/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11051892
Severely overstated to try and justify the centralization of all industries that "create pollution".

If you can control carbon, you can control human will

>>11051892
media outlets are incentivized to exaggerate reality
keep that in mind

>>11051903
are you trying to say that i should never believe anything the media says because its always going to be a misleading half-truth even when they do actually know what they're talking about?

>>11051892
It's real, but it's out of human control and by far not as severe as they make it out to be.

>>11051918
That's an idiotic response to a nuanced problem. Some facts reported will inevitably be objectively true. Expect plenty of unfounded rumors and idiotic speculation surrounding "developing stories". Learn to think critically, and assess the rationality and honesty of what you are reading. A lot of journalism reads like gossip, because that's all it is. Doesn't mean the entire medium is shit. Just like most human works, there is a good minority hidden among the heaps of shit.

It's real, humans are responsible for it (there are now meta analyses of meta analyses, close to 100% of peer-reviewed publications that make a statement about the causes see human CO2 emission as the most important factor) and it is severe. The models have been underestimating the effects multiple times now. See for example
https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/18/arctic-permafrost-canada-science-climate-crisis

fucking scam

>>11052024
if that happened, it would be a good thing.

It's real, it's caused in party by humans but we don't know exactly what will be its effect, I don't think it will be catastrophic but we don't really know.

>>11051892
>as the mainstream media makes it out
msm is overly optimistic

>>11052042
If you have any knowledge of agriculture you know exactly how sensitive it is to even relatively small shifts in temperature.

>>11051892
>is it as severe as the mainstream media makes it out to be?
The MSM does not have a monolithic view on it, I don't know why people pretend it does.
There's some over-alarmist idiots like Gore & AOC who hurt public perception of the problem much more than denier brainlets, but I'd say the average MSM outlet actually understates the problem a bit.

>>11051892
If climate is a problem and Any focus on climate change that doesn’t promote
>ending immigration to the west
>end of trade with India, China
>carbon caps on India, China
>end of aid to Africa
>condoms and birth control to Africa
Is useless and farcical retardation and used for some political agenda such as to get elected

>>11051892
Yes. The climate is changing. There are both human and non-human involved factors in this ecosystem change. Regardless of these it is still important to make meaningful strides towards renewable systems. Most wars start and end on resource control.

Honestly. At the current rate of protest, you know, with 300,000 turn-up in Sydney and other modern cities (excl Belgium because not a real place) we have already probably peaked in the effectiveness of climate awareness. At this stage we can assume that we've reached the point of significant diminishing returns in relation to the amount of commitment important benefactors will provide. I have great concerns for the financial sinkhole of climate promotion far reaching over actual efforts towards renewable energy sources.

>>11051892
It's real, it will have severe effects before end of the century unless managed. But that's only the "linear" models. The real shit are the unpredictable feedback loops like the Siberian super-braap which have some potential to bring apocalypse withing our lifetime.

>>11051892
I hate idiots that make pics like the OP that are always experiencing vicarious trauma and bad times.
>yeah, well, it's not so bad because I'm vaguely aware of child labour being thing and that's pretty damn bad in comparison
You know they're also the kind of person to not be that bothered by the pic on the right.

>>11051892

>>11052296
"Economic destruction" is inevitably the only solution capable of tackling the problem. It's nice to devise technological solutions, but to think they could make up for actual transformation of economy is just a pacifier for woke silicon valley liberals.

>>11051892

>>11051892
Real. It is debatable if AGW would have as catastrofic effects as the media says it will.

>>11051918
He is telling you to not ad hoc believe what the media says but to have critical thinking and draw your own conclusions after reading more stuff.

>>11052024
>The models have been underestimating
you mean overestimating the effects
https://niclewis.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/lewis_and_curry_jcli-d-17-0667_accepted.pdf

>>11052296
This. Every crisis in our civilization will be solved by innovation, inteligence and freedom. Greta represents everything that will doom us: dogma, emotional drive and restriction.

It's real it's just against american right wing orthodoxy.

>>11051892
>ITT: the media can't be trusted but random /pol/tards can

>>11052402
No one can be trusted think for yourself

>>11052401
>against american right wing orthodoxy
Don't left/right this shit. It's against their entire national way of life and geopolitical interests. They won't be able to reach at least European levels of polluting without a major revolution.

>>11052392
Some overestimate, some underestimate.

>>11052392
The energy balance model used by Lewis and Curry has been shown to not work for calculating ECS many times:

https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/18/5147/2018/

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/2017GL076468

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017NatGe..10..727K

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016NatCC...6..896A

http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/101518/1/RichardsonTCR_accepted.pdf

www.researchgate.net/publication/262988068_Inhomogeneous_forcing_and_transient_climate_sensitivity

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304380014004876

>>11052408
Thinking for yourself on scientific matters that are beyond your comprehension just leads to denial. Listen to the scientists.

>>11052408
>>11052432
>Thinking for yourself on scientific matters that are beyond your comprehension just leads to denial. Listen to the scientists
LISTEN AND BELIEVE!

>>11052834
"Listen and believe" is the "consume product" of the science fandom

>>11052834
You already listen and believe to everything that's convenient for you. What you choose to believe has no bearing on whether it's true. Science does.

>is climate change real
Yes
>is it as severe as the mainstream media makes it out to be
What media? You will find opinions ranging from it's not real to we are already doomed. The truth seems to be closer to the doomed side of things but not irreversibly so, we could solve the issue within our lifetime by going all in on nuclear but people claiming to care about the environment are opposed to this.

>>11052850
>Science does
>Science is truth
Science is iterative aproximation to truth which may result in temporarly wrong paradigms, the same that will eventually fall and be replaced by another better and broader. Believing that what is accepted to be correct is the truth narrows the possibility to pursue improvement.

>>11052371
oh no ice melt- lets cancel the economy

>>11052865
Why would you need to cancel the economy or even slow it down?
>Replace all coal plants with nuclear
Huge boost to construction and engineering jobs
>Replace internal combustion vehicles with electric where viable
Huge boost to manufacturing

You would be killing 2 low skill industries with 2 high skill industries increasing the skill level of the nation which has proven to drive economic growth more than any other factor.

>>11052861
>>Science is truth
Who are you quoting?

>Believing that what is accepted to be correct is the truth narrows the possibility to pursue improvement.
You can only operate according to what you believe to be true at any one time.

>>11052255
Either educate yourself to the point where you can contribute, or shut the fuck up. Your layman rambling is just a waste of everyone's time.

>>11052850
>What you choose to believe has no bearing on whether it's true. Science does.
You don't even understand, on a deep level, even half the things you accept as gospel truth from your infallible scientist overlords.
>>11052861
>Science is iterative aproximation to truth
This is the ideal, not how it necessarily works out.

>>11052895
t. Mac

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

>>11051903
>media outlets are incentivized to exaggerate reality
That's the difference between "media" and "news."

The news is incentivized for honesty, integrity, and conveying the facts as truthfully as possible because if people believing in what the news reports then people stop watching.

The media on the other hand can say and do what eve the fuck they want. Like national enquirer and their bat boy bull shit is "media." The media will try to convince you this difference does not exist because it's in their benefit to do so. Opinions can't compete with facts, but if they can convince you that the facts and opinion are the same then they don't need to compete. It's in their best self interest to lie to you.

Fun fact, Foxs very last "news caster" quit last night. Fox now only has opinions now.

>>11051903
>media outlets are incentivized to exaggerate reality
That's the difference between "media" and "news."

The news is incentivized for honesty, integrity, and conveying the facts as truthfully as possible because if people stop believing in what the news reports then people stop watching.

The media on the other hand can say and do what eve the fuck they want. Like national enquirer and their bat boy bull shit is "media." The media will try to convince you this difference does not exist because it's in their benefit to do so. Opinions can't compete with facts, but if they can convince you that the facts and opinion are the same then they don't need to compete. It's in their best self interest to lie to you.

Fun fact, Foxs very last "news caster" quit last night. Fox now only has opinions now.

>>11051903
>>11051892
The society of the spectacle. The very real problem of climate change has just been turned into another self propagating act. A symbiotic relationship between the media and the activists, who do nothing more than flail their arms and moan. It's a spectacle.

