/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10459536
>Is the american public ahead of the europeans?
only if they turn around 180 to face backwards

>>10459536
>Is it real
yup, Moore is stone cold bat shit crazy

>>10459536
climate change is good for many countries

>>10459536
yes it's real and trump is an idiot

>>10459593
That image doesn't mean what you think it means.

>>10459536
>And why do so many americans believe it's a hoax?
To paraphrase Upton Sinclair, it's hard to get a man to understand something when he believes his livelihood depends on not understanding it.

he netherlands would cease to exist

>>10459536
Personally, I get all my news and opinions from rational organizations like Greenpeace

>>10459536
I always think, maybe this tweet is from like a decade ago, or else it's probably fake.

But nope.

>>10459593
Oh you mean for the countries that will be overrun by the refugees from the countries which it isn't good for?

>>10459525

>climate science
Nu-male science.

>>10459593
US gets a good hit on the head

>>10459615
Not Limburg

>Look, having nuclear — my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart — you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I’m one of the smartest people anywhere in the world — it’s true! — but when you’re a conservative Republican they try — oh, do they do a number — that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune — you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged — but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me — it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are — nuclear is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what’s going to happen and he was right, who would have thought?

>>10459536
Well, if one of several founders of an activist group with green in the name says it, it must be true.

>>10459657
Rednecks will have to move northwards where there's already liberals living haha. The future of the US is not white.

>>10459536
It's not the science that turns people off, it's the political reaction to it

>>10459536
It is and it's pretty based. I look forward to humanity's downfall. I hate of all us, myself included. Animals are alright but if their suffering means we go extinct it's fine.

>>10459536
a relevant lesson on the perils of believing "celebrities"
https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/417402/is-gwyneth-paltrow-wrong-about-everything-by-timothy-caulfield/9780143189039/

>>10459694
Why would anybody assume that just because some woman who lives in LA has some coin in her purse that she's anything but a stupid cunt?

>>10459624
>overrun by the refugees
some countries have borders and are willing to enforce them

>>10459601
>That image doesn't mean what you think it means.
how about this one?

>>10459593
>global GDP going down
>good for anyone
Hope you have a nice 5 year economic boom followed by a 2000 year long famine

>>10459712
so poland might become the turnip-superpower
U.S. on the other hand loses 50%

>>10459712
So climate deniers are all Canadian and russian shills?

>>10459536
It's real.
It's overblown.
Not all effects were accurately anticipated.

>>10459597
>ignoring the role of other greenhouse gases and forcings
But anon CO2 is only 1.68 of total 2.29W of forcing.
So we're already at 460 ppm equivalent.
Therefore you should deduce 1.56 degrees of warming per doubling.

>>10459724
famine from having more rain, more arable land and more CO2 to do photosynthesis.
Top Logik.

>>10459724
we already have a famine. sucks to be african

>>10459707
Good luck running your military effectively with all the countries providing your ressources falling apart.

>>10459536
> Carbon dioxide is the main building block of all life.
I mean at some point you just gotta sit back, relax and admire a master troll at work.
Why you guys so mad? Because Trump has the balls to do what you are doing on 4chan IRL?

>>10460380
He’s retarded, not a “troll”. Literally has dementia.

>>10460404
I would say the opposite of dementia actually. He's remembering back 30 years ago when the majority knew it was a hoax and hasn't yet bought into the psychosis of global warming. Even back then Al Gore was a laughing stock.

>>10460412
>He's remembering back 30 years ago when the majority knew it was a hoax and hasn't yet bought into the psychosis of global warming.

Prove global warming is not real.

>>10459544
triggered eurofag

>>10459987
Putin loves that it aids russia and hurts u.s., yes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbrKLnh8wLA

>>10459536
the problem is people been screaming about climate change for so long and bullshitting estimates that you can't take it seriously

>>10460416
>Prove global warming is not real.

>assume something is real first then waste time disproving it

Not science. Extraordinary claims require evidence. First prove global warming is real, then prove that it's not a natural process. They tried that by correlating CO2 emissions with temperature and then found out that it LAGS behind temperature by 800-1000 years, indicating that temperature is actually the cause.
All you have going for you is induced hysteria caused by fake news which interprets natural phenomena as some kind of global threat.

>>10460428
>>Prove global warming is not real.

Yep. You said it wasn’t, so you have the burden of proof.

>assume something is real first then waste time disproving it

Nope. There’s no need to assume it’s real to challenge a negative claim.

>Not science. Extraordinary claims require evidence.

Agreed, so prove your claim that global warming isn’t real.
>First prove global warming is real,

Sad attempt to shift burden of proof. I have no need to prove anything, you do, because you’re the one making the claim, but I’ll pity you since you’re so hungry.

https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

>then prove that it's not a natural process.

Boring.
https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

>They tried that by correlating CO2 emissions with temperature and then found out that it LAGS behind temperature by 800-1000 years, indicating that temperature is actually the cause.

Oh, I love this canard. Care to provide a citation?

>All you have going for you is induced hysteria caused by fake news which interprets natural phenomena as some kind of global threat.

Curious. Now you admit there is a warming trend but claim it’s “natural”. Prove it.

>>10459536
The fact that people are calling it "climate change" instead of "global warming" is itself an indicator. An ice age is a form of climate change. Think about it.

>>10460445
>The fact that people are calling it "climate change" instead of "global warming" is itself an indicator.

Different things, retard.

>An ice age is a form of climate change. Think about it.

Correct, and not the kind that’s happening. This is an ice age, by the way.

>>10460453
>This is an ice age, by the way.

Let the ice age end already. It's not normal to have fucking ice caps taking away arable land.
If we wouldnt have ice caps there would not be such a great temperature gradient between the poles and the equator.
This would make the storms less severe (which is already happening)
It would also free up greenland and later even antarctica giving us an extra 16 million square kilometers.
The good land that we would loose we'll dam and the bad land we just let it go.
We'd have much more land to farm, crops would grow way better with 700 ppm CO2.
We'd have more rain due to increased evaporation rates.
We'd be able to ship more efficiently.
We'd have a whole continent and the biggest island of the world to dig for resources in.
The main warming would take place where it is coldest. The warmest places wont have all that much more soaring heat. Besides most of the land mass is north or south of 30 degrees and not in the 30-30 part of the world.
Less people would die from the cold (way more people die from cold than people dying from heat)

>>10460457
>american '''''education''''''

>>10460445
because it isn't just warming, duh

>>10460457
Damn can’t wait to walk on Antarctica in twenty thousand years

>We'd have much more land to farm, crops would grow way better with 700 ppm CO2.

Nope. Plants that use C3 carbon fixation, most of them, will suffer in a hotter world.

