/sci/ - Science & Math

The most important thing about the human spirit is that we never stop trying till the bitter end.

>>11005040
I recommend raising taxes

>>11005040
Post on /x/. This board is for science and math.

>>11005040
Nuke China.

>>11005051
Why? I didn't say global warming is a hoax.

>>11005040
>Ok so climate change is real and it's man made.

>>11005040
There's like a shit ton of other climate change threads, and all the posts in these threads are regurgitated ad nauseam.

>How do we stop it?
Make the general public more aware. Tax the %1, fix public transpiration in countries (such as America) so that they can compete somewhat with cars, incentivize environmentally conscious habits, etc.

It's a global thing. Protest. Vote for representatives who acknowledge the existence of it, and if they back away from their promises. Protest, but with civil disobedience or else they won't care.


>Is it even possible?

Yeah. But it's definitely not easy.

>>11005068
Sorry for the typos it's late here and i'm tired

>>11005055
That would be /pol/.

>>11005040
Go protest, speak with people you know about it. Change your own behavior (has a very very small effect on climate and strengthens your point). Globally, we need to stop getting our energy from burning fossil stuff, stop breeding so much animals that produce methan and require a lot of energy and food to mantain and a few other things.

>>11005040
We could reduce its effects if we started now but we will deliberate about it for 20 more years and by then it will be too late. At this rate we had just better hope for desert farming tech and arcologies.

>>11005040
Not gonna happen. It's politically impossible not to hit 450 and very likely to hit 500 within this century.

>>11005040
NU
CLE
AR

>>11005040
>Is it even possible?
Good question. I am not sure. But I will be able to tell me kids "I tried" when speaking about this 30 years from now.

>>11005040
https://www.livescience.com/64183-solar-dimming-air-spray-climate-change-cost.html
Cheap, easy solution that won't ever get off the ground as long as climate change can be used to fearmonger up political power and redistribute wealth.

The climate is changing that isn't a bad thing. They used to call it global warming but that fell through because it's a lie. Also before you post some retard level 'global temperature since X year' graph feel free to find one that uses data points from all over the world and not just large cities, the numbers are always horribly skewed because they do this for fear mongering.

Alas, I'll see you all in hell in 40 years when the globe is 2 degrees hotter and everything is dead because people lants and animals can't adapt. Oh wait...

>>11005456
Why are you so arrogant as to think you, a nobody, thinks you understand the issue better than 10's of thousands of people who have devoted their lives to studying this? I notice this trend a lot...

>>11005461
1. There are already several peer reviewed papers with methods to reverse the effects of climate change

2. There are processes by which the ecosystem can correct itself as it is, acidification is the main concern bit as the oceans get more acidic certain species of phytoplankton bloom in excess reversing the negative effects

3. Those "10's of thousands of people" have degrees in pseudoscience, we can barely predict where a hurricane is going to land yet you think people in essentially a branch of that field can predict what will play out in 10 years let alone when they start talking about 100's.

4. As per the mention of the fudged data you can see places like LA are significantly hotter than the surrounding areas due to huge amounts of concrete and millions of cars on the road constantly (the heat lost from the cars before you start bitching), so when they are blatantly being lied to with shit data why would you take them seriously.

5. Just because there's a massive amount of people who believe something doesn't make it true, even in hard sciences this turns out to be the case with even some of the most basic concepts getting revisited and changed decade after decade

Tldr if you care that much about her environment quit using cars, dont eat meat, dont buy plastic products or any sort of electronics or anything similar otherwise your bitching about a problem while simultaneously contributing.

Also next time leave the down syndrome out of your post

>>11005408
What are the assumptions for the different curves?

>>11005486
There's not a single evidence based scientific concensus position throughout history that turned out to be wrong. Why would this be any different?

>>11005408 You realize once there's enough in the air people will start building filter mines? If not I'd suggest waiting until you get to the age of 18 to post here.

>>11005493
Really? How about aether, Earth as the center of the solar system etc.. What you're failing to account for in you idiotic question is that there's always been evidence for what people believe, just because we know it's wrong now doesn't mean it wasn't a valid idea back then with their limited resources. You have to be 18 to post here if I'm not mistaken.

>>11005500
>aether
Wasn't an evidence based notion. They simply intuitively believed that light had to be relative to some 'absolute' field.

>Earth as the center of the solar system
Was never a scientific position. It was a view imposed by the Church without evidence. Actually this pre-dates modern science (which arguably began around the time of Newton).

Well Trump is going to be the last Republican president so we effectively don't need to care about them. Given that the problem lies in China and India, we need to start there. The Chinese Communist Party is the single largest funder of Democratic candidates (in terms of number of candidates funded, not actual dollars given), while also the number one source of basically every environmental issue on the planet. As such, you need to start murdering (and I am not condoning or advocating this) Democratic politicians until the fear of being murdered outweighs the benefit of taking CCP campaign funding.

After that, you basically use the USA's imperial power to simply block China out of the global economy. They collapse overnight and regress to an agrarian anarchist state as is usual of China after a dynastic collapse. That gives you a good 100 years or so to fix things in here, but then in doing so you basically cause the rest of the world (sans Europe) to regress to a similar anarchistic agrarian state.

So, I guess the question is, which do you value more, the liberal state or the planet's health? Because you can't have both; this whole liberal multicultural empire we've got going on is killing the world, but most of those who "believe" in Climate Change seem wholly unwilling to actually fix anything, and seem more focused on trying to make profit accrument for large international corporations more efficient.

Just gonna leave this here

>>11005513
The US should have invaded China over forty years ago and no one would have stopped us after the Sino-Soviet split.

>>11005040
>climate change is real and it's man made
Brainlet

>>11005505
Now you're just playing with semantics because of your low iq. Im still waiting only reasons why I'm wrong rather than 'becauae they said so!', I'll also take some non biased data as already requested.

>>11005518
Is it really necessary to name call? I guess you need to resort to that when your argument is weak... you still haven't given an example of an evidence based scientific concensus position that turned out to be wrong.

This too.

>>11005514
Wanna add solar irradiance to your graph buddy?

>Imagine thinking measurements of CO2 taken on an active volcano and in a huge urban sprawl are valid.

>>11005522
>I'll take moving the goalpost for 1200, Alex.

>>11005528
Sure
>protip, it shows nothing

>>11005532
The source of CO2 can be determined from its isotopes.

>>11005533
Funny how you can't give a single example...

>>11005537
>Last few decades
>Previous graph covered Earth’s geological history

???

Well, since it’s obviously not the Sun doing the warming, must be greenhouse gasses. QED

>>11005537
>first graph is over millions of years
>pic related is from 1975 to 2005
Fucking retard
https://youtu.be/fpF48b6Lsbo

>>11005514
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature-intermediate.htm

>>11005455
>Cheap, easy solution
Except for the fact that it blocks sunlight needed for agriculture and natural ecosystems, more and more sunlight needs to be blocked to counter unmitigated CO2 emissions, ocean acidification continues to accelerate, millions of people continue to die every year from air pollution from fossil fuels, etc.

>climate change can be used to fearmonger up political power and redistribute wealth.
Oh of course, because governments don't already have the power to tax shit and redistribute wealth. Fucking retard.

Business idea: We don't, instead of blowing billions and billions on trying to prevent something that is inevitable. We put that money into adapting to climate change.

>>11005456
>The climate is changing that isn't a bad thing.
Rapid change like this is bad for humans and the ecosystems we rely on, according to the evidence.

