effects on the behaviors of large populations.
Emissions are emissions, retard. Are you incapable of making a single post that does not devolve into strawmen and conspiracy drivel?

>It won't alone, there needs to be other elements. It helps via death of marine life causing collapse of certain terrestrial systems
It won't happen period and you can't even explain why. You know at this point you're making shit up since you keep avoiding the question. Stop lying.

>You start to be able to predict pretty easily.
So no evidence. Come on, you know you're full of shit, admit it already.

>Note that taking CO2 out of circulation takes oxygen out of circulation.
Incorrect. Burning fossil fuels depletes carbon. Less fossil fuel use means more oxygen. Oxygen levels in the atmosphere isn't a problem though, oxygen levels in the ocean are and warmer oceans are less saturated with oxygen.

>Note that the next wi-fi
>>>/x/

>>10174248
>Not a response.
Yes, your obtuse post was not a response. You don't have to keep apologizing.

>>10174274
See >>10174208

>>10174312
>They're on the same level.
They're not. Stop behaving like a child.

>No it's water vapor that contains trace amounts of aluminum naturally.
If a machine is naturally shaving off that much aluminum during operation, it's not going to last long. If your fuel is full of that much aluminum, it's been added deliberately. Besides, they've been recorded starting and stopping. This can only happen for three reasons.
-The spraying apparatus had some sort of hiccup or was cycled rapidly for another reason
-The material is in the auxiliary fuel and the aircraft switched fuel sources for some reason, which is unusual.
-The plane shut its engines down for a moment.

>Aluminum is the most common metal in the Earth's crust, 7%.
Consistently assuming the person you're speaking to is retarded is mentally lazy, and ironically leads to you becoming retarded.

>How is rapid warming not a problem?
Because it's being caused by aluminum deployed in the atmosphere. It may or may not be a problem.

>Emissions are emissions, retard.
I wasn't aware CO2 was capable of teleportation. I suggest you study more about diffusion and transport of gases.

>It won't happen period
It might. The reasons have already been explained. Also there's good evidence that the bulk of our climate is dictated by solar behavior, and we're headed into another rapid cooling period. Maybe this is what "they" are trying to fight.

>So no evidence.
You've not accepted any forms of reasoning that didn't lead where you wanted, so it's not really worth the time.

>Burning fossil fuels depletes carbon
Burning hydrocarbons lowers oxygen. Sequestering CO2 therefore results in a net reduction of available oxygen.
Incomplete combustion however liberates both. Look at the structure of cellulose or any other sugar, and look at the composition of trees. Yet they come after wood burning.

>>10174319
>I'm not even going to read science I don't like
I'm sure you're a very reliable source.

I got a cunning plan, we just do something to stop climate change and pollution. Maybe put some solar panels on our roof. What about that?

>>10173895
elaborate

>>10174248
>Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance.
that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

I also notice you haven't bothered to investigate the other anon's claim that your mental illness is caused by unicorn flatus

>>10174350
>Chemtrailler barges into AGW denial thread.
Jesus Christ. This thread has just gone from "regular stupid" into "maximum stupid".

>>10174350
>They're not. Stop behaving like a child.
They are, stop behaving like an /x/tard or go back to your containment board.

>If a machine is naturally shaving off that much aluminum during operation, it's not going to last long.
Are you incapable of reading? The aluminum does not come from machines or fuel, it is naturally occurring.

>Besides, they've been recorded starting and stopping. This can only happen for three reasons.
4. the necessary conditions for clouds to form are not everywhere the plane travels you massive moron.

Alright, I'm just going to assume you're a troll since any human that actually thinks would not make such obvious fallacies. Are you a troll or do you lack human intellect? I'll be generous and assume the former.

>Consistently assuming the person you're speaking to is retarded is mentally lazy, and ironically leads to you becoming retarded.
Then the only option left is that you're a troll. And your attempt to dodge the fact that aluminum is very common in soil failed, try again.

>Because it's being caused by aluminum deployed in the atmosphere.
No it's not, and you know it's not suffice you won't even try to explain or provide evidence for your claims. Troll.

>I wasn't aware CO2 was capable of teleportation. I suggest you study more about diffusion and transport of gases.
What does this have to do with what you're responding to? Are you just posting random denier talking points? By the way, the atmosphere is turbulent and CO2 is well mixed.

>The reasons have already been explained.
No they haven't. I asked for an expansion and you just said that it would happen if the factors causing it occurred. You did not explain how these factors would occur or do anything. You're talking out of your ass and you know it.

>>10174884
[math] \displaystyle
\lim_{t \to \infty} /sci/ = /x/
[/math]

>>10174350
>Also there's good evidence that the bulk of our climate is dictated by solar behavior, and we're headed into another rapid cooling period.
In the past, before we were taken out of the Milankovich cycle by ghg emissions, we would be cooling into a glacial period over many thousands of years, hardly rapid. The idea that (((they))) invented industry and combustion engines to stop this makes no sense considering we will run out of fossil fuels long before the next glacial period and in the meantime we are rapidly warming away from the climate that we would want to maintain. More mentally ill conspiracy drivel from an obvious troll.

>You've not accepted any forms of reasoning that didn't lead where you wanted, so it's not really worth the time.
There are no forms of reasoning in your posts regardless of where they lead.

>Burning hydrocarbons lowers oxygen. Sequestering CO2 therefore results in a net reduction of available oxygen.
That doesn't follow. Try again. I was going to attempt to reverse engineer the mentally ill thought process that led you to this fallacy but I'll let you explain it.

>Incomplete combustion however liberates both.
Incomplete combustion does not produce oxygen, trees do. More nonsense.

>I'm sure you're a very reliable source.
Far more reliable than you since essentially everything you've written is a demonstrable lie.

Enjoy these posts, they're the last response you'll get from me. But thanks for convincing everyone reading that deniers are mentally ill.

>>10174917
Where t is the maximum craziness of the posters.

learn to swim

We rather ruin our planet. Who cares anyway?