>>10460472
So plant them in siberia.
Biodiversity increases with temperature.
Where are the most biodiverse areas now?

>>10460532
>Biodiversity increases with temperature.

Yeah Sahara is real lively these days

>Where are the most biodiverse areas now?

Not deserts.

>>10460444
>Yep. You said it wasn’t, so you have the burden of proof.

Fallacy of reification. You can't just say "prove this doesn't exist" when it never had any basis in reality to begin with.
>Sad attempt to shift burden of proof.
>No you have to reify a shadow before I take you seriously
I'm not providing evidence of the absence of something, it's illogical. Prove it's actually real first then we can talk about how it correlates to human behavior.

>Oh, I love this canard. Care to provide a citation?

Vostok Ice core samples (AKA the most comprehensive study done on the planets climate history)

>Curious. Now you admit there is a warming trend but claim it’s “natural”. Prove it.

Never said a "trend". I said "natural phenomena". You're telling me to prove a natural phenomena when there's already proof of its existence. It's empirical. "Weather" happens. "Seasons" happens. "Change" in general happens, but only through failed explanations has this been correlated to humans. Now where's the actual proof of that correlation.

>>10460599
- pic shows good correlation
- current co2 is 410 ppm

20 warmest years are all after 1998

https://youtu.be/WLjkLPnIPPw?t=4m50s
sometimes temperature lags CO2,
other times it's the opposite

>>10460336
>anon doesn't know the difference between climate and weather and cherrypicks
nothing to see here folks

>>10460599
>https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature-intermediate.htm

Here you go. I expect a paper with citations refuting it.

>>10459536

Like most political things, the truth is probably somewhere in between. MMGW is real, but is being substantially exaggerated for purposes of profit. We're not all going to die in 10 years.

>>10459615
In fact water is a building block of life, they’ll be fine.

>>10460882
retard

>>10460882
both sides of the argument are profit motivated

>>10460364
Tell me the definition of equilibrium climate sensitivity.

>>10460559
The biggest desert on earth is Antartica.

>>10460825
5 year trend in an area that reaches 40 million square km.
Reaches 3 sigma anomaly wrt average.
>weather

>>10459662
whats backup germany got to do with this

>>10461327
Why are you asking me and not the anon with the original gif that used the same logic?
Biased much?

>>10460599
>10 degree fluctuations
>80 ppm fluctuations

See this is proof that a 280 ppm increase will bring a 3 degree increase.

What?

Obviously temperature changed due to another driver. This correlation does not prove causation in the slightest. Only that massive 10 degree swings have happened in less than 10k years naturally. Fuck people are idiots

>>10461417
>Warming causes more moisture in the air which leads to more extreme precipitation events. This includes more heavy snowstorms in regions where snowfall conditions are favourable. Far from contradicting global warming, record snowfall is predicted by climate models and consistent with our expectation of more extreme precipitation events.

>https://www.skepticalscience.com/Record-snowfall-disproves-global-warming.htm
I expect your refutation. please cite sources.

>>10459698
Because in capitalist countries, being financially successful or even having the appearance of financial success is the only character trait needed to be considered an expert on literally everything

Nothing he says or does surprises me anymore. I guess maybe that was the point, to wear us all down with all the retarded things he says on a daily basis to the point where we just kind of stop giving a shit?

If you think climate ""change"" is a serious problem at this point, you're a fucking brainlet.

>>10461574
t.

If you're too ignorant to understand the global implications of large scale climatic changes, and the associated impacts on human civilization, combined with the stresses of overpopulation, deforestation, urbanization, species extinction, fisheries depletion, sea level rise, coral reef bleaching, ocean acidification, decrease in global biodiversity, increased natural disasters, etc. you are the one that is the brainlet you dumb fuck.

>>10461580
BUT HIS MASTERS WHO TELL HIM WHAT TO THINK TELL HIM CLIMATE CHANGE IS A JEWISH CONSPIRACY

>>10461580
Yes, that would all be a problem if it was 200bc. But, luckily it's the 21st century and we have technology.

>>10461600
We can't even keep everyone fed and healthy in the richest country on the planet and you think we can deal with rapid climate change?

>co-founder of Greenpeace

>>10461636
It's their pathetic attempt at giving this retard credibility where he has none. The dolt is basically just used as an oil lobby pawn to spread misinformation and propaganda behind the veil of some sort of "authority" that he is a greenpeace "leftist" that saw the light and claims a scientific field is all some conspiracy. He's just a means to and end for them to continue to spread doubt and misinformation to the general public to keep them docile and under control.

From https://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/22/fusion_greenpeace_no/

"Yes, the fuel for fusion is abundant, and far more productive than fossil fuel - one litre of seawater can produce as much as 30 litres of petrol. It's much safer than nuclear fission. And it doesn't release CO2. So what's the problem?

"Governments should not waste our money on a dangerous toy," Jan Van de Putte of Greenpeace International said when ITER was announced in 2005. Van de Putte predicted it will never be efficient - so why bother?

Spokesperson Bridget Woodman said: "Nuclear fusion has all the problems of nuclear power, including producing nuclear waste and the risks of a nuclear accident."

(Which must break the record for the number of false and contradictory assertions you can cram into a 17-word sentence. But that's par for the course these days. When you hear a phrase like "sustainable energy" the opposite is usually intended - the speaker is referring to an energy source that won't sustain anything for very long or very reliably.)"

Greenpiece (of shit) is everything wrong with environmental activism. They've done more to hinder the environmental movement than help.

>>10461666
>Fusion
Just 10 years away for the past 60 years

>>10461683
>"Nuclear fusion will never work so that's why it must be BANNED."

Makes perfect sense

>>10459536
>long time corporate shill
>exploits early associations to greenpeace to shoehorn anti-environmental measures
>climate science denialist
No wonder the dorito dotard gives him free lip service.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/patrick-moore-climate-doubter/

>>10459593
1.) there is no climate change
2.) there is climate change but it's not human-made
3.) human-made climate change is real but it only hits the shithole countries anyway, it's actually good for us <-----
4.) it's real but we're fucked anyway with all these assholes around, nothing you can do
5.) geo-engineering will fix it soon, no need to change anything now
6.) ok, geo-engineering made it worse but now we learned and can stop it(it's too late)
7.) fucking leftists destroyed the world, as expected

>>10461423
Because you don't seem to understand what the warming from a doubling of CO2 refers to.

And how does that gif rely on the same"logic?"

>>10460599
Another day, another dumb shit leftist who believes whatever CNN tells him.

>>10461699
>Check out my strawman. I pretended he said banned when he didn't, because arguing with his actual point was too hard.
Let me guess: You voted for Hillary.