>They used to call it global warming but that fell through because it's a lie.
Wrong. https://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming.htm

>Also before you post some retard level 'global temperature since X year' graph feel free to find one that uses data points from all over the world and not just large cities, the numbers are always horribly skewed because they do this for f isear mongering.
Please show me a global temperature graph that only uses data from large cities.

>>11005486
>1. There are already several peer reviewed papers with methods to reverse the effects of climate change
Yes, and the best method is reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

>2. There are processes by which the ecosystem can correct itself as it is
Then why are we rapidly warming? When ddp these systems kick in, what causes them, and how powerful are they? Please show me what every climatologist has missed.

>3. Those "10's of thousands of people" have degrees in pseudoscience, we can barely predict where a hurricane is going to land
The massive irony of calling climatology pseudoscience while confusing climate with weather... Get off the science board.

>4. As per the mention of the fudged data you can see places like LA are significantly hotter than the surrounding areas
This is called the UHI, is effect is minuscule and corrected by homogenization. If you only look at non- urban temperate data the global trend is exactly the same.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2012JD018509

>5. Just because there's a massive amount of people who believe something doesn't make it true, even in hard sciences this turns out to be the case
The only reason you know that to be the case is because scientists did the work for you and agreed on a new position. Your argument is self defeating since you rely on consensus being correct to argue against consensus being correct. And the consensus on global warming is not simply people believing it, it's the consensus of scientific evidence all pointing to the same conclusion.

>Tldr if you care that much about her environment quit using cars, dont eat meat, dont buy plastic products or any sort of electronics
If you actually cared about the truth instead of just attacking your opponent, you would admit that making fossil fuel emissions more expensive for everyone is a better solution than one person reducing their emissions.

>>11005514
>>11005525
What exactly is your point?

>>11005532
yaaaaaaawn

https://skepticalscience.com/mauna-loa-volcano-co2-measurements-advanced.htm

>>11005572
>We don't, instead of blowing billions and billions on trying to prevent something that is inevitable.
How exactly is it inevitable?

> We put that money into adapting to climate change.
Because that would be way more expensive. Most economists agree that a carbon tax would pay for itself many times over in future savings. Your argument is like saying it's better to adapt to cancer than to stop smoking.

>>11005040
Well considering the fact that every single time the earth started warming or cooling, some factor came in and resets it back to an average. I say we don’t need to.

>>11005624
>some factor came in and resets it back to an average.

There is no “””average”””, and reductions in temperature take place over geological time scales.

>>11005456
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

>>11005068
No moron. If cli:ate change if we actually believe what the climate scientists are saying then the upswing in temperature is mostly caused by human co2 emissions, than we have to believe that the amount of industry on the p,a net in the late 180ps was enough to increase temperatures. If that’s true than the only way to stop it would be to go back to a 1700s pre industrial model and kill off billions of humans. It’s impossible.

If man made climate change is true (it’s probably not) that he only solution would be making some new technological invention that extracts co2 our the atmosphere. Say make plankton hyper photosythesizers. Your globalist socialism would not do jack shit but harm and destroy the countries that implement it.

>>11005624
This is so stupid I don't even know where to begin. There is no "average" geologic temperature that has relevance to humans. We have not been on Earth for very long. Temperature swings humans have experienced on Earth are much slower than current warming, which is caused by massive human emissions that completely dwarf the mechanism behind those temperature swings. The temperature will eventually cool back to pre-industrial temperature if we do nothing to mitigate emissions... after several thousand years of suffering and ecological damage.

>>11005626
If you look at paleoclimatology what does it show? It shows that when the climate warms or cools it will never continue on the same direction for long. In the little ice age or Roman warm period it always ends. Plus you see the beginning of a warming trend as soon as we enter the 1800s. What is to say that that natural warming isn’t just continuing and the the greenhouse effect just has little to do with it.

>>11005637
Not really if you look at the smaller scale shifts in temperature. Like the ones we see from the past few thousands of years, it’s a very swift change from warmer to colder. What makes this specific change so different? I’ll give you that I shouldn’t of used the term average but temperature always changes. Why wouldn’t it change again this time too? How are we so sure that this trend is permanent or long lasting.

>>11005641
>If you look at paleoclimatology what does it show?

Periods of temperatures warmer than now that lasted for tens of millions of years and even hundreds of millions of years and also periods of temperatures colder than now that lasted for tens of millions of years and even hundreds of millions of years.

> It shows that when the climate warms or cools it will never continue on the same direction for long

It also shows that sweltering hot temperatures can be present for millions of years as well as chilly temperatures. The entire Mesozoic was warmer than today, and was preceded by the Permian, also hotter than today.

>What is to say that that natural warming isn’t just continuing and the the greenhouse effect just has little to do with it.

How do you think “natural warming” occurs, exactly? What factors are behind it?

>>11005062
Well, bye

>>11005656
Natural climate change can happen for a variety of reason, volcanic eruptions, a massive death of plant life, or even various other reason science doesn’t understand yet.
Why are you looking so far back? I was talking about recent changes, further back than s climate “scientists” looks but nit too far as to see really big trends that don’t have much to do with the small changes happening now. If you think that this warming is different from al, other short term and small periods of warming and that this is the beginning of a giant trend then why can’t you prove it.

>>11005568
>thinks the government can't get bigger
>bitching because the solution isn't perfect
Bet you don't like nuclear either.

>>11005544
>demands materials irrelevant to man-influenced climate change
>screeches about it anyway

>>11005669
What's especially funny is the climate change tards never bother to account for plate tectonics

>protip for you leftist climate change tards: shifting plate boundaries release insane amounts of volcanic gases which then diffuse into the atmosphere

But hey, it's clear you want to feel relevant so go on and keep telling yourselves people make a significant impact

>>11005436
>Good question. I am not sure. But I will be able to tell me kids "I tried" when speaking about this 30 years from now.


>My entire generation didn't give a flying fuck about it for over half a century. Then we tried to make some luxury electrical SUVs instead of the regular ones for a while and the government put a fucking tax on our carribean cruise in 2022. Anyway we tried. Get off my back.

FTFY

>>11005670
Nuclear is garbage
It's just another, stupider way to boil water. Clean coal is the way to go.

>>11005602
>we have evaluated ourselves and concluded we are doing nothing wrong

>>11005669
>Natural climate change can happen for a variety of reason, volcanic eruptions, a massive death of plant life, or even various other reason science doesn’t understand yet.

It’s all due to two different, broad things.
An increase or decrease in solar radiation
Or an increase or decrease in the Earth’s ability to absorb and retain solar radiation.

One of the most important factors in the second category is greenhouse gasses, which form a little blanket around the earth that prevents infrared photons from escaping into space. Humans are producing a lot of greenhouse gasses, which cause warming. Since solar radiation isn’t increasing, and humans are the dominant source of greenhouse gasses, it would seem that it’s us.

>I was talking about recent changes

All changes in the earth’s average temperature are due to changes in greenhouse gas concentration, albedo, and solar radiation.

>>11005685
>protip for you leftist climate change tards: shifting plate boundaries release insane amounts of volcanic gases which then diffuse into the atmosphere

I know this is bait, but volcanos have a puny CO2 output in comparison to humans, and actually release gasses that COOL earth as well.

>>11005688
>Clean
The problem with coal isn't the soot and particules in the atmosphere anon. It's the shit ton of CO2 that's released.