>>11051892
>"My childhood was stolen"
When did she ever say this?

Yes, but the real problem is the long nosed media and corporations trying to make us 1st worlders dumb ourselves to death in the name of environmentalism, so they can take over the world.
Ever wonder why condoms aren't being airdropped to Africa and India?

>>11052296 is right.
The solution is innovation and invention, as technology will find ways to clean up after humanity's wastefulness.
Going nuclear is the best option, as storing spent rods is not as much of a problem as (((some))) will say. The only disasters were caused by human error, including build location.

>>11053220
Climate change was proven in the 70's by Exon

They knew it would happen. The didn't expect it to happen so fast.

>>11053237
>muh global conspiracy against my views

>>11051892
>as severe as the mainstream media
>>>/his/

>>11053237
>Another /pol/ crossboarder

Yawn

>>11053276
I'm saying that it's definitely happening but thats it's been fetishized and turned into a spectacle by the interplay between the media and climate activists. The people who will make any impact on curbing climate change are the people working to develop cheap, clean energy and people working to develop alternatives to plastic or ways of decomposing waste plastic.

>>11051892
>OP and his retarded neoliberal friends
pic related

>>11053436
The spectacle of 50 years of anti-climate change propaganda is the bigger problem.

You can say the sky is falling all you want, but if you have $80 trillion dollar industry dedicated to convincing people it's not falling, while people are getting concussions from the falling debris, it might cause you to panic a little and flail your hands about in frustration. Casually saying people are panicking and very worried doesn't change the reality of the situation.

>>11053237
>The solution is innovation and invention, as technology will find ways to clean up after humanity's wastefulness.
So you mean replacing ICE where possible with the new innovation of electric cars where possible and replacing dirty power with the new innovation of wind and solar power as well as better recycling and less waste in manufacturing and distribution of goods?

>>11051892
>Go to 100 doctors.
>99/100 tell you, you have cancer.
>End up believing the one guy who says you are fine and have nothing to worry about.

>>11053478
I'm not saying the 99 doctors were wrong, just they're making a big fucking deal out of cancer. All they want is your money and attention. They're just shills for big pharma, who are abusing the insurance companies to heal you.

>>11053488
Okay so you die of cancer in 6 months, it's not a hard conclusion to come to. How do you know the 1 doctor isn't a shill for pharma companies giving you homeopathic medicine to milk more profits out of you?

>>11053489
>arguing with absolute retards

>>11051892
Yes it's real, and the solution is to funnel trillions of dollars into carbon (((credits))) of dubious value, though companies controlled by Greta's handlers. It's not completely clear how these credits will reduced CO2 emissions, but I'm sure the market will do it somehow.

>>11053526
This
Greta will let you fuck her tight cunny if you do as her shareholders ask

no its not real. Even the most hardcore climate scientists admit that Temperature affects CO2 levels not the other way around. All the other empirical evidence is shoddy at best or straight up contradicts current theories which as we speak are being adapted to fit current climate trends. Also there's much worse types of pollution anyway. I hope we can move to greener energy eventually, but it seems quite difficult since there aren't any great ways to store power which is necessary for it to take off.

>>11051892
Greta makes the dumbest people that I hate so fucking angry that I can't believe it.

>>11052388
So what you're saying is that I should spend an hour or two fact checking every media story I read because they're not trustworthy? Wouldn't just ignoring them completely be the more logical course of action? Why waste my limited and valuable minutes on this Earth reading the daily coin flip predictions when they're wrong half the time?

>>11053575
Heres the history of atmospheric CO2 concentrations on this planet according to the same scientists who supposedly say that increased CO2 levels are going to mean the end of life on Earth. zOMG would you look at that!?!? CO2 level have been much, much higher in the past as life on Earth was just fine. Primates thrived 35-40 million years ago in an atmosphere that had more than twice as much CO2 was what we've got now.

>Climate ‘Experts’ Are 0-41 with Their Doomsday Predictions
https://www.breitbart.com/environment/2019/09/20/nolte-climate-experts-are-0-41-with-their-doomsday-predictions/

For more than 50 years Climate Alarmists in the scientific community and environmental movement have not gotten even one prediction correct, but they do have a perfect record of getting 41 predictions wrong.

In other words, on at least 41 occasions, these so-called experts have predicted some terrible environmental catastrophe was imminent … and it never happened.

And not once — not even once! — have these alarmists had one of their predictions come true.

Think about that… the so-called experts are 0-41 with their predictions, but those of us who are skeptical of “expert” prediction number 42, the one that says that if we don’t immediately convert to socialism and allow Alexandria Ocasio-Crazy to control and organize our lives, the planet will become uninhabitable.

Why would any sane person listen to someone with a 0-41 record?

Why would we completely restructure our economy and sacrifice our personal freedom for “experts” who are 0-41, who have never once gotten it right?

If you had an investment counselor who steered you wrong 41times, would you hang in there for number 42?

Of course not. You’d fire him after failed prediction two or three.

And if that’s not crazy enough, the latest ploy is to trot out a 16-year-old girl to spread prediction number 42, because it is so much more credible that way.

Sometimes you just have to sit back and laugh.

Anyway, I want you to have the data, so go ahead and print this out in advance of Thanksgiving dinner with your obnoxious Millennial nephew.

LIST OF DOOMSDAY PREDICTIONS THE CLIMATE ALARMIST GOT WRONG

Here is the source for numbers 1-27. As you will see, the individual sources are not crackpots, but scientific studies and media reports on “expert” predictions. The sources for numbers 28-41 are linked individually.

1967: Dire Famine Forecast By 1975
1969: Everyone Will Disappear In a Cloud Of Blue Steam By 1989 (1969)
1970: Ice Age By 2000
1970: America Subject to Water Rationing By 1974 and Food Rationing By 1980
1971: New Ice Age Coming By 2020 or 2030
1972: New Ice Age By 2070
1974: Space Satellites Show New Ice Age Coming Fast
1974: Another Ice Age?
1974: Ozone Depletion a ‘Great Peril to Life
1976: Scientific Consensus Planet Cooling, Famines imminent
1980: Acid Rain Kills Life In Lakes
1978: No End in Sight to 30-Year Cooling Trend
1988: Regional Droughts (that never happened) in 1990s
1988: Temperatures in DC Will Hit Record Highs
1988: Maldive Islands will Be Underwater by 2018 (they’re not)
1989: Rising Sea Levels will Obliterate Nations if Nothing Done by 2000
1989: New York City’s West Side Highway Underwater by 2019 (it’s not)
2000: Children Won’t Know what Snow Is
2002: Famine In 10 Years If We Don’t Give Up Eating Fish, Meat, and Dairy
2004: Britain will Be Siberia by 2024
2008: Arctic will Be Ice Free by 2018
2008: Climate Genius Al Gore Predicts Ice-Free Arctic by 2013
2009: Climate Genius Prince Charles Says we Have 96 Months to Save World
2009: UK Prime Minister Says 50 Days to ‘Save The Planet From Catastrophe’
2009: Climate Genius Al Gore Moves 2013 Prediction of Ice-Free Arctic to 2014
2013: Arctic Ice-Free by 2015
2014: Only 500 Days Before ‘Climate Chaos’
1968: Overpopulation Will Spread Worldwide
1970: World Will Use Up All its Natural Resources
1966: Oil Gone in Ten Years
1972: Oil Depleted in 20 Years
1977: Department of Energy Says Oil will Peak in 90s
1980: Peak Oil In 2000
1996: Peak Oil in 2020
2002: Peak Oil in 2010

LIST OF DOOMSDAY PREDICTIONS CLIMATE ALARMIST GOT RIGHT

NONE.

ZIP.

ZERO.

NADA.

BLANK

DONUT HOLE

NIL.

NOTHING.

VOID.

ZILCH.

Sorry, Experts… Sorry, Scientific Consensus… Only a fool comes running for the 42nd cry of wolf.