>>10460419
no I think the triggered one is you

>>10461708
Based

>>10462324
how do I short co2

>>10462324
>still shilling his shitty WordPress site

>>10461610
We can easily feed everyone in this country. We have a massive ag surplus every year. You're fucking stupid.

>>10461646
If the world ends who will they sell their oil to?

>>10459536
>Is the american public ahead of the europeans?

Yes, since 1776.

>>10462497
You... completely missed the point...

>>10459536

>>10462873
>"We only have 10 years to save the planet before bad things happen!"
>people wait ten years
>bad things happen
>"We only have 10 years to save the planet before worse things happen!"

>>10459536

>>10462875
What bad things? Everything seems to be better.

>>10462324
>[CO2] Reconstructed from Moberg Temperature Reocnstruction
What the fuck?
Do you have a source for that horrible thing?

>>10462873
Well, yes

>>10460444
>reddit

>spacing

>>10462901
>https://www.nature.com/articles/nature03265
I really want to know where he got this because that is the Moberg paper. As you can see it's a temperature reconstruction NOT co2.

>>10462882
https://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/un-environment-is-deadly-worsening-mess-but-not-hopeless-1.4333887

fucking american pigs
you stole our winter
we don't have snowy anymore
you have biggest in 100 years
we will revenge and you will see the glory of unity one day you imperialist imbeciles

The climate has been changing. That has been observed. The points of contention:

>Is it man-made or part of Earth's natural climate cycles? The 19th century was historically cold.
>If it is man-made, to what degree?
>According to that degree, how much can humans do to "change" or avert it, and what if it ultimately doesn't matter as the Earth's climate is naturally changing anyway?
>What can any individual nation do, when other nations are going to go ahead and do what they want emissions-wise and there is no such thing as a perfectly mutual resolution to mitigate it?

I don't see most of these answered to a satisfactory degree. I see a lot of kneejerking and opportunism though.

>>10463954
Genetics have been changing. That has been observed. The points of contention:

>Is the Earth older than 6000 years?
>If it is, how old is it?
>According to that age how did life happen randomly?
>Do species actually change into different species or are there only changes within kinds?
>What about the missing links?

I don't see most of these answered to a satisfactory degree. I see a lot of kneejerking and opportunism though.

>>10463989

Did this sound clever to you? Thanks for the reply I guess

>>10463954
Every single one of those has been answered. Why are you lying?

>>10464012

The fuck they have. China and India are not stopping their emissions right now no matter what piece of bullshit paper they sign in Paris, and there has been no meaningful change in human behavior to compare to resultant climate fluctuations, for starters. This isn't something you can just declare and tell everyone else to accept and shut up, it's a highly complicated issue that is going to take time and analysis to flesh out.

>>10459593
So western Australia becomes even more a desolate shithole?

>>10464050
>it's a highly complicated issue that is going to take time and analysis to flesh out.
We have had time, and it has been fleshed out.

>>10464071

Thanks for sharing, guess you can leave the thread now. Sorry I'm not planning to vote to neuter my national economy because you said so.

>>10464076
We don't have to. Renewables are on a similar level economically to fossil fuels at this point. Oil lobbies and subsidies prevent it.

>>10459597
We had a professor come talk to our office about the possibility of the worst case scenarios for climate change being unlikely because the worst case scenarios assume that there will be linear growth in the use of fossil fuels, but we're bound to run out eventually. He says it's still going to be bad, but not AS bad. Thought it was kinda interesting.

>>10464122

That is completely untrue and absolute propaganda. Solar/wind are complete memes on an efficiency and cost basis. Especially in parts of the country that aren't blasted by the sun like Arizona.

>>10463954
>Is it man-made or part of Earth's natural climate cycles?
Man-made, there's literally no other likely explanation
>if it is man-made, to what degree
If you count the positive feedback loop of the ocean releasing CO2 due to the globe heating up then it's almost entirely man-made
>how much can humans do to change it
Very little at this rate
>what can any nation do
Nuke the first world

>>10464197

>There's no other likely explanation

The fact that the world has constantly had climate change and we've been leaving an ice age? How narcissistic do you have to be to think humans matter that much to something as big and complex as our planet and sun.

>>10464176
Yet even Arizona gets ~75% of its energy from fossil fuels. What's up with that?

>>10464203
Imagine being so dumb you don't know about Milankovich cycles and dating with polarity switches.

>>10464203
>how narcissistic do you have to be to think humans matter that much
What's your explanation
Reminder: the Earth is currently experiencing less solar irradiation and has been for the past several decades, the only way the Earth could be heating up is because of greenhouse gasses; so to answer this question you MUST find a source that produces greenhouse gasses faster than humans

>>10464249

The only way that we know of. Or do you really think scientists are infallible beings who know everything and have never been wrong before, especially as it pertains to major global phenomena? Every generation has its group of doomsayers, I'll go ahead and wait it out and not do anything rash because you think 2 fucking degrees of warming over 30 years is cause for alarm and radical overhaul.

>>10464249
>so to answer this question you MUST find a source that produces greenhouse gasses faster than humans

How about the planet where the humans get the greenhouse gasses from? The same planet that has billions of tons of gas circulating inside it and permeating through the surface.

>>10464227

It's simply more cost efficient. If it wasn't, people would be buying private solar panels in droves and relying solely on those. You yourself can go ahead and buy a private wind turbine and solar panel and see how far you get.

>>10464264
We outproduce natural sources, so that’s not it.

>>10464203
>The fact that the world has constantly had climate change

For reasons we know of, CO2 levels included.

>and we've been leaving an ice age?

No, we entered an interglacial period. There will be an ice age until polar caps don’t exist.

>How narcissistic do you have to be to think humans matter that much to something as big and complex as our planet and sun.

Not an argument. Humans are producing an excess of greenhouse gasses, which cause warming.

>>10464276
>You can outproduce the source of your production.

Jesus Christ you're dumb.

>>10463999
Did this sound clever to you? Thanks for the reply I guess

>>10464262
>people have been wrong before, therefore you are wrong
Also 2 degrees of warming over 30 years equates to the ocean level rising because water expands when heated believe it or not
If you want to test this for yourself, I suggest cooking a sealed can of beans on the stove while looking directly down on it
>>10464264
You're correct, now how did that buried, solid carbon get into the atmosphere?

>>10464284
>You can outproduce the source of your production.

Yep. Humans are putting in more CO2 than nature is currently.

>Jesus Christ you're dumb.

Your insult reveals your lack of an argument. Looks like I win.

>>10464286
>You're correct, now how did that buried, solid carbon get into the atmosphere?

From the wind coming out of your mouth.

>>10464281

Not for reasons we know of. I don't for a second believe that climate scientists understand the entire picture for something so complicated with limited data available for thousands and millions of years prior.