>>11005688
>clean coal
Oh no it's retarded

>>11005702
I said plate tectonic boundaries, not the individual cone volcanos that geologists deign to measure

>>11005709
Yeah you're right, placing nuclear plants near major bodies of water has NEVER gone wrong before and clearly never will again

>>11005717
>I said plate tectonic boundaries

Please quantify the amount of gasses released from them.

>>11005632
>industry = CO2 emissions
Ever heard of nuclear and renewable energy?

>If man made climate change is true (it’s probably not)
It's directly observable: http://asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/journals/nature14240_v519_Feldman_CO2.pdf

>Your globalist socialism would not do jack shit but harm and destroy the countries that implement it.
Oh, another alarmist.

>>11005733
>wow it's almost like limestone subduction results in CO2 emission and that geothermal tectonic zones release huge amounts of methane

How about you go do a little reading before posting any more.

>>11005741
Please quantify the amount of gasses released from them.

>>11005641
>In the little ice age or Roman warm period it always ends.
LOL these are barely noticeable compared to current warming.

>>11005722
You know what's more dangerous than an almost non-existant risk of negligible close-proximity nuclear fallout in modern, fail-safe equipped and self-limiting nuclear reactors?

Rising sea levels threatening most human cities that happen to be build on a coastline, mass starvation, extreme weather phenomena and flora and fauna mass extinction.

>>11005722
I'm not shilling nuclear, idiot. Nuclear is as stupid as coal and the equivalent of clean coal is "this time, nuclear is perfectly safe, trust us"

>>11005645
>Not really if you look at the smaller scale shifts in temperature. Like the ones we see from the past few thousands of years, it’s a very swift change from warmer to colder.
The past few thousand years have barely changed until now. The fastest "recent" warming was interglacial warming 10000 years ago, but today's warming is an order of magnitude faster than that. Not to mention that according to the natural cycle we should be slowly cooling but instead we are rapidly warming. So please explain what natural mechanism is going to magically reverse this.

>How are we so sure that this trend is permanent or long lasting.
Because we know it's caused by rapidly increasing CO2 concentration via radiative spectroscopy and we know the ratio of manmade CO2 to natural CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing via isotope analysis, meaning man is the cause of the increase in concentration. We don't know of any magic mechanism that reverses this naturally, yet you keep referring to it as if we do.

>>11005746
Your existential (and unproven) fearmongering takes a backseat to real disaster. Take a look at what the damage projections were to Europe had they not been able to successfully place the cooling slab.

>>11005670
>Bet you don't like nuclear either.
Then why would I mention it? If that's all you have for a response then we're done here.

>>11005769
I'm not saying nuclear is perfectly safe and unproblematic but as long as we need energy as a civilization it#s far superior to coal and other fossil fuels.

More people already die every day from from fossil-fuel burning and fine-particle related respiratory ilnesses than in the entire history of nuclear energy.

And here I'm not even mentioning global warming.

>>11005746
>Humans and animals cannot notice sea levels slowly drowning them at a rate of rise that is slower than hair growth.

>>11005744
"A lot"

>>11005769
>This chart from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration shows the tsunami's expected path across the Pacific Ocean. The dark black and purple indicate the highest rise in sea level. The light gray lines indicate the tsunami wave's expected arrival time.
Do you just post random images without knowing what they are or are you deliberately lying about what it shows?

>>11005785
You're right. We should just move all coastal cities a few kilometers inland when the water levels rise.

Why didn't we think of this before?

>>11005062
Yeah you should probably leave a science board if you don't understand science and are unwilling to learn

>>11005787
Please quantify the amount of gasses released from them.

>>11005788
Ah yes, Snopes would never lie.

>>11005788
>lying
The use of this word is a recent phenomenon since you came along and started samefagging all over. Just say what you gotta say and stop acting like a girl about it.

>>11005670
>The government doing something it does every day in numerous ways is going too far
>We must accept massive damage to the economy and ecosystems to prevent the government from "getting bigger"
>oh and by the way the government should tax people in order to dump aerosols into the atmosphere and decide what the temperature should be, but that doesn't make the government bigger
>and just ignore the negative effects, it's not a perfect solution

>>11005791
We have.

>>11005675
>posts temperature and CO2 in timeframes irrelevant to humans
>balks at posting solar irradiance on same timeframes because it's irrelevant to humans

>>11005794
>gib
Educate yourself, Captain Bigthink.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/CarbonCycle

>>11005696
>I have not evaluated anything but concluded you are wrong

>>11005809
>screeches about humans causing climate change with CO2 emissions
Moves the goalposts to solar cycles when confronted on his misrepresentation

>>11005697
>All changes in the earth’s average temperature are due to changes in greenhouse gas concentration, albedo, and solar radiation.
All long term changes you mean. Over the short term (sub-decadal scale) average temperature is determined primarily by the flow of heat in the atmosphere and oceans.

>>11005811
“Without human interference, the carbon in fossil fuels would leak slowly into the atmosphere through volcanic activity over millions of years in the slow carbon cycle. By burning coal, oil, and natural gas, we accelerate the process, releasing vast amounts of carbon (carbon that took millions of years to accumulate) into the atmosphere every year. By doing so, we move the carbon from the slow cycle to the fast cycle. In 2009, humans released about 8.4 billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuel.”

“Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, when people first started burning fossil fuels, carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere have risen from about 280 parts per million to 387 parts per million, a 39 percent increase. This means that for every million molecules in the atmosphere, 387 of them are now carbon dioxide—the highest concentration in two million years. Methane concentrations have risen from 715 parts per billion in 1750 to 1,774 parts per billion in 2005, the highest concentration in at least 650,000 years.”

Thanks for this source I’ll keep it on hand

>>11005717
Annual emissions from all volcanic sources, not just above ground large volcanoes, are dwarfed by human emissions.

>>11005830
>Over the short term (sub-decadal scale) average temperature is determined primarily by the flow of heat in the atmosphere and oceans.

That only influences the whereabouts of thermal energy, not the total amount of it present in the system.

>>11005832
You're welcome, just be sure to remember the parts detailing limestone as a C02 reservoir and what happens to it during plate subduction as tectonic activity increases

>>11005841
Chemical weathering erodes CO2 concentrations on timescales far beyond ours.

>>11005843
Plate subduction involving leading edges of thousands of square kilometers of limestone != weathering

>>11005040
>be carbon-based lifeform
>notice there is other carbon in environment, in a carbon rich universe
>uh oh this can't be a good sign
I'm going carbon free guys!

>>11005849
i don't get it

>>11005850
Don't lose the forest for the trees.

>>11005798
>an anon on 4chan would never lie
>you can't trust the description of the image given by the organization that made the image
So you're doubling down on the lie?

>>11005068
Have fun getting non-whites to be environmentally conscious.

>>11005798
>image shows cesium quickly dilutes to nothing
>but it sure looks scary so I'll post it as if it supports my lie

>>11005068
does america have a transpiration problem?

>>11005800
>retard claims image showing tsunami heights showed radiation levels
>retard gets triggered because I called this a lie
What the fuck?

>>11005068
>Tax the %1
>1% lowers wages the equivalent to the tax
>Oh but we rise minimum wage
>1% hire less people
>Oh but we hire people in the state
>economy collapses
Enjoy your marxist utopia anon

>>11005908
Just kill them then if they're so stubborn

>>11005687
high IQ post.

>>11005040
>Ok so climate change is real and it's man made.
> How do we stop it? Is it even possible?

It's simple and hard at the same time.
Anthropogenic climate change is caused by CO2 emissions. So we just need to stop these emissions. But this means to stop burning coal and oil and gas. Coal and oil lobby will fight with every dirty trick. But it is necessary.