Don’t litter, be kind to animals, recycling’s for suckers (it’s all going to end up in the ground eventually), so stop feeling guilty… Go out there and embrace all the bounty that comes with being a 21st century American — you know, like Obama, who says he believes in Global Warming with his mouth but proves he doesn’t with the $15 million he just spent on oceanfront that we’re told is doomed to flooding.

>>11053130
>The news is incentivized for honesty, integrity, and conveying the facts as truthfully as possible
Give an example of such a miraculous bias-free news organization.

>>11053607
If you're an expert in atmospheric carbon levels you'll know that the permian extinction was caused by? You guessed it, rapidly increasing CO2 levels not dissimilar to the human-induced increase lately. To imply that just because CO2 was high in the past it means that the Earth, and us humans, will be fine is wrong.

>>11053541
I want to buy shares in Greta. Is there an ETF?

>>11053619
>breitbart
Go back T_D you braindead 2016 immigrant.

>>11053674
yeah but they only trade in butthurt neoliberals futures

>>11051892
lmao instead of researching reliable sources and actual scientific studies you ask 4chan if climate change is real

>>11052296
cleaning plastic from the ocean isn't going to stop Co2 emissions dumbass

>>11051892
Start here. It' a 5-part series just beginning Two are done.
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2914/the-atmosphere-earths-security-blanket/

>>11051892
It is real, but not a major issue.

We'll have used up all of our fossil fuels long before anything catastrophic happens.

>>11053824
Of fucking course it wont, the point is to shit on greta for being a useless environmentalist

>>11053454
>bors
should be a bannable offense desu

>>11053824
They could recycle the materials

>>11053628
wikipedia says climate change due to methane rather than carbon dioxide was the issue. CO2 levels didn't go down after the P-T boundary event, but the recovery of life on earth happened regardless. looking at the CO2 levels over the past 500 million years of life shows us at a very, very low point right now.

>>11053865
>We'll have used up all of our fossil fuels long before anything catastrophic happens.
And that will be catastrophic.
We absolutely need nuclear.

>>11053818
>lmao instead of researching reliable sources and actual scientific studies you ask 4chan if climate change is real
>lmao instead of researching reliable sources and actual scientific studies
Did you?
Did anyone ITT?

>>11051892
I don't understand spanish memes. The world speaks English. Speak it.

>>11052356
>We must cause deliberate mass human suffering to avoid potential mass human suffering

>>11054485
>Using public transport is suffering
Riding the bus is shit, yea. But saying it's worse than Earth warming by ~5 celsius would be reddit-tier hyperbole.

>>11051892
>climate change

STFU about this meme already

Believe nothing the mainstream media and leftists say. You are as low IQ as they are if you do.

>>11052296
Yes people care more about social skills than technical ones, as if we waited on greta to know that it has always been the case.

>>11053607
no scientific consensus says high co2 will lead to extinction of humans. just because we don't go extinct, doesn't mean life can't get shittier for billions though.

>>11053616
>>11053619
>>11053621
go to original source Breitbart quotes, it's all media sources. the new york times is not a scientific journal. i mean jesus christ, they quote an article from SALON lmao. the media has economic incentive to pick the most alarmist quotes, and then twist them to make them seem even more dire. not all of these predictions are even from people with expertise (Prince Charles? Gordon Brown? really? and the Gordon Brown is even terribly misquoted.)

that doesn't mean the tens of thousands of other scientists and papers are wrong or share the same opinions. meta-analysis shows only a minority of scientists advocated the theory of global cooling in the 1970s.

learn to think for yourself and look at the original sources.

>>11054717
>Yes people care more about social skills than technical ones
*Social skills will have more impact than technical skills

We know where's the problem, we know how to fix it, we just need to convince people to act and sacrifice.

>>11054732
>life can't get shittier for billions though
Life is already shitty for billions. I'd wager that nobody posting ITT will notice a thing if the predictions turn out to be accurate, and yet those are precisely the people you're asking to sacrifice their standard of living.

>>11052885
Hit a nerve, calm your tits. At least you're shitposting on the internet and not working on a plantation ;^)

>>11053544
>Even the most hardcore climate scientists admit that Temperature affects CO2 levels not the other way around.
Show one climate scientist saying this.

>All the other empirical evidence is shoddy at best or straight up contradicts current theories which as we speak are being adapted to fit current climate trends.
Give one example of evidence like this.

>Also there's much worse types of pollution anyway.
Like what?

>I hope we can move to greener energy eventually, but it seems quite difficult since there aren't any great ways to store power which is necessary for it to take off.
Nuclear does not require energy storage.

>>11054867
Left-wing proposals for halting climate change are oftentimes ridiculous, I agree. But common sense solutions exist that don't destroy the economy and lead to improvements in quality of life.

For example, communal gardening reduces transport costs and other emissions associated with food production. But research also shows that it reduces obesity.
Biking instead of taking the car promotes cardiovascular excercise.
Urban afforestation leads to natural cooling, and therefore lower air-conditioning use, and carbon sequestration but may also improve the cognition of city-dwellers.
Investments into insulation, energy efficiency and water use may be big one-off costs but lead to eventual savings in monthly costs.
In Australia, emissions trading ended up being supported by originally cynical businesses, while revenues from the system led to a tax cut for the lowest income brackets.

I'm absolutely right-wing, and I hate eco-fanatics who advocate stupid ideas like making everyone vegan or shuttering nuclear power plants. But there is a rational way (the conservative way) to approach ecology and climate change.

>>11054910
The things that render the economy more efficient, greening up cities, getting people into personal food production, I have no issue with. But

>Biking instead of taking the car
Is utter faggot shit. Biking might work in yurop, or if you live in the core of major North American cities. But in NA, population density is too small and cities too spread out for biking to be a viable option. Especially here in leafland, where you also have winter to contend with. Cars are not just a mode of transport. They are a tool of freedom and self-sufficiency. Forcing everyone to ride bikes or take public transit serves to increase their dependence on the government.

>emissions trading ended up being supported by originally cynical businesses
How? It's an artificial cost imposed by the government. What made businesses support it?
>revenues from the system led to a tax cut for the lowest income brackets.
So, a wealth redistribution scheme.

>>11054945
>But in NA, population density is too small and cities too spread out for biking to be a viable option. Especially here in leafland, where you also have winter to contend with. Cars are not just a mode of transport. They are a tool of freedom and self-sufficiency. Forcing everyone to ride bikes or take public transit serves to increase their dependence on the government.
I wasn't suggesting it works everywhere and for everyone, which is why I didn't say anything about forcing people to use the bike.

>How? It's an artificial cost imposed by the government. What made businesses support it?
Because it incentivizes and rewards businesses that make smart decisions and create new plans. The end result isn't a higher cost for businesses.

https://web.archive.org/web/20130722204116/http://beaudeserttimes.com.au/beaudesert/215-carbon-tax-turnaround#

>With construction of a new biogas plant due to start this year, the company expects to cut carbon emissions from 82,000 to 25,000 tonnes per year.
>The company also expects to cut its coal usage by 50 per cent and to produce 50 per cent of the company’s electricity requirements onsite.
>The end result of the introduction of the new biogas technology will not only be a saving of millions of dollars in energy and carbon costs, but also an opportunity for the company to be positioned at the cutting edge of renewable energy technology in the rendering industry, Mr Kassulke said.
>A vocal opponent of the carbon tax prior to its introduction by the Labor government on July 1 2012, Mr Kassulke now readily admits he has changed his tune.

>So, a wealth redistribution scheme.
So you're against tax cuts? Reminder that the scheme didn't lead to slower economic growth.

>>11051892
The main thing the media ignores is that plants really like CO2.

>>11055007
We now reached a decent value to make a lot of grasses happy ..

>>11055007
Yes, so ignored by the media...

https://lmgtfy.com/?q=global+greening

>>11055012
But plants like potatoes would benefit greatly from a bit more in the atmosphere.
Nevertheless The current level of CO2, compared to 1900 still managed to increase crop-yields by roughly 30%.

>>11055014
While there will be an occasional article on the subject, the general narrative tends to ignore all positive effects of CO2.

>>11055007
>>11055012
>>11055014
in a controlled environment where everything else is equal.

