/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11817171
ikr the niggers are behind it man. They are heating the planet up so all the white people die. The black people will live though because of their superior thermal dissipation!

>>11817171
Who, besides MAGAtards, denies climate change?

>>11817188
BLM supporters

>>11817188
People and businesses who cut down forests

>>11817171
same idiots as the tobacco lobby

playbook
https://youtu.be/hqiCLuOtXts?t=8m15s

the same people
https://youtu.be/hqiCLuOtXts?t=21m35s

>>11817171
No people acknowledge the climatic change they are just very suspicious of the left's hijacking of the subject and attempt to force through retarded shit like the green new deal with all it's authoritarian duplicity and focus on fake solutions and scams

>>11817450
>left's hijacking
bs, it's nothing but a sane push-back to the retarded drivel Exxon started pushing around 1997

>>11817500
>sane
Say that with a straight face next time

i believe whole heartedly in climate change and i whole heartedly believe solar and wind energy is a giant meme. i think lithium ion or any future chemical battery is totally incapable of powering the world consistently and reliably. I believe nuclear fission is utterly a waste of time. I believe our only hope is developing nuclear fusion. I find there are very little people who have the same opinion as me.

>>11817171
Your massive mom is just coping because she can't take the entirety of my enormous dick.

>>11817758
You must be over the age of 18 to use this website.

The problem is
>bandwagon from faggots who want more taxes that won't solve anything
>"science is settled" brainlets that are equivalent to science deniers that force neutral people to take their ground
>interglacial period so having ice in the poles is not a geological reference
>alternatives for cleaner energy are systematically shut down or development almost completely halts because it's not fundable
>very suspicious coincidences like the Milankovitch cycles, previous reports of global cooling, China, Africa and India doing whatever they want when the Western world keeps tightening their belts
>actually fulfilling the agreements mean our current living style will stop, yet there is no nation or state who is preparing for this except for like 4 European cities
You've got people screaming the world will end, everyone agrees, they do paperwork and science and then no one does their part for then to proceed to use the paperwork to punish some others
>>11817188
me, I live in the third world

>>11817762
I read an article about ITER recently and people were complaining about the cost of 25 billion. That's fucking nothing compared to other expenses and especially in relation to solving scarcity. People be dumb

>>11817171
>>11817188
nobody denies that climate changes
people deny that it started changing in the 1800's

>>11817188
Big brain Marxist Leninists with IQs past 160 and big brained stirnerists who know it's one big giant spook.

>>11817946
ITER will work. There isn't any serious nuclear physicist who doubts that ITER will produce more energy than required and it will have a Q value of 10.

DEMO is what comes after ITER and it will have a Q value of 25.

Magnetic confinement fusion works. The problem is that it's a fucking clusterfuck of an engineering challenge. It's way too complicated to build in scale. So MIT and the brits are trying to use what they learned from ITER to make "smaller ITERs" that are more easier to build and deploy.

SPARC is the one from MIT and STEP is the one the UK government is funding. China is also doing similar things.

We need much more interest in fusion but people have been drinking the muh 50 years away koolaid.

>>11817995
>ITER will work

in the year 2235

>>11818063
fuck you

>>11817972
What started?

>>11817916
>>bandwagon from faggots who want more taxes that won't solve anything
How would carbon taxes not solve anything? You're just against taxes so you deny they can ever solve anything.

>>"science is settled" brainlets that are equivalent to science deniers that force neutral people to take their ground
So scientific facts are unfair because they "force" people to take a position?

>>interglacial period so having ice in the poles is not a geological reference
What the fuck? Ice is at the poles regardless of whether we are in a glacial period or interglacial period. What is a "geological reference?"

>>alternatives for cleaner energy are systematically shut down or development almost completely halts because it's not fundable
What do you mean?

>>very suspicious coincidences like the Milankovitch cycles, previous reports of global cooling,
How are these coincidences?

>China, Africa and India doing whatever they want when the Western world keeps tightening their belts
LOL, you mean developing countries develop? Just ignore Western nations did the same thing. What a pathetic excuse.

>>actually fulfilling the agreements mean our current living style will stop, yet there is no nation or state who is preparing for this except for like 4 European cities
Letting global warming occur unmitigated will be worse.

>You've got people screaming the world will end
Like who?