>>11005908
Not how reality works.

>>11005610
>Most economists agree
>just a few paid by lobbists
yeah, no

>>11005821
What goalposts? It's hard to tell what the point is since only an image was posted but it appears to be that CO2 is not correlated with temperature on geologic timescales. Showing solar irradiance would clarify why there is a lack of correlation. But this has little relevance to AGW anyway.

>>11005873
Im not the retard. Call retard a retard and set retard straight. You are still acting like a bitch by turning matters towards me instead of having a discussion like you have a pair. Do you have an actual vagina?
I'm this>>11005805 guy.
These people didn't make it.

>>11005737
>nuclear
no fusion for at least 30 years and fision has a lot of cons. Placement, resource cost and radioactive waste.
>renewable
Cannot make a dependable grid entirely of renewable energy. Maybe store some on bateries like Elon's Musk industrial complex. Still its not cost effective.

Stop shilling this utopian stuff.

>>11005040
Yep. Total obliteration of the human race or a Thanos-Style random and fair cull of the species down to about 60% of its current size. That and crippling the coal and oil industry will fix the problem.

>>11005930
Actually how authoritarian meassures work. I know this is /sci/ but god read some economics please.

>>11005490
RCP 2.6 assumes that global annual GHG emissions (measured in CO
2-equivalents) peak between 2010–2020, with emissions declining substantially thereafter. It also assumes negative emissions after 2070. Emissions in RCP 4.5 peak around 2040, then decline. In RCP 6, emissions peak around 2080, then decline. In RCP 8.5, emissions peak around 2100, then decline.

Right now only scenario RCP8.5 and worse seems to be likely. As a result global temperatures will rice by about 5°C in 2100 and 12°C or more in 2200. Icecaps will melt away. We need to give up al coastal cities. The entire state of Florida will be flooded. Entire nations like the Netherlands will cease to exist.

>>11005837
Yes, but average temperature over the short term is influenced by the flow of energy and not just how much energy there is in the system. This is the chaotic element of global temperature.

>>11005505
*moves goalposts*

>>11005846
what are you even arguing right now? Your own source claims the increase in CO2 and methane observed over the past few centuries is entirely due to human activity. Are you saying in the near future plate tectonics will release even more CO2 further adding fuel to the fire?

>>11005040
Why do people believe everything this fetal alcohol syndrome teenager says?

>>11006294
She cites her sources

>>11005514
Completely irrelevant to our situation

>>11006298
If she had decent sources she would think nuclear power is the way of the future, instead she's acting from a position of pure emotional thinking and cherry picking sources that align with her thinking.

>>11005974
>will rise by about 5°C in 2100 and 12°C or more in 2200
Ya that's fucking game over if that happens lol. A few hundred thousands years later the last amino acid breaks down.

>>11006294
her story is totally worthy of a south park reinterpretation with cartman in her role

>>11006304
>the way of the future
literally every single person in history who has used that term is human fucking garbage.

>>11005741
Good thing we have isotopic measurements to confirm that the massive increase of CO2 is caused by fossil fuels.
Learn what you're talking about before you spout shit

>>11005544
Why are you posting reconstructions of deep time like it has any relevance? The data points in that graph are tens of millions of years apart and reconstruct cycles far larger than the ones active today. Not to mention the the planet was under completely different tectonic and oceanic regimes.

>>11006339
>everything i don't like is irrelevant
/pol/tards everyone

>>11005040
socialism and reparations of course
it's only logical

>>11006353
>>11005525
Misclick btw. How can you read my post and think it was a /pol/tard?
There's the guy saying that because it was warmer in the cretaceous that means anthropogenic warming isn't real.

>>11005544
Just wanted to make sure I remember this. "There is no correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentrations and global temperature." Thanks for showing the way.

It's caught in American partisan politics now. Conservative propaganda machines pumping out denialist propaganda, etc.
Locked in inaction, nothing will get done. We will lose. Everyone.

>>11005871
Public transit is looked down upon and it’s usually pretty filthy

>>11006393
It'll be okay.

>>11006394
are deodorants too expensive?

>>11006393
>Conservative propaganda machines
BAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA
NINETY SEVEN PERCENT AM I RIGHT?
LMFAO

>>11005040
Kill 95% of humans.

>>11005952
>Cannot make a dependable grid entirely of renewable energy.
Iceland can, Albania can, Congo can, Paraguay can.

>>11006607
>Congo can
omg I laughed so hard I pissed and shit myself

>>11005062
>reddit meme
you have to go back

>>11005908
that's why we should bow down to the 1% and do nothing to get them to actually pay taxes

>>11005908
There are people who really believe this

>>11005062
That's right /pol/ is two doors down.

>>11005040
Nope, because your conjecture is faulty and you'll not get any usable conclusions when you're working with a deliberately bullshit premise. Just raise taxes so everyone's living standard is more shitty and institute authoritarian central planning to collapse your society in a few decades, I'm sure you'll save the planet.

>>11005918
The coal and oil lobby?

You're talking about how much of the economy? A quarter? More? We have built our economy around moving people around in cars (the US especially). And moving freight in trucks, and ships. All of this depends on burning oil: the infrastructure of our technological society is founded on burning oil. Oil doesn't need a lobby. It has the whole of the economy to lobby for it.

>>11005068
Fact: The 1% pay the highest taxes, not just in absolute terms, but in relative terms too.

>>11005849
>he thinks the problem is that there is carbon and not how much CO2 and other greenhouse gases are in the atmosphere
I can't tell if you're trolling or just being a fucking retard.

>>11005948
>Im not the retard
There can be, and are, multiple retards. I have no clue what the rest of the incoherent babble in your post is trying to communicate

>>11005424
I think you mean
NU
CU
LAR

>>11005043
and creating solutions that create bigger problems than what they intended to solve

>>11006744
Is it worth telling the truth to these people? Even after Obamacare showed them that, no, the rich aren't going to pay for it, they still cling to these disproven beliefs.

>>11005932
>the experts disagree with me
>better lie and say they don't/are paid to say that
Yeah, no.

>>11005952
>no fusion for at least 30 years and fision has a lot of cons. Placement, resource cost and radioactive waste.
Nothing compared to the chins of fossil fuels, which literally kill millions of people annually from air pollution even if you ignore global warming.

>Cannot make a dependable grid entirely of renewable energy.
That would be a valid response if I only said nuclear, but I didn't.

Try again.

thorium reactors.

>>11006705
>scientific facts are wrong bruh, just trust me

>>11006808
Meme tech that has too little advantage over uranium based fission to be worth developing and will soon be rendered obsolete by fusion.

>>11005040

Let's try to talk about this like adults. The modern global economy is built on cheaply and easily moving things around with vehicles. These vehicles burn oil, because of energy density and ease of transportation and storage. In order to slow down the burning of oil, you have options:
A) Replace the oil burning vehicles with vehicles that use another power source. This transition will cost billions of dollars and those costs will be passed to consumers.
B) Tax the burning of oil. This will make moving things around more expensive and those costs will be passed to consumers.
C) Transport less stuff. Less supply means higher prices, that are passed on to consumers.
Wow, are we noticing a trend here?

So, the options are either bury our heads in the sand and let whatever happen, or accept a degradation to our material prosperity (without guaranteeing that the bad stuff isn't going to happen anyway). With those being the options, why is it so difficult to see why politics is going where it is going?

>>11006855

>and will soon be rendered obsolete by fusion

I doubt that.