>>11055022
>Nevertheless The current level of CO2, compared to 1900 still managed to increase crop-yields by roughly 30%.
Due to better irrigation and fertilization, not CO2. And there's evidence that more CO2 actually makes plants have less nutrients.

>>11055022
a few crops won't matter if everything else, including fish and most species of animals and plants that couldn't adapt fast enough.

>>11055027
Only the increase by CO2 with everything else being equal.
When it comes to irrigation Plants actually need less water if there's more CO2 in the atmosphere.

It we only increased yields by 30% we'd be in big trouble..
https://ourworldindata.org/crop-yields

>>11055022
>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1161030108000877
>The concentrations of glucose, fructose and total reducing carbohydrates were positively related to CO2 levels, which decrease tuber quality due to the higher risk for browning and generation of acrylamide of fried products. The concentrations of protein, potassium, and as a trend of calcium, were negatively related to CO2 enrichment, suggesting adverse impacts on tuber quality for human nutrition and aesthetic and sensory quality during processing. Significant negative relationships between CO2 treatments and concentrations of leucine, phenylalanine and methionine, and as a trend for di-tyrosine, histidine and aspartic acid, were also indicated, which may decrease nutrition quality of potatoes because of the reduction in physiologically valuable amino acids

ProTip: Humanity has enough carbohydrates to feed us. The real issue are other nutrients. Increase in CO2 would mean decreasing concentration of nutrients in food ergo damage to human health. Same thing would impact other life across the Earth which feeds itself on plants.

>>11051892
Excuse me but the all fabrications related to the climate are currently being used for political purposes only, it has nothing to do with science so please take it to /pol/, thank you.

>>11055022
>While there will be an occasional article on the subject
>17,100,000 results

>the general narrative tends to ignore all positive effects of CO2.
I know, it's so unfair that the media ignores that school shootings have the positive effect of freeing up more funding for the students that are still alive.

>>11052882
that makes sense but environmentalists hate nuclear power for some reason.

>>11052070
You think trees shed their leaves in the autumn because they get cold, don’t you?

>>11055282
you can't pretend being this retarded

>>11053470
https://youtu.be/40Pvi1XVm_s
Solar and wind power actually end up causing more pollution than fossil fuels. Nuclear power is the best option.

Also yes, ICE needs to be replaced with murder robots that simply exterminate beaners and welfare niggers, working blacks are fine.

>>11055415
>Solar and wind power actually end up causing more pollution than fossil fuels.
Source?

>>11055420
Let me evaluate. Solar power only really works during the day, so you have to use large batteries to store the electricity. Lithium mines end up being more destructive due to the area and machinery required to dig up said material.
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/lithium-batteries-environment-impact
The only application I can really see solar power having is free charging stations for mobile devices.

This is on top of the birds literally cooked midair by solar panels.
https://www.sciencealert.com/this-solar-plant-accidentally-incinerates-up-to-6-000-birds-a-year

Also, wind power is largely inefficient and more of a net negative than a positive.
https://www.masterresource.org/grassroots-opposition/20-bad-things-wind-3-reasons-why/

Wind turbines also kill bats, which eat mosquitoes. The rapid pressure decrease literally causes their tiny lungs to implode. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/bat-killings-by-wind-energy-turbines-continue/

On the other hand, nuclear energy is largely efficient. The only reasons disasters occur is human error, such as placing the cooling towers near areas prone to disaster, like Fukushima; or failing to manage it, like in Chernobyl. Both can be circumvented by placing said reactors in relatively stable environments and having computers take the risky jobs.
https://www.conserve-energy-future.com/advantages_nuclearenergy.php

>>11054992
>The end result isn't a higher cost for businesses
But that isn't true. If a factor of production is made more expensive, costs go up. It doesn't even matter that a business can cut other costs to make up for it, because they could have done that in the first place and still come out ahead. A cost is a cost, there is no escaping this basic fact.

>Mr Kassulke now readily admits he has changed his tune.
I suspect Mr. Kassulke had some government assistance in the financing of his new biogas plant, which would account for his newfound enthusiasm. If it was cost effective before the carbon tax, it would have already been done. Nobody does natural gas retrofits on coal plants or builds new biogas plants without something changing in the economy to motivate them to take on these additional costs.

>against tax cuts
If the carbon tax results in a net decrease in taxes (and critically, services) all around, I'm for it. But if it's so easy to sacrifice other sources of revenue, and certain government services, then why not cut them without imposing a carbon tax, for an even lower tax burden?

No matter which way you slice it, you cannot reduce costs by imposing a tax. It is impossible by definition.

>>11055482
>Both can be circumvented by placing said reactors in relatively stable environments and having computers take the risky jobs.
Or just by using modern designs instead of ones from the 60s. We're generations ahead of any plant that's had a significant accident, but nothing is getting built.

>>11055482
>so you have to use large batteries to store the electricity
Sounds like you live in retarded country, normal people use PHES.

>Lithium mines end up being more destructive due to the area and machinery required to dig up said material
More destructive than coal mines?

>https://www.masterresource.org/grassroots-opposition/20-bad-things-wind-3-reasons-why/
Shit source.

>On the other hand, nuclear energy is largely efficient.
Duh.

>>11055518
Sadly. If only politicians would stop rubbing their hands and actually fucking be good for the country.

Why does /sci/ hate young people? First Jacob Barnett, then clock boy now her. So many older people doing bullshit science yet they're never hated on here.

>>11052296
one has a marketing team
the other doesn't need one

>>11055525
>PHES
>not flywheels
Pathetic.

>>11052296
her line about "fairy tales of eternal economic growth" was pretty based however, and probably caused some internal kvetching.

>>11055525
>Sounds like you live in retarded country, normal people use PHES.
Still takes up lots of space, but seems better. Still, so much for electric travel.
>More destructive than coal mines?
Sure.
>Shit source.
Prove it.
>>On the other hand, nuclear energy is largely efficient.
>Duh.
So why did you only mention solar and wind?

>>11055538
Economic growth is unsustainable, eat the bugs goy.

>>11055538
Yeah. It's not that Greta is 100% wrong, she just has no good solution and is attacking the wrong people. The irony is that the evil ones are the media kikes parading her around as a messenger of truth.

>>11055545
Based

>>11055545
i mean, it is? we shouldn't meme ourselves into thinking a developed nation will always have gdp growth beyond population growth, ie. see western europe the last five years. quality of life is what matters, by every metric japan has a horrible economy, yet their society still functions better than just about anyone else's...

>>11055557
It's not going to function very well when the monetary collapse happens.

>>11055543
>Still, so much for electric travel.
Another brainlet take. Efficient electric travel are not battery-cars, but trains.
>Prove it.
No bibliography.
>So why did you only mention solar and wind?
Different poster.

>>11054217
I don't speak Spanish but if you can't figure out what that says you're a moron

>>11055762
This.

>>11052296
Oceanographers Kim Martini and Miriam Goldstein declared the concept infeasible in a technical critique

>>11053628
it was caused by a meteor, quit lying.

>>11051892
one does not invalidate the other

>>11051892
MSM is largely full of shit, being selective about what they write about and when a disaster predicting study that got a lot of media coverage is retracted, it gets deeply buried short mention at best.
Either way, I'm gonna ignore this shit, until they start including particle forcing instead of relying almost solely on TSI.

>>11055565
If we have enough electricity to make whatever we want whenever we want who needs money?

>>11055839
>Either way, I'm gonna ignore this shit, until they start including particle forcing instead of relying almost solely on TSI.
You mean like this? https://www.geosci-model-dev.net/10/2247/2017/gmd-10-2247-2017.pdf

>>11055878
Nice. Now I just need studies that use those recommentations showing that OH MY GOD WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE, LETS ALL SWITCH TO ECO-FASCISM.

>>11055898
I don't understand what are you babbling about, but you should probably use a different board for it.

>>11055902
What I mean is, I'll seriously reconsider the doomsday predictions when they are confirmed by studies that using the data sets and models recommended in the paper you linked.

>>11051918
>mainstream media
>when they do actually know what they're talking about
When is that?!