>>10464284
We don't outproduce it but we release more into the atmosphere than living organisms do by burning hydrocarbons produced over the scale of millions of years within a couple decades
>>10464294
I don't tend to eat coal

>>10464286

No it's "people have been wrong before, therefore you can't claim 100% irrefutable truth teller status just because you claim highest authority on X subject".

>>10464267
>If it wasn't, people would be buying private solar panels in droves and relying solely on those.
It is a simple fact that personal solar is cheaper. The difficulty is the initial investment, and also having to own a house.

>>10464284
The ignorance here is hilarious.
Please research natural carbon flux and the effect of releasing 2,000 billion metric tons into the atmosphere.

>>10464305
You're right I'm not 100% sure, only 99.999999%
Gotta account for the 0.000001% chance that God is just rubbing the Earth really quickly between His hands right?

>>10464297
>Not for reasons we know of.

Nope. Entirely for known reasons. The glacial cycles are due to Milankovitch cycles, greenhouse gasses explain the Cryogenian gladiation and it’s thawing. Plate tectonics and greenhouse gasses explain the Permian climate and extinction, etc.

>. I don't for a second believe that climate scientists understand the entire picture for something so complicated with limited data available for thousands and millions of years prior.

Good for you. And?

>>10464305
Well you can't provide better evidence, you can't even disprove it. So you're literally fucking useless and are unable to make any useful argument.

>>10464293
>Yep. Humans are putting in more CO2 than nature is currently.

Yeah that's right. A bunch of little fires on the surface is outproducing a 6000C planet core circulating and burning all the oil/Methane/whateverane/ene/mass that humanity is currently trying to pipe out of it with 2-4 mile minuscule holes in its surface. Lol.

>Your insult reveals your lack of an argument. Looks like I win.
Only if you provide me the quantitative data on how much gas is permiating through every square inch of the earths surface
>b-but scientists have done tha-
No they have not. They still haven't properly explained how CO2 causes temperatures to rise.

>>10464315

No? The chance that you're all fucking retards making a spurious correlation and running with it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age#/media/File:Ice_Age_Temperature.png

>>10464327
Are you really so ignorant you don't even understand what the greenhouse effect is?

>>10464301
>I don't tend to eat coal

No you don't. That's what TREES ARE FOR.

>>10464312
I'll take "density" for 1000 carbon credits , Alex.

>>10464322

I'm not here to disprove it, I'm here to say I'm not willing to radically and arbitrarily overhaul a productive and efficient national economy to suit your kneejerking and hysteria where it may be futile, or needless. And if you think there isn't a solid wind/solar/environmentalist lobby/coalition you'd be very wrong, there are opportunists on both sides of this highly loaded topic.

>>10464332
Yeah, it's the only reason life exists on earth. Are you anti-life? What will the trees live on if you keep trying to take the carbon away :C.

>>10464337
Ah so carbon is good for life! So obviously Venus has more life than earth!

>>10464335
Ok so you'll just ignore all evidence because it makes you feel good, got it.

>>10464327
It's not really so much as a couple little fires as it is the equivalent of setting the entire globe's forests on fire like 10,000 times over
Do you even understand how many trees it takes to make a gallon of gasoline?
(It's 90 tons of plant matter per gallon btw, that's how concentrated fossil fuels are)
>>10464333
Trees can't keep up with the current CO2 production
If they could, CO2 levels wouldn't be rising genius

>>10464327
>Yeah that's right. A bunch of little fires on the surface is outproducing a 6000C planet core circulating and burning all the oil/Methane/whateverane/ene/mass that humanity is currently trying to pipe out of it with 2-4 mile minuscule holes in its surface. Lol.

The Earth’s core is hot, but it’s not producing CO2. CO2 does get shit out of volcanos but volcanic CO2 is pitiful in comparison to our output. Some U.S States outproduce all volcanos globally. You seem to have changed subject for reasons of dishonesty.

>Only if you provide me the quantitative data on how much gas is permiating through every square inch of the earths surface

What gasses? Nitrogen? All gasses? CO2? Methane? Neon?

>No they have not. They still haven't properly explained how CO2 causes temperatures to rise.

........Huh. We explained that over a hundred years ago. CO2 causes warming of systems because it has a high ability to absorb infrared radiation.

>>10464345

I'm watching curiously. I'm not against moving gradually towards healthier/renewable sources I'm just not in favor of hysterical, academic-led movements that tend to be disastrous for an economy. I fear people who think they know it all and say they should control everything, these guys usually bring about strife.

>>10464331
>correlation
The greenhouse effect is completely causative, not correlative, and directly observed my retarded friend. Also, according to the graph you posted we should be slowly cooling now into a glacial phase. Instead we are rapidly warming on top of what was sideshow to be a temperature peak. Are you retarded or just blind?

>>10464337
“CO2 is necessary for life therefore more CO2 is always good.”

Kill your self.

>>10464357
>I'm just not in favor of hysterical, academic-led movements that tend to be disastrous for an economy.

Didn’t your parents tell you a little pain now is better than lots later? That’s why you get shots.

>>10464340
>Ah so carbon is good for life!
Is your argument now "carbon is bad for life"? Are you retarded?

So obviously Venus has more life than earth!

The #1 greenhouse gas is water vapor you massive dipshit. Also Venus has sulfuric acid in its atmosphere, which is not good for life. Maybe if it didn't then it's be a different story, but don't let me ruin your false equivalency.

>>10464335
>I'm not here to disprove it, I'm here to say I'm not willing to radically and arbitrarily overhaul a productive and efficient national economy to suit your kneejerking and hysteria where it may be futile, or needless.
The funny thing is that doing nothing will do far more harm to the economy than mitigating according to economists. Yet you pretend like you're protecting the economy.

>>10464376
>The #1 greenhouse gas is water vapor you massive dipshit.

Venus has little to none.

>Also Venus has sulfuric acid in its atmosphere, which is not good for life.

Being over 500’ Fahrenheit is worse.

>Maybe if it didn't then it's be a different story, but don't let me ruin your false equivalency.

No, it wouldn’t. It’d be extremely hot still.

>>10464368

No one can actually say there will be lots of pain for the US later. Furthermore, no one can actually say that the us chopping its own balls off for the sake of this cause is 1. Going to seriously avert that which is being predicted and 2. Make India, China, or the rest of the currently industrializing shitholes of the world actually follow suit. Considering their history, I'd say that's a big fat no and the bigger question here. So yes, I'd rather gradually and organically transition to a more modernized form of energy but I'm not ready to throw my hands in the air and complete economic martyrdom where it may be futile. Sometimes you really have to watch and see how things play out and if the Earth wants to burn us off its surface so be it.

Why exactly do the non-religious care so much? Is there actually sanctity to life?

>>10464379

Fuck economists. They know even less, that's why they "study economics" rather than making fat stacks in the real industry. Leftist puppets.