>>11006870
>Replace the oil burning vehicles with vehicles that use another power source. This transition will cost billions of dollars and those costs will be passed to consumers.
Utter nonsense. Vehicles need to be replaced anyway. It's not like anyone is suggesting that we immediately trash all vehicles and buy new ones. That's like arguing we can't have higher fuel efficiency than vehicles from the 60s because we would have to replace all vehicles.

>Tax the burning of oil. This will make moving things around more expensive and those costs will be passed to consumers.
The alternative is much more costly.

>>11005040
At this rate the only way is widespread ecoterrorism

>>11006884
No one cares.

>>11006910
based

>>11006906
> Utter nonsense. Vehicles need to be replaced anyway.
Yes, but an 18-wheeler may last 20 years, and people are talking about taking them all off the roads by 2030.

> The alternative is much more costly.
But those costs are far less definite. It is far easier for people to see the change in costs that will occur when gas gets more expensive than the costs of vague natural catastrophes that may or may not occur in the future.

>>11005040
Literally nothing matters so long as Asia and Africa exist.
Paying higher taxes isn't going to stop Chang, Jamal, and Pajeet from continuing to pollute the environment.

>>11006906
>Utter nonsense. Vehicles need to be replaced anyway
This is equally nonsense. Making a complete vehicle is destructive to the environment. Joe blow can keep a car for 20 years and a company could keep them much longer. Hybrid drives and/or batteries can be retrofitted to existing vehicles. For most situations. It is best for the environment to keep what you have running. The rest is just a money game. Im not a warmer, myself but I think they would do better to adopt this

>>11005493
>There's not a single evidence based scientific concensus position throughout history that turned out to be wrong

https://scitechdaily.com/scientists-were-wrong-about-dna-it-is-actually-held-together-by-hydrophobic-forces/

>>11006906
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/green-living-blog/2010/sep/23/carbon-footprint-new-car

>>11005493
>There's not a single evidence based scientific concensus position throughout history that turned out to be wrong
classical physics

>>11006794
based and tedpilled

>>11006806
You missed entirely both of those points but I guess its difficult to think with that low IQ

>>11005493
Bro, do you even scientific method?

>>11005493
No slip boundary condition was initially thought to be incorrect

>>11005040
Women are over 50 percent of the population and make 90 percent of the purchasing decisions. Ya climate change is man made.lol

>>11007428
Can't talk about that
ITS MYSOGYNY
https://www.bloomberg.com/company/stories/top-10-things-everyone-know-women-consumers/

You can only talk about the wage gap and #metoo. Without those serious issues + racism global warming literally wouldn't even be happening.

>>11007428
based post

>>11007428
naomi klein is such a vapid cunt

>>11007428
Good point bro

>>11007428
Further confirmed

Wom*n are destroying the planet

I already don't do shit towards the climate (Not by choice though) I aint giving up meat though, no way

>>11006922
Those """people""" are politicians farming votes
Consideration of economics is beneath them

>>11005456
It's the other things that will get you

>>11007428
We have a winner.

Now we have identified the problem. Solutions?

>>11007428
And even when they don't, most men are buying the shiny consumer garbage to compete with other men buying the shiny consumer garbage because they know that's what women like.

>>11007492
Get rid of all women.
Then we can touch each others' dicks without worrying about them calling it gay

>>11007498
I bet you drive a mazda miata or an austin mini.

>>11007498
>not touching dicks because you care about a woman thinks
fag.

>>11007514
wtf. did I have a stroke? that's like the eleventh post I've made today and accidentally left a word out

>>11007497
I don know what kind of girlie men you hang out. The only shiny I have is tools.

>>11007541
shiny = nice house, nice car, nice vacations, expensive dinners

girls ALL love that shit

>>11007492
MGTOW, sexbots

>>>> population control

>>11007519

the message box is too small and it makes it hard to properly edit your replies.

Does fucking ANYTHING actually come close to being as good as oil or natural gas?

>>11005408
is there any way to test this prediction, or do we just have to believe it?

>>11005769

No.

Stop thus.

Chernobyl was not a "near miss" or "almost catastrophe".

It was the culmination of the worst-case nightmare scenario made real, same as Fukushima. They literally could not have been worse.

A reactor accident causing core damage that exposes the public to uncontained fission Products. There is literally nothing worse than that.

t. Guy who trains people how to operate nuclear reactors.

>>11005952

>fission has a lot of cons

Only if you're retarded and only know about nuclear power from movies from the 70s and "I fucking love obnoxious memes".

>>11005040
>How do we stop it? Is it even possible?
It is not possible. Too much already needs to be done by too many people who are unwilling. Future generations are indeed doomed.

Let's just have a giant fuck festival while we still have the chance!

apart from china, first world countries produce the most greenhouse gases, so educate fat americans or make fat americans reproduce less.

>>11007808
We are impervious to education. Suck fat D.

who the fuck let /pol/ in? brainlets need to go BACK

>>>/pol/

>>11006922
There is no need to completely remove trucks st some arbitrary date.

>It is far easier for people to see the change in costs that will occur when gas gets more expensive than the costs of vague natural catastrophes that may or may not occur in the future.
It's far easier for people to continue smoking than to think about the risks of cancer.

>>11005908
>NO WE MUST PAY THE TITHE TO THE RICH OR THEY WONT EMPLOY US ANYMORE

Can we keep this out of the bump order while you talk to yourself?

>>11007725
are you retarded? have you ever heard of actuarial science? how do you think people predict the future of businesses, weather, etc?

ur question is "hurr it's in the future so how do we know it'll happen". multiple scientific disciplines more important than actuarial science indicate atmospheric CO2 levels rising, and will continue to rise as long as nothing is systematically done to reduce it.

denying this, you're simply /pol/pilled and retarded

>>11007964
But there's no correlation between co2 and temperature.

>>11007974
ah, so you are retarded

personally as a doomer i dont really give a fuck about the fate of the earth, but the science and non-tabloid data is undeniable

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-warming/temperature-change#targetText=Temperature%20Change%20and%20Carbon%20Dioxide,past%20several%20hundred%20thousand%20years.

published by NOAA

>>11007978
I ain't gonna read no global warming fairy tales. There's no correlation. Any correlation is cherry picking.

>>11007974
before i go to bed
>inb4 looks like co2 levels fix themselves

yes, over periods of tens of thousands of years. we'll all be dead before the earth cleanses itself, and that isn't alarmist, it's just simply the truth if there isn't a systematic change

i purpose nuclear

>>11007980
oh ur trolling

kind of disappointed. at least you may not be retarded though

>>11007989
I think you are trolling but you may not realize it. The board is way heavier with climate, racism, politics than it usually is.

>>11005798
oh no not the highly water soluble cesium that decades of nuclear testing showed would never pose any short or long term radioactive pollution to the oceans. The same oceans which have uranium rich crust constantly diffusing into them.

>>11005040
A scientist would propose a radical new solution to try that, let it happen to observe the results, or actively cool the globe to enable archeological finds on the former sea floor.

>>11007964
that faggot who replied to you isn't me, so fuck yourself faggot.
also you didn't answer my question, can we test this or do we just have to believe it?
I was a flat earther once, but I actually tested it for myself, and imagine that, the earth is actually a sphere 7900 miles in diameter.
so FAGGOT, can we test this for ourselves, or do we have to just have to believe these fucking cunts?
KYS nigger.

>>11008083
...If only I got a penny for every time I was called a faggot and retarded on this website...