>>11055917
Sounds bit too harsh, considering the thing you are speaking about is a very minor factor.

you know a website is full of children an clinically diagnosed retards when the fucking science board still debates climate change

>>11055846
Then we live in post-scarcity and concerns about Earth's climate are irrelevant since we'll be in O'Neill cylinders enjoying the space life.

>>11055958
>children an clinically diagnosed retards
Interesting that you chose those specific words...

>>11055963
Yeah but nobody wants to transition because muh wealth.

>>11055509
>If it was cost effective before the carbon tax, it would have already been done.
Irrational optimism. Businesses in no way are capable of thinking of everything at the same time. Kassulke's firm manufactures animal oils and meals from fish and other animals, they have no expertise in biogas or any energy generation processes. The introduction of the carbon tax motivated them to seek outside expertise which led to a plan that could increase energy efficiency and create on-site electricity. Case in point, after the repeal of the carbon tax, Kassulke indicated he would continue with the construction of the biogas plant regardless. By your logic he would have immediately halted that plan because the tax repeal meant it was no longer profitable.

But I should have been clearer, my own position is one favoring a carbon trading scheme. Australia's model was a left-wing tax and spend model, where carbon was taxed but the government also provided aid for industries that wanted to reduce their carbon emissions. I far prefer a free carbon market proposal that allows businesses and households to sell excess carbon permits to others that exceeded the carbon limit, for profit. That's a more right-wing proposal that also rewards innovation far more. I was merely using the Australian model to show that such carbon pricing schemes do not necessarily mean economic armaggedon.

In the USA they even used such a trading scheme to reduce sulfur dioxide pollution and it was extremely cost-effective and far more rapid than originally estimated.

https://voxeu.org/article/lessons-climate-policy-us-sulphur-dioxide-cap-and-trade-programme

>>11055988
Nobody wants to transition to infinite energy generators and matter replicator technology because muh wealth?

>>11056011
Whether it was actually profitable sans carbon tax, I don't know. Businesses, as you point out, are not perfect. A given business may not be constantly driven to maximize revenues and minimize costs, particularly in the long run. However, you have still not addressed the fundamental problem of how an added cost is supposed to reduce total costs, all things held equal.

>free carbon market
Still doesn't avoid the artificial price of carbon existing in the first place. It's an additional cost, so you will gain nothing you could not have already gained without it.

>>11055974
the media chose an aspie as a poster girl for climate change action on purpose. They're using her and playing you like a fiddle

>>11056046
>Still doesn't avoid the artificial price of carbon existing in the first place. It's an additional cost, so you will gain nothing you could not have already gained without it.
The point of a carbon trading system is that businesses that emit under a certain cap can profit directly by selling the difference to another business. In opposition to a "true" carbon tax (without other subsidizing schemes) which merely fines those above a cap and doesn't reward those under it, it leads to an extra gain for those businesses that display innovative thinking.

>>11056046
>However, you have still not addressed the fundamental problem of how an added cost is supposed to reduce total costs, all things held equal.
>Still doesn't avoid the artificial price of carbon existing in the first place. It's an additional cost, so you will gain nothing you could not have already gained without it.
The general consensus on climate change policies is that mitigation and adaptation carry a cost, but that this cost is far lower than the costs that would have to be born in a business-as-usual scenario where climate change is allowed to continue. So it is a gain (through a reduction of future costs). There is no other reason for many businesses such as Exxon or PepsiCo to actually themselves support the introduction of costs such as a gradually rising carbon tax.

>>11056046
>Still doesn't avoid the artificial price of carbon existing in the first place.
It's not artificial in any meaningful way. These companies have to have a cost to account for the "externality".

>>11056140
How do you determine the distribution of credits tho? Is it a ratio of economic output to carbon output?
Can I start a business that does nothing and get free carbon credits to sell?

>>11056173
depends on the sector and size mostly

>Can I start a business that does nothing and get free carbon credits to sell?
obviously not, stupid question

>>11056214
>depends on the sector and size mostly
So name a sector and size and detail how carbon credits would work.

>obviously not, stupid question
Its not a stupid question when that's the first thing to be exploited you need to close the obvious loopholes first.

>>11056140
>by selling the difference to another business
In order for that other business to buy this imaginary nonsense, they must be legally compelled. That cost is what I'm talking about.

>>11056156
The externality that nobody can quantify, or point to how much of it a given firm contributes to. But climate politicians are very eager to impose costs regardless, in typical socialist fashion.

>>11052296
This just reminds me how pathetic I am when kids like this are out changing the world and I will die without leaving any kind of impact whatsoever.

>>11056870
Are you also depressed that you're not a movie star or Olympic athlete? For every one of them, there's a million normal plebs who do normal things and don't become famous.

>>11055482
None of this shows renewables cause more pollution than fossil fuels. They don't cause anywhere near as much CO2 emissions or particulate pollution. The former causes global warming and the latter kills millions of people a year.

>>11052834
No real scientist says 'listen to the scientists'. They all say listen to the evidence. The science fanboys would do well to do the same.

>>11052882
>Huge boosts to stuff
First of all, broken glass fallacy. Forcing people to stop using old stuff that still works and replace them with new stuff is not always a net positive to the economy.

That said, shifting to renewables and low emissions transport is an investment like any other. We just need to make sure that the technology and economics are in place so the investment pays off (both in terms of 'visible' benefits like reduced maintenance and 'invisible' ones like less spending on mitigating the effects of climate change).

>>11057154
If only evidence spoke for itself and retards were incapable of misinterpreting evidence according to their preconceived biases.

>>11051892
No, it is much worse than the mainstream media say.

>>11054485
Communists love starvation.

>>11055007
>>11055012
>>11055014
>>11055022
Based "co2 is plant food" retards

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/ames/human-activity-in-china-and-india-dominates-the-greening-of-earth-nasa-study-shows

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/8/eaax1396

>>11055392
The answer is decreasing amounts of light, anon. Not temperature.

> Leaf drop in the fall months is based on photoperiod and varies by genera and species. Walnuts tend to drop their leaves early while some trees such as Norway Maple and willows have extremely late leaf drop, often in the middle of November.

>>11058400
Which has nothing to do with the effect of temperature on agriculture.

>>11058404
Plants are far more temperature tolerant than you think. The kinds of temperature increases due to climate change are at worst a few degrees over the next century. Most plants don’t give a shit about minor temperature fluctuations like this. The real impact would be macro climatic effects that alter the amount of rain falling in a region. Because one thing most crops do care about is water.

>>11058418
>Plants are far more temperature tolerant than you think.
Oh so you're a mind reader now?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_and_agriculture#Impact_of_climate_change_on_agriculture

>The kinds of temperature increases due to climate change are at worst a few degrees over the next century. Most plants don’t give a shit about minor temperature fluctuations like this.
Do you understand how averages work?

>>11052296
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
https://www.outsideonline.com/2380621/was-ocean-cleanup-just-dream-some-us-had

>>11058454
>if a summer is 3 degrees warmer on average, all crops die
>when the sun goes down and temperature drops by 10 degrees, all plants die
Holy shit, are you actually retarded?

>>11053332
Nice pilpul

>>11058551
Once again, do you understand how averages work?

>>11058572
The acceptable ranges are literally in your table. Good God, how are you even alive?

>>11058605
So what happens to your corn field if you have a week-long 36-37 degree heatwave?

>>11058627
Same thing that happens to corn in any other heatwave. Unless you're implying that heat records beyond corn's max favorable temperature never existed before now.

>>11051918
u need to learn how to remove mold from food. although people consider it wise to throw away some foods entirely if they have once been covered by mold.

>>11052024
>there are now meta analyses of meta analyses
ITS SCIENCE!

>>11058551
Shut the fuck up you retarded city boy, you have 0 fucking clue.

https://cropwatch.unl.edu/2019/how-extended-high-heat-disrupts-corn-pollination

All you people talking about temperature impact on crop yields are missing the point. The ecological turmoil resulting from rapid climate change is likely to cause much more serious pollinator and pest issues.