>>10464376
>water vapor is the best at trapping heat, therefore CO2 cannot have any effect on the climate
Tell me, how many times have you swallowed your own tongue since you woke up this morning?

>>10464376
Venus's atmosphere is 95% co2 and as such it has a higher surface temperature than mercury despite being further from the sun. The fact that you can't even understand my point is to show how ignorant your MORE CARBON GOOD argument just shows how idiotic you are.

>>10464376
Water vapor doesn't control the temperature, rather, it's CONTROLLED BY THE TEMPERATURE, you absolute dipshit

>>10464387
>No one can actually say there will be lots of pain for the US later.

Lie. Droughts will penetrate the grain belt and refugees from Africa will be numerous.

>Furthermore, no one can actually say that the us chopping its own balls off for the sake of this cause is 1. Going to seriously avert that which is being predicted and

The U.S produces a large amount of greenhouse gasses so a reduction is significant.

>Make India, China, or the rest of the currently industrializing shitholes of the world actually follow suit. Considering their history, I'd say that's a big fat no and the bigger question here.

Irrelevant.

>So yes, I'd rather gradually and organically transition to a more modernized form of energy but I'm not ready to throw my hands in the air and complete economic martyrdom where it may be futile.

No one is proposing “committing complete economic martyrdom”. Your delusional fantasies are showing.

>Sometimes you really have to watch and see how things play out and if the Earth wants to burn us off its surface so be it.

The earth isn’t the one causing the warming. We are, nor can planets “want” things anyway.

>Why exactly do the non-religious care so much? Is there actually sanctity to life?

Are you a retard? Humans like to live and not die.

>>10464408
Sort of, It's a feedback loop. The higher the temperature the more water vapor in the atmosphere. The more water vapor the higher the temperature etc etc.

>>10464352
>Do you even understand how many trees it takes to make a gallon of gasoline?

>thinking that gasoline only comes from trees

>>10464355
>The Earth’s core is hot, but it’s not producing CO2.
>burning shit doesn't create CO2

>CO2 does get shit out of volcanos but volcanic CO2 is pitiful in comparison to our output. Some U.S States outproduce all volcanos globally. You seem to have changed subject for reasons of dishonesty.

I'm not talking about volcanoes you moron, I am talking about literally the entire fucking planet. As in all the core, mantle and crust being churned about and the gasses resulting from it being released by permeating through it. It doesn't just go "nowhere" or only get released in volcanoes. It's fucking gas.

>What gasses? Nitrogen? All gasses? CO2? Methane? Neon?
Sure why not. That can't be done either. How would you measure it?

>CO2 causes warming of systems because it has a high ability to absorb infrared radiation.
>>10464363

GOOD.

>>10464414

>Lie. Droughts will penetrate the grain belt and refugees from Africa will be numerous.

They aren't fucking coming here. You're making a lot of assumptions now.

> The U.S produces a large amount of greenhouse gasses so a reduction is significant.

Can't do it all. Even if we cut 50% (which would be massively impactful) we'd only be putting a dent in global emissions.

> Irrelevant.

Hugely relevant. This is why I can't talk to you faggots, you still think this is all about what the US does. There's an entire world out there and much of it is JUST starting to industrialize like we did a century ago where this all peaked.

> Are you a retard? Humans like to live and not die.

That's news to me. Liberals tend to be nihilistic about everything else

>DONT HAVE KIDS!!
>Who cares about aborting babies it's just clumps of cells
>Humans aren't sacred XD

>>10464429
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcmCBetoR18
You don't seem capable of reading scientific papers so here's a nice simple youtube video even you should be able to understand.
Sources cited are in the description please cite your own should you try to refute anything.

>>10464429
“>burning shit doesn't create CO2”

The Earth’s core isn’t burning anything down there. It’s just iron.

>I'm not talking about volcanoes you moron, I am talking about literally the entire fucking planet. As in all the core, mantle and crust being churned about and the gasses resulting from it being released by permeating through it. It doesn't just go "nowhere" or only get released in volcanoes. It's fucking gas.

What gasses? Nitrogen? Oxygen? CO2? We can compare human-sourced CO2 to natural CO2 pretty easily by comparing the ratios of isotopes.

>Sure why not. That can't be done either. How would you measure it?

Measuring CO2 concentrations is trivial. We’re currently at about 410ppm.

>CO2 causes warming of systems because it has a high ability to absorb infrared radiation.

Thanks for copy-pasting my reply and neglected to acknowledge yourself being proven wrong.

>GOOD

Killing yourself is good? Be my guest I suppose.

>>10464376
>stop overeating
>>food is good for you
>ah so good I'd good for you in all cases? What about obese people?
>>so your argument is that food is bad for you?
/pol/tards, everybody

>>10464429
You're right, gasoline come froms other plants too anon
>The Earth’s core is hot, but it’s not producing CO2.
>burning shit doesn't create CO2
Anon please tell me how the fuck molten iron can produce carbon dioxide without undergoing nuclear fission
Please
>Sure why not. That can't be done either. How would you measure it?
You would compare the atmospheric concentration of a gas over time, that's how we know the CO2 today is from humans btw https://www.skepticalscience.com/human-fingerprint-in-global-warming.html

>>10464447
The fact you can't even keep your pathetic identity politics out of this is hilarious, and shows how weak your arguments are.

>>10464447
>They aren't fucking coming here. You're making a lot of assumptions now.

Prove it. They’ll be going somewhere.

>Can't do it all. Even if we cut 50% (which would be massively impactful) we'd only be putting a dent in global emissions.

Someone has to put a “dent” in it, don’t they?

>Hugely relevant. This is why I can't talk to you faggots, you still think this is all about what the US does. There's an entire world out there and much of it is JUST starting to industrialize like we did a century ago where this all peaked.

Yep, and?

>That's news to me. Liberals tend to be nihilistic about everything else

Nihilism is irrelevant to whether or not humans want to avoid dying and General negative sensations.

>DONT HAVE KIDS!!

Good idea. You probably shouldn’t reproduce.

>Who cares about aborting babies it's just clumps of cells

Agreed.

>Humans aren't sacred XD

Nothing is, since religion is a myth.

>>10464447
>they aren't fucking coming here
Right, Trump's le big beautiful wall will surely keep them out xd
Shadillay /b/rother

>>10464393
>fuck economists, listen to me about the economy
/pol/tards have no self awareness

>>10464472

Awesome, thank you for this, I'll treasure the perspective and keep it close to heart

>>10464481

How about the fucking Atlantic Ocean? You retards have actually bought the idea that the United States is the shitbasket for all the world's people

>>10464489
Yes, how could anyone cross an ocean in the 21st century
It boggles the mind

>>10464494
NO THE ETHNOSTATE IS REALLY GONNA HAPPEN OK

>>10464494

They can't even manage the Med Sea you massive twat

>>10464489
>What’s a boat

>You retards have actually bought the idea that the United States is the shitbasket for all the world's people

Go back in time to change this image by only letting in WASPs.