>>11008085
so no answer then, i guess i'll just blindly believe it.
maybe you have a book I can read about it, maybe the climate bible?
published by the NOAA perhaps?

>>11008083
>"I was a flat earther once"

>>11005514
>No error bars
Impressive how certain warmers are.

>>11008083
What do you want to test? Do you want to dig out several km of ice, extract air from trapped air bubbles, feed the gas to a mass spectrometer and measure stuff like the ratio of O18 and O16? Sure, go ahead. Or you just believe those who do this for a living and have literally no reason to lie to you, but have every reason to not fake data. If you work in an institute or university and you fake data, you're likely to lose your job and reputation. Good luck trying to get rehired after being kicked out for being a fraud.

>>11008145
What are error bars and why do you need them?

>>11008147
>If you work in an institute or university and you fake data, you're likely to lose your job and reputation.
That's bullshit but I believe it.

>>11005040
Dump iron salt into the oceans and regrow the plankton. Easiest method.

>>11008157
Wouldn't that require a fuckload?

>>11008153
Maybe add
*and if you're caught
But seriously. This is the first thing that you have to sign in these "scientific ethics" forms. That's the very basis of your job. How can anyone trust your publications if you're known for making things up?

>>11008158
We have a fuck load. The Sahara does this every year, wind blows out particles into the surrounding ocean and regrows plankton. We only need to do 2 or 3% per year.

>>11008160
Don't worry you'll get angry peer reviews but then everyone agrees you were valuable for the discussion, and the faulty data was because of your potato fingers.

>>11008163
I wanna grow seaweed instead of eating bugs.

>>11005040
I've wondered if she realizes the corporate sponsors she accepts are the ones causing climate change, or if she's thought about stopping using social media due to the high energy needs they have

>>11008170
Maybe in social studies, but definitely not in physics. There you lose your reputation. Even if it's a stupid mistake, your reputation suffers. Look at the neutrino guys who thought they were faster than light. Everybody makes fun of them. And they didn't claim that they found something amazing, they were actually quite unsure with their data. So you can't accuse them of scientific misconduct, but it wasn't the best style.

>>11005040
lol, man made

>>11007731
>They literally could not have been worse.
Surely, Chernobyl disaster could've been worse. If the reactor core went through the roof instead of flying sideways into a crane and dispersed outside it would've been worse. If the fire wasn't contained and reactor No. 3 was affected it would've been worse. If people weren't immediately evacuated from the affected cities it would've been worse... oh, wait, that actually happened.

>>11005040
By structural changes so that the economy isn't based on growth and consumption but efficiency, optimum design and sustainability.
By reducing power consumption, protection of forests and accelerated innovation and implementation such as for thermal insulation, emissionless cooling, smart grids, batteries and renewable energies, and by eco-tariffs and standards.
What you can do is spend your time and effort on things that are actually meaningful and have real value to society.

>>11006744
Maybe you are talking about a different metric, but companies paid very little, look at Amazon for example. The difficulty with taxing global players and their owners have been known for decades. Even so, relative liquidity goes down with wealth, and money sitting idly on a bank account is money outside of the economy.

>>11007725
>is there any way to test this prediction

All you need is elementary school maths. Current CO2 level is at 410 last year it was 408, next year it will be 412. In 10 years it will be 430 in 50 years it will be 510.
All you need to do is to add 2 for every year.
If we build more coal plants and more cars you would need to add 3 every year. If we replace coal and oil with renewable quickly you only need to add 1 per year. Once we go full renewable CO2 will stop to increase.

>>11005068
so how do you supposed to convince china and india?

>>11005040
>>>/pol/
>>>/x/
/thread

>>11008360
By adding a CO2 import tax on chinkshit.

>>11008360
They are ahead of the west. The primary countries that need to be convinced are the US, Australia and I think the Czech Republic. Virtually everybody else accepted global warming as a fact. (at least on the political level)

>>11008360
Both are investing heavily in rail transport, India even seriously plans hyperloop tracks to replace air travel; China decided to build more maglev, and built metro networks in all major cities in the alst decade. (the plan is IIRC that you are never further away than 600m from a metro exit when you're in a city)

cccccc

>>11007194
>Making a complete vehicle is destructive to the environment.
Not necessarily.

>>11007289
Carbon footprint from building a new car today, with fossil fuels. Irrelevant.

>>11007320
The points were

1. Nuclear is not perfect
2. Renewables alone don't work

Both are irrelevant.

>>11008187
Awesome meme, upvoted

>>11005598
Thank you for this good post.

I would like to enhance your argument about making fuel emissions more expensive:
>making fossil fuel emissions more expensive for everyone is a better solution than one person reducing their emissions

Dont get caught up in this either-or strawman discussion. Its not about attacking from this or this angle, the only reasonable course of action is attacking from every angle:
A) On a personal scale: Reduce personal pollution-footprint (use of plastic, emissions, etc)
B) On a scale of society: Tax pollution of all legal entities.
C) On an international scale: Raise import taxes for goods produced by countries and companies that pollute.

Adressing only a subset of these is fraud. Politicians likely will want to adress only A. People need to insist on implementing B and C as well.

>>11008466
Both are still correct and are relevant for lifting fossil fuels from the grid.

>>11007978
>correlation implies causation
I thought /sci/ knew what the scientific method is

>>11006318
That doesnt prove it's coming from fossil fuels.

>>11005040
We get more teenagers on the television.

>>11007978
-The graph doesn't show co2 preceding temperature.

http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming-2/ice-core-graph/

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/23/new-research-in-antarctica-shows-co2-follows-temperature-by-a-few-hundred-years-at-most/


-even if it was true the graph shows temperature was higher in the past and there were no cars or industry in the past. It shows that nothing special os happening today even though human are creating co2 whit cars and industry, which basically shows that the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming/ anthropogenic climate change is based on nothing.

>>11008310
>money sitting idly on a bank account is money outside of the economy
far better than increasing demand (prices) for goods and contributing to consumerism thus increasing pollution.

>>11008463
you're fucking retarded. lol
Here's your (You)

>>11008936
Go ahead, make people's food, shelter, and mobility more expensive and see what happens.

When gas in California hit 5 bucks, beaners started poking holes in gas tanks left and right.

>>11009103
>Citing blogs

No wonder only boomers believe in climate change denial

>>11008945
Correct and irrelevant. Nuclear does not have to be perfect to be better than fossil fuels and renewables do not have to be alone. You could have responded to these points several posts ago but you obviously have no response.

>>11008950
>there is no correlation!
*shows correlation*
>correlation is irrelevant!
Make up your minds, retards. Causation is already proven via the greenhouse effect.

>>11005040
Ban coal and switch to biodiesel, hydro-electric, and wind. Still need more power? Fast Reactors.

>>11007174
This. All these retarded fucks in here. I had a conversation with an Austrian, he said that they were considering a co2 tax. Essentially taxing the air that you breathe.

Austria has a population of 9 million. China, India and Africa have a population of 4 BILLION.

>>11009103
>The graph doesn't show co2 preceding temperature.
You claimed they aren't correlated, not that one precedes the other.

If you want to see CO2 preceding temperature in the past you need a global temperature reconstruction: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature10915

Or you could just look at the modern CO2 and temperature record.

>even if it was true the graph shows temperature was higher in the past
The graph doesn't show current temperature, it's from an ice core. So how can it show temperatures are higher?