>>11058733
>2 degree increase over the next 80 years
>extended high heat

>>11052296
>He has been doing engineering projects and building things since he was two years old.
>throwing together engineering projects and playing with lego
>"SINCE HE WAS TWO YEARS OLD"

>>11058739
2 degree increase on average, idiot. Characterized by an increase in extended high-heat events and consequent crop failure.

Yes climate change is real. No, solar power plants and wind farms are not good for the environment. Yes, hydroelectric and nuclear is the way to go. Whoever says the contrary is completely retarded.

>>11058627
Try again when it's not so hot, like has been done throughout history. farmers aren't stupid like you think.

>>11058746
Obviously nuclear is the best, but solar has plenty of potential as well. IIRC average civilzed man needs about 20-30m^2 of panels to power his demand.

>>11058749
I can't even deal with this level of ignorance

>>11058760
>sometimes it's hot in the summer, the world is ending!
Yes.

>>11058801
You think life is a fucking video game where farmers just go back to the last checkpoint when it's hot? Grow the fuck up.

>>11055786
(((Miriam Goldstein)))

>>11058837
>farmers have never experienced hot weather until now
It's like you're not even trying anymore.

>>11058837
farmers have been doing this a long time m8, they know how to offset failure with success that's why you're not starving right now.

>>11055922
I second that, can we please get an example

>>11051892
it is but current progressive media won't say that the actual cause of it is chink bugs and poo in loos. They just blame it on cows farting and think that eating bugs (which chinks and rajeesh do) will fix everything.
If we nuked offending countries from orbit the world would be saved but we cant call them out because it's racist.

>>11058882
>they know how to offset failure with success
What happens when there is not enough success to offset for failure?

>>11059932
Then it's a sign they're growing the wrong thing in the wrong place at the wrong time. Crazy stuff, I know.

>>11051892
Yes, it's real. It is more severe than what is being reported. The fault lies with capitalism and the capitalists. Mostly U.S. entities.

>>11060193
What if they've been growing the same stuff and it has worked for more than 100 years but now for some reason it has stopped working because of changes in the environment. What if there is no transition crop that can be farmed given the tech and land/water resources that they have available to them and the crops they previously grew just can't be grown anymore in that place.

>>11060504
If only there was some sort of inexpensive, net-like shade that one could erect above crops during a heatwave to protect them from the scorching sun.

>>11060575
If only that shade worked for all different types of crops.

>>11052024
>, close to 100% of peer-reviewed publications that make a statement about the causes see human CO2 emission as the most important factor

That's because you literally lose your job if you say otherwise, and funding goes to whoever can express the most alarmist opinions.

It would be like an economist saying that men don't actually earn more than women, or a psychologist seeking funding to cure trannies.

Science in general, as a brand and industry, is an absolute fucking joke. At least where ever it comes into contact with money and politics, which is where it swells anyway.

>>11060589
>That's because you literally lose your job if you say otherwise, and funding goes to whoever can express the most alarmist opinions.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Soon
>From 2005 to 2015, Soon had received over $1.2 million from the fossil fuel industry
Fucking dumb redditspacing scum.

>>11053599
>Wouldn't just ignoring them completely be the more logical course of action?
No, because ignoring them on the basis of nothing is the same thing as believing them on the basis of nothing.
Just be aware journalists are not reciting the word of god, but they also are not trying to deceive you on the scale depicted in [the novel] 1984.
Also:
>Why waste my limited and valuable minutes on this Earth reading the daily coin flip predictions when they're wrong half the time?
I don't know what you want. You're under no obligation to follow the media and be up to date with current affairs. However, if you wish to do so, acquire a source you find reliable.
Also ask yourself what you want to get out of following the media; and specific news outlets. Do you want to know the name of the baby hippo that was born in the Zoo (of where ever...), or do you want to be aware when the economy starts to take a downturn. You should try to tailor your interests; goals from media in how you receive your information. Don't just view random headlines produced by news.com.au, try to be specific.
However, don't homogenise your news sources too much. You may cause a problem for yourself. Make sure to get a discursive view on the world and be confident where you got your news from is as close to correct as possible.

>>11060655
>getting money from an industry whose interests lie in disproving climate change and promoting fossil fuels is bad
>getting money from governments whose interests lie in promoting climate change and green initiatives is good
Wew lad.

>>11060991
Nice copout, goblin. No one's talking about "good/bad". Point is that you are lying faggot, which has been empirically proven.

>>11052152
Ding ding ding...

Ahem....
Tony Heller.

>>11061920
>Tony Heller
lmao

>>11061953
>the climate alarmist has to resort to ridicule when presented with facts
lmao

>>11052296
360 million dollars later and it breaks down after only gathering 4000 pounds of garbage

>>11052152
>ending immigration to the west
>end of trade with India, China
>carbon caps on India, China
This would literally cause way more economic pain to America than even the craziest $10 gas tax
>end of aid to Africa
>condoms and birth control to Africa
It's not Africa that's spewing all the co2 in the air.
All these luke-warmer "solutions" to global warming are just white americans trying to present their desire to kill non-whites in a more socially acceptable way.

>>11055007

The main thing the media ignores ...

No they don't. Sure the plants get bigger, but they have less nutrition. Also, that ignores the change in climate that is happening now, and will disrupt most growth.

>>11053621
>LIST OF DOOMSDAY PREDICTIONS CLIMATE ALARMIST GOT RIGHT

List of times my car's warning indicators predicted disaster:
- None yet, because I keep it maintained.

>>11061970
>>the climate alarmist has to resort to ridicule when presented with facts

And what was the "Fact" exactly? Just some guy's name?

>>11062024
You just thought that name sounded funny? That's what you meant? Never mind then.

>>11055027
>And there's evidence that more CO2 actually makes plants have less nutrients.
>one non comparable experiment were they inyected CO2 near plants of various genetic strands of rice
>resulting in more crop yeild with 10 to 30% percent less vitamins but 10 to 30% percent more minerals
I'd say we need more studies about it

>>11062018
>Tony Heller

It looks like DOOMSDAY predictions by climate alarmists are on track. Heller says one thing, (Arctic ice unchanged) but then presents data showing the opposite, and agreeing with regular climate science. Of course glaciers were melting in the 1920s to '50s, carbon dioxide levels were rising then too! (Not nearly as much, but enough to have an effect.)

>>11062018
>List of times my car's warning indicators predicted disaster:
>- None yet, because I keep it maintained.
That is unscientific as it is not falsable

>>11062058
>That is unscientific as it is not falsable

The connection between changing my oil and not wrecking my engine is unscientific as it is not falsifiable. Therefore lets ignore what our planet seems to be telling us about what kind of futures we can choose.

The cost of addressing climate change is peanuts compared to the cost of dealing with the consequences after the fact. It is like the flooding in New Orleans. All because some republican decided he could save some money on dikes.

>>11061920
>Tony Heller

He then goes on to post 1970's "clickbait" headlines that admit in the article that most scientists don't agree with the conclusion in the headline.

>>11062083
>cost of dealing with the consequences
Like such as?

>>11061573
What you'll never understand is that for most people the goal of addressing climate change is to reduce current and future human suffering, not increase it. Unfortunately you're a hollow shell of a human with nothing left but greed and hate.

>>11062215
>we must reduce emissions to reduce human suffering
>we must accept hordes of Africans into our countries and let them increase emissions to reduce human suffering

>>11062034
Everyone associated with Heartland institute has no worth apart from being a target for ridicule.

>>11062265
Honestly too stupid to even warrant a response. Seriously reevaluate your entire existence please.

>>11062265
>it's ok for me to pollute endlessly in a futile attempt to provide meaning to my pathetic existence
>BUT NOT THOSE BLACK PEOPLE!!111111

>>11062502
Weak pilpul. Do better.

can someone tell me how much Co2 burning all the coal reserves would increase atmospheric levels ?

Like from current of 407+ to ??? 1000ppm more or less ?

>>11062502
>we should chastise ourselves for our sins and pollution. White men should eat bugs instead of meat.
>Based black man has earned the right to do whatever he pleases since his forefathers lived a cruel existence.
>please fuck my wife, black man.