>>10464500
>They can't even manage the Med Sea you massive twat
>the Refugee Crisis was a massive hoax, no one actually made it to Europe
Another redpill overdose
You hate to see this happen

>>10464497

>if you don't think 2 billion Africans are going to convoy across the Atlantic Ocean you must want an ethnostate

>>10464497
I can actually imagine these conditions resulting in multiple Hitler figures coming to power.

>>10464509
>>10464508

Thanks for the hot takes, looks like there's nothing to be gained here as the niggerposters have arrived

>>10464515
>BACK TO THE SAFE SPACE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
tired of people making you look like an idiot?

>>10459641
Fantastic argument!

>>10464524
4chan is working as intended.
No arguments to be found on this site

>>10464524

You're the one who thinks Americans are going to stand for 1 billion Africans crossing a massive fucking ocean when they get up in arms over a few thousand on the southern border

>>10464531
Considering how badly every single point you raised was destroyed I'd say it's doing ok

>>10464535
didn't you notice I am somebody else to took one look at the state of this thread and replies to you?
I am a new IP

>>10464454
>The Earth’s core isn’t burning anything down there. It’s just iron.

And it's really fucking hot, because it's being moved(heated) by the sun.

>>10464454
>What gasses? Nitrogen? Oxygen? CO2?
All of it. Measure it all. Good luck with the stuff under the oceans too.

>Measuring CO2 concentrations is trivial. We’re currently at about 410ppm.
And how is that measured?

>Thanks for copy-pasting my reply and neglected to acknowledge yourself being proven wrong.

about what exactly?

>>10464462
Why do you always come to these threads and talk about food? You fat bastard.

>Anon please tell me how the fuck molten iron can produce carbon dioxide without undergoing nuclear fission
Well here's what ya do. You turn on this thing in your house that your mom uses all the time called a "stove". Then ya put this thing made of iron called a "pan" on top of the hot element on the stove. Then you put all the wood you can find in it and make sure to close all the windows and doors. Don't worry, you'll know when the CO2 becomes noticeable.

>>10464533
it's actually going to be 4 billion and they'll be going to canada not america. America is getting rekt by this

>>10464542
Well then read through the thread and laugh new guy.

>>10464547
>And it's really fucking hot, because it's being moved(heated) by the sun.
There's no fucking way you're not baitposting at this point

>>10464547
>And it's really fucking hot, because it's being moved(heated) by the sun.

It’s actually just leftover energy from planetary formation and radioactive decay.

>All of it. Measure it all. Good luck with the stuff under the oceans too.

But there’s no need to.

>And how is that measured?

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

>about what exactly?

“No they have not. They still haven't properly explained how CO2 causes temperatures to rise.”
>>10464327

>>10464547
>And it's really fucking hot, because it's being moved(heated) by the sun.
Ah so you aren't even at middle school level science good to know. Please google why the core is molten.
>All of it. Measure it all. Good luck with the stuff under the oceans too.

Good thing only gases in the atmosphere can contribute to the greenhouse effect. Which are easy to measure from atmospheric samples.
>And how is that measured?
google it retard we have these things called satellites
>Well here's what ya do. You turn on this thing in your house that your mom uses all the time called a "stove". Then ya put this thing made of iron called a "pan" on top of the hot element on the stove. Then you put all the wood you can find in it and make sure to close all the windows and doors. Don't worry, you'll know when the CO2 becomes noticeable.
As much as i would like you to burn your house down it's not a good model of the planet.

>>10464564
>There's no fucking way you're not baitposting at this point

What else is it moved by you moron? Itself? It warms itself? Retarded.

>>10464569

>It’s actually just leftover energy from planetary formation and radioactive decay.

Yeah, and without the motion from the sun it would have burned itself out by now. If the sun instantaneously vanished then so would the earth. We would sublimate to the pressures of empty space.

>But there’s no need to.
>I don't want to prove my claims

Well on your way, bub

>https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
>this one place subject to a lot of pressure coming from the earth has rising levels of CO2

You don't say.

>“No they have not. They still haven't properly explained how CO2 causes temperatures to rise.”
>refers back to my post where I say burning things causes CO2

Yeah, rising temperatures do indeed causes CO2. Not the other way around.

>>10464634
If you're trying to make climate "skeptics" look retarded by showing how absurd their arguments are you're doing a great job.

>>10464634
>What else is it moved by you moron? Itself? It warms itself? Retarded.

It does warm itself, actually. Radioactive decay produces intense heat within the earth, and the rest is leftover from the collisions of planetary formation.

>Yeah, and without the motion from the sun it would have burned itself out by now.

How so? The Sun’s tidal forces are weaker than the Moon’s for Earth.

>If the sun instantaneously vanished then so would the earth. We would sublimate to the pressures of empty space.

No, it’d persist for an infinite period of time until sucked into a black hole or it collides with something else. The core cools 100 degrees Celsius per billion years so life could persist around hydrothermal vents well into the future.

>I don't want to prove my claims

What claim? I’m only talking about CO2 concentrations.

>this one place subject to a lot of pressure coming from the earth has rising levels of CO2

That factor is accounted for.

>Yeah, rising temperatures do indeed causes CO2. Not the other way around.

Wrong. CO2 causes systems to warm due to its high ability to absorb infrared radiation. This has been known since the 1800’s.

>>10460378
Imagine being such a clueless zoomer that you actually believe this.

>>10464634
>Yeah, rising temperatures do indeed causes CO2. Not the other way around
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_feedback

>>10464547
>Why do you always come to these threads and talk about food?
So you think food is bad for you?

>>10464711
>>10459536
>>10460378
Man kind is for sure causing global warming, but the extent of the problem is so radical, so emotional and faith based, the people claiming dooms day sound like religious dooms day cultists.

Humans have replaced religion with science, and this is why you see all this "virtue signaling" and moralization of the climate change issue. It's actually very interesting. It's like CO2 and human footprint is a sin to these people. You see fasting and abstaining from behavior such as procreating, eating meat, using petrol.

In reality, climate change is the ultimate excuse for control. The world will end if you keep sinning. Anything tyranny can be justified in this crusade. One child policy, control on who can drive or fly. Limiting human footprint in the name of preventing doomsday would justify a massive super state that controls every aspect of your life.

The fact that real estate prices of coastal property is still growing, and Exxon is lobbying for carbon credits seems suspicious to me. Ether way, I don't fully buy the Armageddon dogma.