>It shows that nothing special os happening today
LOL it shows that we had interglacial warming 10000 years ago and we should now be slowly cooling over the next tens of thousands of years. Instead we are rapidly warming an order of magnitude faster than interglacial warming. There is literally nothing normal about this.

>which basically shows that the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming/ anthropogenic climate change is based on nothing.
The fact that your conclusions are the complete opposite of what the data says basically shows you have no clue what you're talking about.

>>11006794
>>11005043
>>11007319
and have since the dawn of time been unable to stop fucking each other figuratively and literally for personal gain and pleasure even when circumstances are so dire that the entire civilization in question is falling apart

>>11009132
>no response
I accept your admittal of defeat.

>>11009141
Governments tax all of those things already. And carbon taxes have already been implemented successfully.

Does anyone see a problem in how (virtually) the entire climate change movement is sourcing the IPCC’s reports alone? I may be wrong, but it seems to me as though these reports are the sole, focal “authority” on these climate change prediction models. Doesn’t the IPCC knowingly and openly employ non-scientific methods and source non-peer reviewed research? This is a panel of less than 200 employees at the UN apparently. Is it not problematic that the world is informed by a single organization for mass research aggregation / interpretation?

>>11009242
>he said that they were considering a co2 tax. Essentially taxing the air that you breathe.

>>11009295
>accuses others of being a brainlet
>is actually a brainlet.
Ironic.

>>11006855
>and will soon
In the next 300 years? Maybe

Uranium is only good for ameritards, India and China are switching over to Thorium. They have thousands of engineers working on it day and night while americans are stuck with studying genders and being type 2 diabetic. MITards will never get their fusion reactors working.

>>11009291
That's not a problem, that's just being efficient. The policymakers/citizens who need the information in those reports don't have the bandwidth to read multiple competing reports, let alone an entire bibliography of papers. If you think you can do better, you're welcome to try.

>>11009039
It literally does since fossil fuel CO2 are isotopically lighter

>>11009400
>That's not a problem, that's just being efficient.
>d-don't question our tightly controlled narrative, goyim!
>multiple avenues of research is just i-ineffecient!
Fucking lol.

>>11009331
t. idiot who doesn't realize breathing is carbon neutral

>>11009347
>In the next 300 years?
>India and China are switching over to Thorium.
Why do people come onto the science board and then just make shit up?

>>11009449
as is beef production (excluding the transportation), but you guys want to ban/tax that as well.

>>11009291
>Does anyone see a problem in how (virtually) the entire climate change movement is sourcing the IPCC’s reports alone?
No. People use different sources, but IPCC is the most reliable and conservative.
>Doesn’t the IPCC knowingly and openly employ non-scientific methods and source non-peer reviewed research?
Does it?
>This is a panel of less than 200 employees at the UN apparently
Those people aggregate data from scientists all over the world.

>>11009291
>IPCC’s report
provides a summary of climate science that have the agreement of leading climate scientists and consensus from participating governments
IPCC is tasked with reviewing peer-reviewed scientific literature and other relevant publications to provide information on the state of knowledge about climate change.

>>11005040
even the most cursory scientific examination of climate change reveals that it is false.

it is extremely frustrating how wrapped up people are in this nonsense.

>>11009501
what frustrates me is that the people perpetuating this hoax KNOW its a hoax.

>>11009501
>even the most cursory scientific examination of climate change reveals that it is false

Which is?

>>11009532
It is colder today than it was yesterday.

>>11009331
>uses the word "ironic" correctly.
Must be smart

>>11009282
Maybe because you didn't say anything.

>>11008463
>Not necessarily.
Sorry, didn't see you there. It is absolutely necessarily. Aren't you on your own team? Are you paid by the party to spout garbage? It is better for the environment to upgrade existing vehicles and there can be a smaller business market for doing so. Melting metals, plastic, rubber and running hydraulic rams and welders. When you can slap a battery and a motor in an old el Camino?

>>11009441
What the fuck are you talking about? The multiple lines of research are published and out there for anyone to see. The IPCC just summarizes it.

>According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), Americans consumed 140.43 billion gallons of gasoline in 2015, or about 384.74 million gallons each day

A one time charge of $20 per gallon would raise $7,694,000,000 dollars in a single day.

It is widely acknowledged the plan needs a "Manhattan scale" project.

>In relative terms the nuclear bomb effort cost about $23 billion in 2018 dollars

Four days of this tax would raise an equivalent amount.

Meanwhile, phase in taxes on carbon until it is prohibitively expensive in 2030 and I guarantee the market will turn toward electrification. All major manufacturers already have plans they've been implementing since 2000. They expect this.

Government is dragging its feet, scared of the public's reaction to higher taxes. And people, being selfish, will object. After all, they bought their gas guzzler, they chose to buy a house 100km from their work, they can barely make ends meet. So there will be disruption. So how do we mollify this? A UBI. The UBI will not only create the basis for a just and functional society, it will prevent those whose jobs/lifestyles are made obsolete by the end of subsidized oil, from bankruptcy and depression.

For now, though, there needs to be an unmistakable message: The people who pollute must pay. They will either pay a nominal amount now, or they will cost us all a whole lot later and at that point lets face it. Those responsible will pay a high personal price depending on how vindictive future people are.

>>11009629
You're an idiot.

>>11005513
>China
>>11009242
>>11007174
Paid shills (did you know Exonn pays over $100 million each year on climate change denial?) completely ignoring my comment.

>>11009460
>No. People use different sources, but IPCC is the most reliable and conservative.
Could you help me out and point me towards some other authorities on climate trend modeling and prediction? Everywhere I look, it seems to come back to the IPCC. Im curious about replication of findings.
>Doesn’t the IPCC knowingly and openly employ non-scientific methods and source non-peer reviewed research?
Yes. They’re pretty open about sourcing a mix of peer-reviewed and non-peer reviewed material. It says so on their own webpages and the main wiki article on the organization. About non-scientific methods, it’s my understanding that the WG1 (working group 1) of the IPCC is the only part of the IPCC that is purely physical-science. WG2 and WG3 make non-scientific assumptions in their work, and are more selective about source material. Findings from all work groups are “interpreted” in the SPM (Summary for Policy Makers), which is essentially the headline that everyone gets in an IPCC report. A heavy dose of expert opinion there, but “based on the science”, nonetheless.
>Those people aggregate data from scientists all over the world.
WG1 does, yeah. The rest of the organization works with assumptions and existing beliefs.

>>11009634
Qualify your criticism. My numbers aren't made up. Only electrification will allow the world to get off fossil fuels. Only by taking the world's leading market electric will force manufacturers to follow.

>>11009635
>Anyone who points out who the actual biggest polluters are, is a shill
Kill yourself.

You're a liberal

>>11009471
Yes, I’m very much aware of their mission statement, haha. What I was pointing out was that they seem to be the only source for virtually all “run-away” climate catastrophe predictions sourced by the media, green activists and CC awareness / lobbying groups.

>>11009660
>electrification will allow the world to get off fossil fuels
huge potential for economic growth there, amirite?

>>11009660
The pollution from USA and Europoor cars is irrelevant. Focusing on it is moronic. That tax money would be squandered and misused. UBI is cancer that would only benefit neet scum and welfare niggers.

>>11005513
>most of those who "believe" in Climate Change seem wholly unwilling to actually fix anything,

That is a straw man my dude. We're willing to take it all on. Carbon taxes, international agreements, market regulation.

Insult us all you want at the end of the day we're fighting for our lives and if you get in the way of that we will roll right over you.