>>11817171
I think circumcision denial is actually the biggest cope.

>>11818213
>How would carbon taxes not solve anything? You're just against taxes so you deny they can ever solve anything.
Have they helped to solve this problem at all?
>So scientific facts are unfair because they "force" people to take a position?
Good luck getting your research funded when it goes against public consensus
>What the fuck? Ice is at the poles regardless of whether we are in a glacial period or interglacial period. What is a "geological reference?"
See picture plus there is evidence that the poles had not icecaps in the Jurassic and Cretaceous
>What do you mean?
>Letting global warming occur unmitigated will be worse.
So, global warming is much worse but where's the preparation for the inevitable?
>How are these coincidences?
The cycles coincide with the Vostok Ice core temperature rise, are you going to tell me you haven't seen that graph?
>LOL, you mean developing countries develop? Just ignore Western nations did the same thing. What a pathetic excuse.
I'm not excusing anyone, faggot, the Western nations developed like that because nobody cared about the environment until around 1950. Now we have the data and the developing nations ignore it after various treaties and agreements to try and diminish emissions
>Like who?
Google "global warming" and tell me you don't find news or research that warns will fuck up Earth so badly it will be no different from a mass extinction.

>>11817762
Yep, wind and Solar are a meme, biogas is completely nonsensical and only a method of waste remediation and all are frankly a scam on taxpayers, the only decent solar is the highly predictable and efficient desert solar and cabling it out to other nations via high voltage DC.

>>11817500
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/sep/20/exxonmobil-joins-oil-gas-climate-change-alliance-global-warming
How does it feel to be retarded

>>11818365
>20 years

>>11818365
"u-turn"
lrn2read retard

>>11818420
>>11818423
>no argument
Just as expected from bootlickers

>>11818475
awwww, it's retarded

>>11817171

This is so boring.

If you care about the research, why are you not talking about the sampling process?

>>11817171
First, you go back to /pol/ with this shit.
Second, for the dick riding idiots like >>11818213 who think creating a financial instrument that allows large companies to pollute MORE could ever possibly be helpful: You are the problem. Just STFU

>>11819423
That second guy you quoted has been shilling carbon taxes to maintain the "sustainable development" status quo here (and likely many other places on the net) for years. He's not gonna STFU until he's dead.

>>11817171
Well the problem is that, wether or not it's happening isn't a question. The question is "how destructive will it really be?" Which isn't in the perview of scientists, like say, meteorologists, but rather in the hands of engineers and economists.
Also, there's some debate of how much human intervention really matters for climate change. Throughout Earth's history it's "either been cooking off, or warming up" is a common axiom and if say, you arbitrarily say the earth naturally changes 1% per set period time naturally and with humans intervention it changes 3% per year, that would triple the amount of change but would actually in the grand scheme of things, not actually be that much

>>11818333
What happened during the Eocene is of no relevance to our current situation. The planet was under a completely different continental and oceanic configuration and the life at the time developed and evolved for that climate. The current life we have has developed in a generally colder planet and pit civilization and crops are built upon very narrow climactic conditions. Rapid climate upheaval will have detrimental consequences for both.

>>11819546
>rapid
>0.1º per decade

>>11819552
Yes. Even during the ramp up of the interglacial periods neither CO2 or temperature rose as fast as we are seeing today. It took thousands of years for CO2 to rise up a couple dozen ppm and we have almost doubled the CO2 content of the atmosphere during an interglacial in less than 100 years.

>>11819546
It is relevant because it's taken as the referential frame for the population to understand the gravity of climate change, with severe droughts, extreme sudden rain and so on.
Scientifically it is as you say, life has adapted to the current post-Cretaceous impact with the plates going to modern locations; yet life doesn't really care about the conditions because it will find a way to adapt just like it did countless times before. For human civilization it will be unsustainable and catastrophic though, it's the only reason why climate change is so important "for everyone".
Now I've realized I read "global warming" instead of "climate change" to the first post I replied, fuck.

>>11817762
Fission is the best energy source we have right now. I wouldn't say it's a waste of time.

>>11817171

Okay, so try to enact legislation that reduces trade with countries that contribute more heavily to climate change than the rest of the world combined, and produce products domestically where you can be sure that climate regulations are adhered to.

Oh wait, then people will think you are a racist nationalist Trump supporter.