>>10464711
>It does warm itself, actually.
By proxy of cohesive motion acquired by the sun, yeah.

>Radioactive decay produces intense heat within the earth, and the rest is leftover from the collisions of planetary formation.
And none of that happens without a prime mover.

>How so? The Sun’s tidal forces are weaker than the Moon’s for Earth.
The earth revolves around the sun numbnuts.

>No, it’d persist for an infinite period of time until sucked into a black hole or it collides with something else
No. Absolutely all "motion" whatsoever would cease to exist. There is no EM, no energy other than what would coming from the nearest sun. It would go inert and then sublimate as it succumbs to the absence of force.

>The core cools 100 degrees Celsius per billion years so life could persist around hydrothermal vents well into the future.
This is only a fact if there is a sun causing the planet to orbit and revolve.

>I’m only talking about CO2 concentrations.
I'm talking about the entire planet. This is the planet we're talking about.

>That factor is accounted for.
Then what is the problem?

>Wrong. CO2 causes systems to warm due to its high ability to absorb infrared radiation. This has been known since the 1800’s.
>insulation causes warming

Insulation is insulation.

>>10464748
>if enough people believe that something is true, their behavior can make it true

>>10464802
>Humans have replaced religion with science
youre an idiot. if anything they've replaced it with economics.
Exxon is lobbying for carbon credits because under that "solution" they know they can still continue to exponentially increase production

>>10464830
Explain real estate prices with 30 year mortgages on coastal property?

>>10464827
I'm honesty interested in where you learned your physics, are you from some kind of alternate dimension?

>>10464841
Dumb boomers who get all their news from Alex jones.

>>10464802
>but the extent of the problem is so radical, so emotional and faith based

Nope. It’s well-established that continued warming will result in more droughts and desertification.

>the people claiming dooms day sound like religious dooms day cultists.

To an uninformed anon, sure.

>Humans have replaced religion with science

False. Religion is faith-based belief in the supernatural whereas science is a system of investigating the natural world relying on empiricism rather than faith.

>and this is why you see all this "virtue signaling" and moralization of the climate change issue.

It’s almost like humans have empathy, understand the concept of responsibility, and can plan ahead.

>It's like CO2 and human footprint is a sin to these people.

Nope. Sin is transgression against divine law, whereas human-sourced pollution is merely a transgression against every other human and living thing on earth.

>You see fasting and abstaining from behavior such as procreating, eating meat, using petrol.

And? Humans can figure out that their actions have effects and choose to not perform certain actions due to said effects. It’d be ideal if we ceased to engage in animal murder and slavery entirely.

>In reality, climate change is the ultimate excuse for control.

Nope. Climate change is an ongoing phenomena that requires government intervention to counteract. You let your conspiratorial and paranoid mindset out of the bag.

>The world will end if you keep sinning.

Sin is a religious concept and irrelevant to the current warming trend.

>Anything tyranny can be justified in this crusade.

No one proposed tyranny.

>One child policy

Not motivated by climate change

>control on who can drive or fly.

Already exists so retards don’t crash vehicles.

>Limiting human footprint in the name of preventing doomsday would justify a massive super state that controls every aspect of your life

Fascinating use of slippery slope fallacy.

>>10464830
If you talk to the boomer faggot in the hybrid that has a "go vegan" sticker. You will find the same behavior of a devout religious Puritan. The culture never changed, the religion then. The same people pushing for gun control, climate change, veganism, have the same profile of those who pushed prohibition.

Climate change is real, but many of these professors act like authority on God's will or the will of "unmovable mover". Many climate scientist have fudged the data to get the results they want. Anyone who has taken a stats class knows how easy it is to get the result you want.

>>10464841
>Explain real estate prices with 30 year mortgages on coastal property?
easy, obviously people are not taking climate change (science) seriously.

and you think science is a new religion? ridiculous. the only thing people worship these days is material wealth and consumerism, which is encouraged by the vast majority of economists.

>>10459536
sure it is but if you think we can fix it youre fucking retarded.
besides 'climate change' is a meme now and no longer has any credibility at all.

>>10464867
So banks and investors are not concerned with losing all of the property to the sea? Something that is not covered by insurance. You really think none of them are responding to further market and environmental conditions. These are 30 year investments sometimes longer. Why are big hotels still being built in Florida.

>>10464827
>By proxy of cohesive motion acquired by the sun, yeah.

Wrong. By radioactive decay.

>And none of that happens without a prime mover.

No one said earth didn’t come to be because of the Sun.

>The earth revolves around the sun numbnuts.

Yes it does. And?

>No. Absolutely all "motion" whatsoever would cease to exist.

Wrong. The conservation of angular momentum would result in earth hurtling into interstellar space at high velocity.

>There is no EM, no energy other than what would coming from the nearest sun.

Wrong. Earth produces thermal energy via radioactive decay.

>This is only a fact if there is a sun causing the planet to orbit and revolve.

Wrong. Earth’s internal heat and rotation doesn’t depend on solar gravity.

>I'm talking about the entire planet. This is the planet we're talking about.

No, we’re talking about CO2 and it’s effect on climate. Sorry, not letting you wiggle out of that.

>Then what is the problem?

CO2 is increasing due to human activity.

>Insulation is insulation.

Didn’t say “insulation”. I said “ability to absorb infrared radiation”. Lie harder. CO2 absorbs solar radiation and then emits it, warming the earth.

>>10464879
>If you talk to the boomer faggot in the hybrid that has a "go vegan" sticker. You will find the same behavior of a devout religious Puritan. The culture never changed, the religion then. The same people pushing for gun control, climate change, veganism, have the same profile of those who pushed prohibition.

This is a lovely investigation into the psychology of this imaginary person but irrelevant to the threat of climate change. You’re just railing at some stereotypical person in your head.

>>10464888
Stop adding co2 to the atmosphere and natural carbon flux will take care of the problem. We'll still have decades of warming but it won't be catastrophic Its not rocket science

>>10464827
You're a disgrace to engie mains worldwide I hope you know

>>10464902
Isn't there a term for this? Straw something?

>>10464912
Strawman, arguably also a red herring since it’s irrelevant to whether or not climate change is a serious issue.

>>10464879
I would argue that the trendy hipster who drives the tesla and eats only the freshest organic produce at great cost worships the same god as the trendy hick driving the souped up v8 towing 4 quads to bush to go hunting. Neither has any regard for the true costs of their lifestyles. They both just want to appear trendy.

They may be in competition but when it comes down to it they have the same consumerist/materialist religion that's destroying the world.

>>10464947
Yet the only bad thing your hypothetical hipster is doing is eating organic. Electrical vehicles produce many tons less CO2 than standard gas or diesel vehicles, especially on the greener grids.