>>11062215
>refugees should be helped because they suffer in their home countries.
>even though deaths of conflicts and war is at an all time low, refugee migration is at an all time high and I see nothing wrong with that.
>migrants should be allowed in based on the merit of being poor and wanting money, not based on that of providing value for our society.
>no we cant help them in their countries where we can do it much more cost effectively, we need to do it in our countries and overload the system so we do not have the resources to provide for technological leaps that could solve climate change.

YOU ABSOLUTELY DEGENERATE FILTHY MARXIST TRAITOR.

>>11062734
If you fixed climate change there would be less refugees.

>>11062734
>being this retarded
Stop it anon, use your brain!

>>11062753
>If you fixed climate change there would be less refugees. Current "refugees*" have nothing to down with climate change.

Correct term is economic migrants.

Their plan
1. Current country is a shithole because of the people and the system.
2. Move people to new country that isn't a shithole.
3. Agitate to make the system just like the one at home e.g. Sharia law.
4. Somehow this is supposed to work.

>>11061573
Neoliberalism is clearly incompatible with fighting climate change. All they can really say to argue against this data is point to some fantasy of a futuristic green energy revolution.

>>11062790
>Current country is a shithole because of the people and the system
They're claiming droughts were the cause, of both syrian and central american migrations

>>11062790
>Correct term is economic migrants.
Not when they are fleeing war dumbass.

>>11061573
>The problem is people becoming Americans and therefore becoming pigs rather than Americans being pigs

>>11062842
droughts
overpopulation

it's never the latter according to you people
wonder why that is...

>>11062865
Why are you so set on making more "pigs"?
I think you don't really care about climate change.

>>11060991
>duh gubmint!!!1
So where are all the Trump and Republican funded scientists telling the truth?

>>11062874
How is saying that no one should be a pig = "making more pigs?" I'm concerned with solving the problem, not making everything fit my retarded political ideology.

>>11062891
>I'm concerned with solving the problem
and what problem would that be?

>>11062891
>no one should be a pig
so you agree that no one should live an american way of life, hence no one should be allowed to become american

>>11062906
>See duh immgrantz to duh US is makin CO2
>>Then isn't the root problem that Americans make too much CO2?
>What problem duuuuurrrrr?

>>11062911
>Murderers have to be born
>If no one is born then no one can be a murderer
So you agree that no one should be a murderer, hence no one should be born?

>>11062913
im honestly confused. what problem are you trying to solve?
so far you've only posted snark in response to
>>11061573

>>11062915
your analogies suck. I think you don't really give a rats ass about climate change and youre just butthurt that americans are the ones living like "pigs" while your own people scratch around in abject poverty.

>>11062916
>im honestly confused. what problem are you trying to solve?
If you are confused then you're retarded, since you must understand the problem to say that blocking immigration solves it. Or you're just pretending to be retarded. Which is it?

>>11062920
You didn't answer my question. Isn't no one being born a good solution to preventing murder? It's even better than your solution for reducing CO2 emissions, since only a small fraction of CO2 emissions would be avoided by blocking immigration.

>>11062925
do you understand the difference between emissions and emissions growth?

>>11062915
so murderers = americans
and being born = immigration to america

??

Is that your best attempt at an analogy?

>>11062933
Yes, what is your point?

>>11062915
Please explain this deeply insightful analogy for all of us pathetic retards who just aren't on your super enlightened level.

>>11062937
>so murderers = americans
>and being born = immigration to america
Holy fuck, you're dumb. The analogy is equating the logic, not the subjects.

Hopefully someone as mentally deficient as you can understand this: Blocking immigration is unnecessary since it doesn't attack the root of the problem, which is that Americans emit too much CO2.

>>11062938
Oh good. So then you must understand where most of the population growth of "pigs" has come from over the past 3 decades then.

>>11062941
What exactly needs to be explained? Do you understand that preventing people from being born prevents murders? Then preventing people from being born is a solution to murder. Again, are you pretending to be retarded?

>>11062951
You need to explain how that relates to immigration and climate change or its not an analogy.

>>11062949
Population growth is not a problem if people aren't emitting extremely unnecessary amounts of CO2. Once again you lose focus on the problem because you are trying to shoehorn in your own ideology. If you actually care about population growth then you should also mandate no more children.

>>11062960
>Population growth is not a problem if people aren't emitting extremely unnecessary amounts of CO2.
Ok so I'm gonna try another type of analogy with you. It's a mathy one so you might not get it. Here goes
10 people emit 10 units
and
100 people emit 1 unit
which is one is better?

>>11062957
I don't need to explain it, you need to have the basic level of mental ability to see that the same faulty logic which says that blocking immigration is necessary to stop CO2 emissions is used to say that stopping people from being born is necessary to stop murder. Neither attack the root problem, so neither are necessary.

>>11062968
>10 people emit 10 units
>and
>100 people emit 1 unit
do you understand the difference between emissions and emissions growth?

>>11062951
How the fuck is that someone who says shit like
> The analogy is equating the logic, not the subjects.
> shoehorn in your own ideology

does not know what a fucking analogy is? lol
sociology phd, undergrad in english with a minor in economic philosophy lulz

>>11062957
>>11062968
>Still no answer to whether preventing babies from being born prevents murder
If there is no connection then why do you refuse to answer the question? It's a simple yes or no.

>>11062975
>claims undergrad in english
>post is incoherent
Try again little buddy.

>>11062979
anyone who doesn't see how dishonest and silly this little word play game of yours is would have to be quite retarded. and that's your problem. even the retards can see that you're full of shit. lol

>>11062985
wat. jesus. have you had a stroke? I did not say I have an undergrad in english I said you do. are you legit seething now or just posting whatever sloppy reply pops into your little noggin first?

>>11062987
>still refuses to answer a simple question
>t-there's no connection, it's a faulty analogy even though I can't explain why!
So you obviously understand the analogy and refuse to answer because it would destroy your argument.

>>11062996
>I did not say I have an undergrad in english I said you do
So your post is even more incoherent than I thought.

>>11062985
LOL you thought I was bragging about my
>sociology phd, undergrad in english with a minor in economic philosophy
so you must consider
>sociology phd, undergrad in english with a minor in economic philosophy
to be a meaningful education lulz

>>11062997
what analogy? you have not made an analogy. you do not know what an analogy is.

>>11062997
its your supposed analogy. explain it if you can.

>>11063009
>when you think someone is bragging about something they think is important that must mean you also think it's important
So not only can you not write a coherent sentence, you also fail at basic logic.

>>11063013
Why are you refusing to answer the question if it's not an analogy? Why do you have no counterargument?

>>11063017
I already did you illiterate mongoloid. >>11062969

>>11063023
>basic logic.
Did you get a Master of Arts degree in that? You must get tired of running circles around us lowly scientists with that level of education.

>>11063029
>he's still trying to predict my degree
You're truly delusional if you think this is working.

>>11063027
>I already did [explain it]
>referes to post:
>first sentence of post
>I don't need to explain it

must need a Master of Arts degree in basic logic to understand your truly astounding level of genius or something

>>11063042
>If you don't need to do something then you can't do it anyway
Wow another brilliant display of logic from the troglodyte who just can't stop embarrassing himself!

Sea level rise alone will fuck up almost every western nation

>>11063070
You're the one bragging about your master of arts degree in basic logic.
So I'm surprised that you don't know that a proper explanation of something consists of more than:
>I don't need to explain it.

>>11063070
what is this.
another shitty attempt at analogy as an attempt to get out of your previous shitty attempt at analogy.
It's like analogy inception, but with retards.

>>11063085
>So I'm surprised that you don't know that a proper explanation of something consists of more than:
Yes, it's the rest of the post you fucking moron.

>>11063101
>he thinks a generalization is an analogy
And just when I thought you couldn't be more retarded.

>>11051892
https://www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uccSaZr7yCA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Jpk8Ix1CCg

>Science isn't real because a youtube video told me so.
Can /pol/ fuck off already?

>>11052070
If you had any knowledge of agriculture you would know that every single growing season is different in terms of rainfall, temperature, clouds. Winegrowers are lucky to get three really good vintages per decade.

>>11052371
Looks like we're continuing to recover from the little ice age. Look at all of that arable land coming out from under that famine inducing, crop killing ice sheet.