>>11009696
>Carbon taxes, international agreements, market regulation.
Ya that's what all it's gonna take... easy peasy

>>11009696
>we're fighting for our lives
What an emotional, overdramatic thing to say. You're weak, pathetic and irrelevant.

>>11009039
pic related its your new transportation

>>11009584
But I did.

>>11009689
UBI: will replace existing social services bureaucracies and pay for itself many times over.

Electrification: Whichever market leads in technology has a huge advantage. By 2030 global oil will be in massive demand decline and as time goes on, more and more people are going to refuse to live with the pollution that fossil fuels creates, in addition to CO2. Oil per barrel will be cheap but burning it will not be cheap because it will be taxed to pay for electrification, for roads, for medical expenses, for habitat restoration, for harm reduction in general.

You'll still be able to drive your shit-box, you'll just pay $20/gallon for the privilege. Countries that want to burn it can do so- they'll face international sanctions. And no one is going to invest- that is, expect real returns in the future on an obsolete, sanctioned technology. The price is going to go to zero. The number of people that switch from electric back to gas will be zero. All the cars out there today that have an internal combustion engine, is a stranded asset, a toxic asset, and their owners will see a massive decline in value.

>>11009690
>>electrification will allow the world to get off fossil fuels
>huge potential for economic growth there, amirite?

Gigantic.

>>11009459
It's not. And beef production's effect on the environment has nothing to do with breathing. It's primarily through land use changes and methane emissions.

>>11009748
Electorates aren’t going to back your plans today or anytime within the next decade, at least. You would really do well to de-radicalize your approach, because you’ll do nothing but alienate people and get nowhere. You greatly overestimate the public appetite for a new green deal.

>>11009602
The main reason that would be destructive to the environment is because it uses fossil fuels to accumulate materials and manufacture vehicles. But it's not necessary to use fossil fuels, just more convenient.

>>11009711
holy shit he's fucking huge!!!!

>>11009758
>beef production's effect on the environment
>land use changes

using neutral language to describe pic related

>>11009748
>habitat restoration
but that would be an absolute disaster for the global economy. you do realize that a huge fraction economic growth depends on construction

>>11009768
We are a majority of your population. Get out of the house more often.

We are everywhere, talking to your politicians, talking to family and friends. We actually have friends irl... we are voters.

We're a network. Your platform is being overthrown. If you have investments in oil and gas stocks, I suggest selling.

>>11009758
>>11009775
>through land use changes
so I guess its not so much beef production that's problem
but the growth in beef production
im glad you're finally admitting that economic growth has its down sides.

>>11009770
Bicycling's effects on swole physique are widely known

>>11009651
>Could you help me out and point me towards some other authorities on climate trend modeling and prediction?
You're confused. The IPCC itself does not do any modeling. They report the results from CMIP, which in turn is a collaboration among many different modelers.

>>11009669
>China should go on a diet first because they have way more fat than America
This is how stupid you sound.

>>11009681
Which tells me you haven't even looked at their predictions since none of them are "run-away" or "catastrophic."

ITT: People who believed they shitposted a president into office think they can shitpost science into retracting thousands of papers, and declaring the publications of a few industry PR flacks to be a more accurate model of climate than tens of thousands of professional scientists

>>11009751
Now you're going to get called a COOOOONNNNNSSSSSUUUUUUMMMMMEEEEER which is the worst possible thing anyone could be and immediately defeats anything you have to say.

>>11009794
>China should go on a diet first because they have way more fat than America

Of course it should surprise no one that China is way ahead in this endeavor. And by no one I mean people who shitpost.

Alarmists always get destroyed in debates:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Nh-tXGu-sM

>>11009748
>will replace existing social services bureaucracies and pay for itself many times over.
No it won't. Your fantasy fairyland implementation will never happen.

>people are going to refuse to live with the pollution that fossil fuels creates
Absurd unfounded assumption.

>>11009794
You're dumb as fuck. The point is that taxing the shit out of people and spending tons of money is pointless if thirdworlders don't follow suit. You'll just harm your country.

>>11009811
>the worst possible thing anyone could be
Well ya. It's kinda bad. Considering the state of the world.

The infinite growther market worshipper cult rationalization for un"sustainable development" fueled gluttony will be responsible for humanity's demise.

>>11009824
"Ahh.... its not happening... its not happening!"

Oh, you.

pic related uses solar energy to create my breakfast

>>11005040
>Ok so climate change is real and it's man made.
>How do we stop it? Is it even possible?
kill yourself. it's for the best of the planet.

>>11009846
Lol. This brainlet will never reproduce

>>11009842
No he doesnt. Btw, I've met bob, nice guy.

>>According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), Americans consumed 140.43 billion gallons of gasoline in 2015, or about 384.74 million gallons each day

A one time charge of $20 per gallon would raise $7,694,000,000 dollars in a single day.

So, given that we can raise 7.6 billion in one day to fund science, why shouldn't we?

>b-but ANON I can't afford $20.....

Bullshit. You cheap fucks.

>>11009862
>fund ""science"" goyim!

>>11009850
breeding is immoral, denier

>>11005493
>There's not a single evidence based scientific concensus position throughout history that turned out to be wrong
Are you on crack?

>>11009881
>don't have kids goyim!
>BTW keep sending billions of dollars to those poor starving Africans
>Also your population is dropping you should import millions of brown people

>>11009817
Lindzen couldn't even win this TV "debate" with a fake scientist. He still claims global warming will not go over 1 degree when it already has and every other prediction he made has been proven wrong. Pathetic.

>>11009832
It's not pointless, the US and the countries like it have the most unnecessary emissions. They also have been excessively emmitting GHGs for decade's longer than third world countries. And no one here has even argued third world countries shouldn't have to mitigate emissions. So the only point of your line of argument is to give a feeble excuse to not take responsibility for your actions.

>>11009835
Keep REEEEEEing at windmills

settled

Why is it that in most pictures of climate protests all I see are white millennials taking selfies and just generally treating it like a pride march?

The whole thing seems to be a fad for narcissists like how the ice bucket challenge was less about the cause and more about the shortlived hysteria surrounding the stunt.

>>11010101
Nice binary GET, anon

>>11009965
>STILL not getting it
Lmao. Imagine being this dense.

>>11009862

Because doing so would crash the economy thus causing the tax to instantly be reverted, as well as negatively affecting the poor and vulnerable disproportionately.

>>11009748

>ubi
>gas tax
>no mention of nuclear

Anon, why do you take all of the worst positions?

>>11005908
Embarrassing post

>>11010623
Just stop posting if you have nothing to say.

>>11005068
>what is an interglacial period
>what is the maunder minimum
>what are landsheidt cycles
non-geologists btfo
>>11005514
except for this guy

>>11009806
problems with your argument:
1. ad hominem attack
2. you didn't cite a single paper
3. zero data to back up your claims
4. the data doesn't exist, no accurate model for global climate change over time exists save for historical ice core oxygen isotope data
5. no model is perfect, meteorlogists cannot predict climate conditions within a statistically significant level of certainty
6. u r gay

>>11010215
because white people have the mental capacity to be concerned about the future, unlike niggers. they're also inclined to towards altruism as reparation for past 'transgressions'

>>11010978
>crash the economy
You forget where you are, people here unironically think the economy isn't even real.

>>11010215
It's essentially masturbatory virtue signalling.

>>11009955
Absolute nonsense warmcunt. If you want to talk about failed predictions look no further than your warm priest Al Gore.

Are you not even a little bit embarrassed that you have Bill Nye on your retarded side? Surely that should alarm you.