>>11819593
I think if people were more invested in climate change instead of government control, they would be discussing how carbon emissions aren't the problem. Most of the Earth's CO2 comes from the Earth. The planet can just absorb all of it back into the environment.

>>11819587

Converting ocean trade to nuclear power, if it were successfully implemented with proper controls, would create thousands of high paying jobs and reduce emissions more than almost any other initiative.

Sadly this will never happen.

>>11819607
>carbon emissions aren't the problem
Factually incorrect

>>11819607

Yeah, CO2 isn't nearly as much of an issue than a lot of other emissions that AREN'T a natural part of ecology. Luckily, in western countries at least, we have much of it figured out. Reducing and eliminating trade with countries that don't enact pollution controls would be a great step to keep 3rd worlders from destroying the planet, but it will never happen, just like increasing nuclear power initiatives never will.

I would be more open to the issue if the solution wasn’t to destroy civilization. What exactly is the solution to climate change. We need to burn fossil fuels for civilization. Deal with the consequences of a hotter planet.
The movement also has a preachy libtard vegan vibe to it, which makes me doubt that these people have a level headed understanding of the situation. These are the same people who will try to convince you that race doesn’t biologically exist

>>11819613

China still produces banned refrigerants

Carbon capture technology exists and so do fucking trees. It's also got quite a bit of heavy investment from oil and gas companies.

>>11819613
Guy humans emit less than 1 percent of all CO2 that goes into the atmosphere. The problem is the CO2 that is pumped into the atmosphere by people isn't absorbed by the planet.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/06/06/how-much-co2-does-a-single-volcano-emit/amp/

It's called the carbon cycle.

>>11819639

The solution is already there, migrate major transportation to nuclear power, finish major nuclear waste storage projects, move inter-city transportation towards electrical and natural gas. Produce biofuels from waste using cheaper and emission free energy capacity.(you now have a carbon neutral fuel source).

>>11819654
Again, factually incorrect. The isotopic signature of the CO2 in the atmosphere is clearly from fossil fuel burning.
From your article, did you even read it?
>In fact, even if we include the rare, very large volcanic eruptions, like 1980's Mount St. Helens or 1991's Mount Pinatubo eruption, they only emitted 10 and 50 million tons of CO2 each, respectively. It would take three Mount St. Helens and one Mount Pinatubo eruption every day to equal the amount that humanity is presently emitting.

>>11819650
The terrestrial biosphere is not the major player in the long term carbon cycle. It has about a ~20 year residence time for that carbon, and we are crippling the ability of the ocean to uptake CO2

>>11819668

>we

Don't you mean China and India?

>>11819668
Hasn't the Himalaya upsurge driven most of the fall in co2 over the last couple of million years.

>>11819665
You seem to be misunderstanding what I am saying.

>>11819681
The atmosphere and ocean interaction is what drives the glacial/interglacial cycles we have going on for the past few million years.

i know the science is probably right but i choose to believe otherwise as leftist faggots require me to stop driving old gasoline cars, which is my favorite hobby. so they can fuck off and the planet can burn for all i care, i wont be alive when it happens anyway

>>11819738
ya... when "the science" also says there are no genders, ssri's are good for treating depression, world population growth is slowing (but not where you live), and theres no point closing the border when a deadly new virus is around.... i don't really blame you.

the corporate clowns making all the calls are eternal optimists and will be continue to be even while the world burns

>>11819738

The logic behind legislating the piss out of cars makes very little sense in general.

It's cheaper and better for the enviornment for an old car to continue running even if it's inefficient compared to newer designs, than it is to build a new car.

So if, say, a certain technology has a significant impact on reliability and leads to many cars failing well before they are supposed to, or that technology has an impact on someone's ability to repair it themselves, it would be a net negative.

>>11819773
>>11819738

Good examples are high compression turbos, unnecessarily advanced electrical systems with far too many sensors that can cause total failure, the EGR, DEF fluids(I honestly doubt that the emissions negated even justifies the emissions of transporting and manufacturing it.)

>>11819783
its fascism. plain and simple. every major political party in north america and europe has more or less the same policies. just switch the definition hyper nationalism with hyper globalism and that's what we've got.