>>11052861
>Believing that what is accepted to be correct is the truth narrows the possibility to pursue improvement
denialist are not motivated by some higher desire to fight dogma and intellectual complacence, they are rather motivated by pure contrarianism, and by being idiots who repeat shill talking points
the current rejection of scientific evidence on global warming isn't done in the spirit of not remaining

>>11053237
a reduction in population in India and Africa wouldn't solve this problem if the fuel source of society doesn't change from fossil to renewable or nuclear.

>>11053526
the solution is to have the equivalent industrial mobilization of the ussr's first five year plan, with the building of 1000s of nuclear reactors, solar, and hydroelectric farms, the entire replacement of petroleum based liquid fuel, carbon credits are just liberals pussy footing around

>>11051903

Its a symptom of our society. Distortion, misinformation, deceit, hyperbole, propaganda. The problem is there are no penalties. There are no real disadvantages for being called out for out right lies.

There needs to be real penalties, court action, fines, even jail time, for publishing falsehoods. Punishments that deal appropriately with the entire spectrum. From outright lies to simple distortions. People need to be held accountable or shut the fuck up. Even just the threat of being dragged before the courts for stating bullshit would be enough to make people aware of getting their facts right before opening their stupid mouths. And think, far less fucking braindead asswipes going on about moon hoax and flat earth. Fuck yes.

>>11055007
please kill yourself
>Studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising carbon dioxide concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time.”
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

>>11052022

Yeah sure but who the fuck wants to wade through the shit to find the gems? Besides, every class year is a new bunch of mouth breathers who will NEVER be able to be as discerning as yourself. And they vote. They cancel out your vote a thousand times over.

>>11051901
i would buy this were it not for the fact that the weather has become fucked in the last 15 years.

>>11053616
Get a load of this fuckwit.

You all realize that this sort of mental midget can vote?

>>11051892
We're in a major extinction event and there's nothing anyone can do about it.

Jesus fucking Christ exactly how small is the intellectual glasshouse in which you live?

>communal gardening
>Urban afforestation
>Biking

Jesus fuck, you do honestly believe any of these are solutions? They are not. They are not even a collective drop in the bucket. Not them and not a million like them all together. How can you believe in such meaningless platitudes? You must be a 20 something female school teacher, right?

>>11062863
Show me data claiming that the 2010's were more violent and wartorn than another decade.
Then ask yourself why all women, small children and old men are left behind in these extremely dangerous environments and only young men leave for Europe.
>it's for safety, not for the money
naive fool

>>11063556
Yet global food production continued to rise and number of people living in famine declined severely.

>>11063084
Perhaps in 500 years.
Not in 100.
Since 1900 sea level rose 20 cm.
And we're expected to believe in the next 80 years it will rise 1m or more.
BS.
Antarctic ice sheet is still very stable.
Sea level will rise less than 1m, which means a little bit less beach.

>>11062865
>the liberal dissociates when it cant blaim whitey.

>>11062960
You dont need to advocate for that anymore in the west. We already have a 1.5 fertility rate amongst natives.
Every western nation requires more slaves to operate the system.
1 kid less = 1 migrant more.
They all have plans to increase population for 30-40 more years and then level off.
Which is nonsensical when looking to it from a climate change perspective.
But liberals cant admit to that.
We wont bring western pollution down to zero overnight, so until we get our shit straight we should limit migration to limit the impact on the climate.
The only rebuttal t>>11063970
o this would be that you think global migration and multiculturalism is too important to give up in order to mitigate climate change, in which case we can respectfully agree to disagree but any other viewpoint shows intellectual dishonesty and a sad cope to try to get your two liberal dogma's coexist in your little brain.

>>11062915
You can sense one is losing an argument when they use increasingly off topic analogies.

>>11063983
>the liberal dissociates when it cant blaim whitey.
Not an argument.

>You dont need to advocate for that anymore in the west.
Because??? The number of babies born in the US annually is 4 million while the number of immigrants added is 1 million. The higher birth rate of immigrants is negligible due to their small numbers. It only increases the national birth rate by 4%. So if the problem was population growth then it would be far better advocating for no more babies instead of no more immigrants. But you're just pretending to find a solution, so hypocrisy suits you.

>>11063996
You can sense one is losing an argument when one has no response.

Boomers fucked it up and only have to keep denying it until they croak from their heart attack, liver disease, lung cancer, or suicide by opioids.
This is really classic boomer. Make a problem. Make it worse because you are too proud to admit you made a problem. Then start denying that the problem is "that bad". Then die before you have to deal with your boom-consequences
Fuck boomers

>>11064108
lol this post is fucking hilarious.
>just pretending to find a solution
>hypocrisy suites you
ya yallz lets have a carbon tax for the pleebs cuz population growth is good for the economy and theres no way I'm letting go of my precious development bux.

god what a lying slimey sack of shit you are.

>>11063556
t. 15 year old.
The weather has always been fucked all over the world through all time and through all time cultures were sacrificing their blood for the blood god to stop and prevent the bad weather.

>>11064165
>Boomers made bad weather.
Read the Bible.

>immigrants are responsible for climate change
cope

also the red circle is courtesy of /pol/, just an example of them being so obsessed with blacks they can't or refuse to see indians and asians btfo'ing them left and right

>>11064671
>white people are responsible for climate change

>>11064640
>no argument anywhere in the post
I accept your admittal of defeat.

>>11064676
Mostly, yeah.

>>11063542
There is it's called libel. The problem is it's hard to prove they intentionally lied to hurt someone, so usually nothing happens.

>>11064671
I KNEW IT
ITS THE IRISH

>>11064671
How the fuck are gypsy so low? It's almost an achievement.

>>11064704
>muh carbon taxes gonna sabe us all gib me money
Denier. lol ya go ahead and deny that "economic growth" is the route cause of all of this.

You're just another type of psychotic market worshipper - just as bad as the lunatics that think humans are gonna live on dyson spheres and colonize the galaxy with fusion powered warp drives.

>>11064716
Your hate is palpable.

>>11064725
they don't send their kids to school

>>11064671
would be interesting to see the white british category split into social class

>>11064730
Please explain how economic growth is the root cause of global warming. This will be quite difficult for you to do since economic growth has been occurring far longer than global warming, but go ahead and try.

>inb4 more unhinged seething

>>11064736
You have a very active imagination.

>>11064871
>Please explain how economic growth is the root cause of global warming. This will be quite difficult for you to do since economic growth has been occurring far longer than global warming, but go ahead and try.

"Economic growth" started in earnest with the invention of the steam engine, which was used in coal processing, which was the birth of the industrial revolution, which was the point at which the trend of digging up stored carbon in the form of fossil fuel and releasing it to the atmosphere by combustion began.

Economists as well as the chemists of the 18th and 19th centuries figured all this out long before Arrhenius's laboratory proved the heat-trapping properties of CO2 and its predicted effects in the atmosphere. They understood this, hundreds of years ago.

But today, you do not. How is that possible unless you are the real brainlet here?

>>11064928
>"Economic growth"
It's not only the cause of global warming. It's the cause of deforestation, top soil erosion, habitat fragmentation, species extinction, and virtually every other documented environmental atrocity. Market worshippers literally couldn't care less about any of that - they pay lip service to climate change not because it might be a threat to future environmental atrocities they plan on committing, but because they could really use the carbon tax dollars to help fund their environmentally destructive activities.

>>11064928
>"Economic growth" started in earnest with the invention of the steam engine
No, try again.

>>11064108
>the higher birth rate of immigrants is negligible due to their small numbers
>due to their small numbers.
Wtf did I just read?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_racial_and_ethnic_demographics_of_the_United_States
>Non-hispanic whites were 87.5% of the US population in 1950, probably responsible for about 85% of all births.
>Now non-hispanic white births are around 50% of all births.
>since 1990 non-hispanic white births declined with 670k
>total births declined with 370k births
>minority births thus rose with 300k births to almost 1.9 million
psssst, most of these minority births come from post 1950 migrants and their offspring...

>>11053869
I don't see how she's useless; the problem is political and she is a political activist.