>>10464958
Go push nuclear power and infinite economic/population growth somewhere else, shill.

>>10459657
We'll just conquer Canada. Or, more likely, Canada will cease to be a nation in the next 10-20 years and we'll just walk in unopposed.

>>10464902
Abolitionism, prohibition and many progressive movements have their orgin in regions that were the most infuenced by Puritan culture.

The environmental movement is one of those crusades. I'm not saying climate change is not an issue, but it is not framed in a scientific way, but a moral question and revert to nature worship. It's why nuclear is rarely spoken of as a legit solution. Fear and the fact that using nuclear is not a form of penitence like solar or wind would be. Nuclear gives us control, not the whim of nature.

Until the green activists start talking about nuclear, I will never take the climate change issue serious. Like I said, it's a moral issue for an offshoot of Puritan values.

We should really be talking about how to adjust to a changing world, not try to preserve the climate as it is.

>>10464966
>Go push nuclear power and infinite economic/population growth somewhere else, shill.

Didn’t push any of those. What a strange lie.

this kills the climate shills

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)

>>10464974
>It's why nuclear is rarely spoken of as a legit solution.
wtf are you talking about? our resident carbon tax shill here (>>10464958) is constantly pushing nuclear and gmo as a "solution". the 2 of you actually have quite a bit in common (with the exception of the climate science denial)

feels good that I don’t live in Africa

>>10464974
>Abolitionism, prohibition and many progressive movements have their orgin in regions that were the most infuenced by Puritan culture.

Cool. And?

>The environmental movement is one of those crusades.

No, a crusade is religiously motivated.

>I'm not saying climate change is not an issue, but it is not framed in a scientific way

Yes it is.

>but a moral question

It’s a moral question, too.

>and revert to nature worship.

Please cite a source.

>It's why nuclear is rarely spoken of as a legit solution.

Fission produces waste.

>Fear and the fact that using nuclear is not a form of penitence like solar or wind would be.

Wind and solar energy are not “a form of penitence”. Please stop attempting to fit your weird religious narrative into climate change.

>Nuclear gives us control, not the whim of nature.

No, nuclear gives us waste. Solar and wind does not.

>Until the green activists start talking about nuclear

They will when fission magically ceases to produce waste or we figure out fusion.

>I will never take the climate change issue serious.

That’s rather stupid and childish of you.

>Like I said, it's a moral issue for an offshoot of Puritan values.

No, silly. Preventing mass starvation from drought is a moral issue for ALL ethics systems. The only people that disagree are literal sociopaths, apparently like you.

>We should really be talking about how to adjust to a changing world

We are, because some degree of warming is inevitable now and won’t reverse for a long time

>not try to preserve the climate as it is

Why not? Minimizing climate change minimizes harm. Are you retarded?

>>10465000
>our resident carbon tax shill here

Never proposed a carbon tax

>constantly pushing nuclear and gmo as a "solution"

Never pushed either nuclear or GMOs.

>>10465018
fair enough; there is someone who posts here who also knows about climate science who does.

>>10465010
>It’s a moral question, too.
Lol, this what I'm talking about. It's not a moral issue.

>Fission produces waste
Ever heard of breeders? What about thorium reactors? Fission can be done in a relatively clean and safe way. France gets 80% of their power from fission.

Sorry but a 100% green grid isn't even possible, it will always require green house or fission. Until you know how to store electricity for a city.

>>10464989
Things are lookin pretty good for Russian and Canada. Rest of the world might starve though.

>>10465030
>It's not a moral issue.
Not him.
It's a moral issue because your consumerism/waste is indirectly killing innocent people. Maybe you are a literal sociopath.

>>10465004
>Pole doesn't think they'll end up occupied when shit hits the fan
Oh nononono....

>>10465042
Morals are not a scientific construct. My utilitarian view justifies the suffering of others for the greater good. It's why I support socialism and government taxes/theft. Violence drives the state and the world, and secular utilitarianism replaced religion and morals for society. Otherwise gay marriage would still be out lawed. Now if only we could bomb muslims into giving up god.

>>10465030
>Lol, this what I'm talking about. It's not a moral issue.

Apparently massive droughts that kill people and desertification aren’t moral issues. Please tell me you’re joking.

>Ever heard of breeders?

Don’t eliminate waste.

>What about thorium reactors?

Don’t eliminate waste

>Fission can be done in a relatively clean and safe way. France gets 80% of their power from fission.

Good for them. And? Fission is better than coal, natural gas, shale, or oil. We know.

>Sorry but a 100% green grid isn't even possible, it will always require green house or fission.

False. There is no practical reason an energy grid could not obtain all electrical energy from wind or solar.

>Things are lookin pretty good for Russian and Canada. Rest of the world might starve though.

That’s just asking for an invasion.

>>10465061
>My utilitarian view justifies the suffering of others for the greater good.

Good, then you’d support immediate action on climate change to maximize wellbeing at the cost of short-term losses.

>>10465065
My personal beliefs only allow for the suffering of poor people so I'll have to pass.

>>10465065
No. I live a child free life and only care about maximizing my dopamine levels in my time alive. After I got /fit/ all I care about is slaying pussy and smoking weed. Existence for me ends when I die, what happens to earth is not my problem.

>>10465119
>what happens to the Earth is not my problem
You planning on killing yourself soon or something?

>>10465119
>Existence for me ends when I die, what happens to earth is not my problem.

Lovely, so make sure to not contribute to the greenhouse gas content of the atmosphere while you’re around. That makes things unpleasant.

>>10465142
>>10465150
Not at all. I want to live a long happy life. It's just that with a vasectomy, I can now fulfill my biological urges without consequences. I focus on working out, getting pussy, smoking weed and doing DMT from time to time.

Secular utilitarianism and modern technology have made maximizing pressure and minimizing discomfort easy. No kids, no responsibility, all fun.

There is no heaven or hell so I only act in a manner that keeps me from going to jail, that would not be good for maximizing pleasure.

Then after a good long life, existence ends, so I don't really give a fuck about what happens next. And I'm not a stupid breeder or Christ cuck who cares about future generations.

Life is about having fun.

>>10465200
Good luck having fun during the economic crisis you'll be living through due to climate change

Real? Yes. Overstated? Almost certainly.

Look, there's plenty enough reasons to try and transition from coal and oil to nuclear, let's not hang our hat on the most tenuous reason for doing so.

>>10465200
>Life is about having fun.

Life implies living and everything you just described leads to less life. Congrats on proving to everyone how uneducated the average materialist is. You could have summarized all that in one sentence though.

>I am just a dumb animal.

Literally furfag tier.

>>10459536
Exactly how many proposals have been put forward to stop India and China from developing? Is it zero?
Do we share an atmosphere with them?
How do you spell QED?