>>11819756
this. i was fine with going nuclear for power and insulating my home so i dont waste energy, but the entire movement got captured by hipsters and faggot ass leftists led by their down syndrome messiah greta thunberg that want to ban or tax the shit out of everything i like, like driving fast cars and eating meat, while chinks and niggers do nothing about it. so they can fuck off with their religion. traffic in my city has gone to shit as these faggot ass liberals got elected for magistrate and all they do is build useless bike lanes, obviously led by some idiot that never drove for a day in prague. fuck them. if the icecaps melt i'll have the climate of southern italy, feels good mane

>>11819773
what do you think of the fact that all new vehicles need to have rear view cameras?
based on that, youd have to be a complete moron to not be convinced that the politicians and corporate ceos are completely full of shit

>>11819802
I think you're confusing fascism and cultism.

much of environmental activism, or even activism in general uses a methodology not too dissimilar from cults to disseminate their point of view and force people into radicalism.

Other organizations use these cults to accomplish their goals. You can look at safety standards being abused to destroy some car brands despite others of the time being just as bad or worse.(The suzuki samurai and Mercedes Sprinter are both fantastic examples).

In the case of the Samurai, it was one of the most popular, best selling vehicles in the US up until it was legislated out of existence in North America. This is because it became a threat to domestic vehicles as did MOST kei cars produced in japan.(they were far ahead of their time in many areas).

The mercedes sprinter was the best van on the market by MILES. Due to diesel regulations, newer models rarely pass 100k before having issues with their DEF system. The older models are likely still running with mileage clocks passing 300k regularly.

>>11819824

It makes me sick from a privacy point of view, as it essentially mandates that every vehicle have a computer of some kind. I'll never forget when someone proved that every single dodge vehicle in the country was compromised and vulnerable to a cyberattack.

It's part of the growth of the surveillance state disguised as a safety initiative.

>>11819773
>>11819783
basically yes, but most of the market are retarded normie consumers that lease their cuckovers every 2 years, know nothing about cars only want their apple carplay to work and go crazy for useless gadgets like touchscreens on fucking everything etc. so manufacturers try to put in high tech computer shit that goes quickly obsolete or just straight up planned obsolescence so they can sell more shitty boring cars with fake exhaust pipes to retarded normies when it all breaks.
couple that with retarded liberals forcing unrealistic emissions regulations so you get shit like ridiculously high compression 1.0 three cylinders in gasoline cars that make 200 hp but wont last for 100k km, but they get slightly better emissions than a fucking n/a 2.0. then you have dpf filters and scr systems that inject cow piss into your exhaust which add complexity but make the green/red retards happy. a friend has a new-ish subaru diesel and that shits dpf filter clogs up like every week so he has to force regeneration or his car goes into "safe mode" where it goes so slow its barely functional anymore.
meanwhile i just add oil to my 99 miata and it just werks even tho i beat the shit out of it. too bad i had to pay something like 500 euros just to register a car with euro 2.
and dont get me started on pedestrian safety requirements basically ruining car design forever

>>11819865
dpf filters and scr apply only to diesels obviously
lets not give them ideas, i dont want particulate filters on gasoline cars

>>11819865

What's even more interesting about it is that the DPF/SCR probably doesn't even break even on emissions once you figure in cost of transporting the fluids and manufacturing in emissions. It's creating MORE emissions after all of that if I had to guess, but that's a very difficult thing to quantify. If I had a research grant I might go for it but that'll never happen.=/

Insofar as bullshit gadgets I COMPLETELY agree. I don't even have a radio in my car, I drive a 25 year old vehicle with next to zero electronics so I can evade all the new standards.

>VERY STABLE

>>11819899

Depopulation of China and India while cutting all aid to Africa would fix this but that's not what anyone wants to hear.

Radical problems require radical solutions.

>>11819899

Never trust linear extrapolation without limits

>>11819904
and how do you expect to depopulate china and india?

and even if you could, where would america get their plastic christmas presents and tech support?

>>11819904
this. stop buying chink shit if you want to save the planet
>>11819912
nuke or manmade virus that kills chinks and niggers
>>11819895
thats a good point. i hope someone will research that soon, just like the environmental costs of mining lithium in africa to make cucks teslas so they can feel good. lmao imagine getting your car disabled remotely because of a "software update"

>>11819912

An artificially created pandemic would work, as would sowing enough discord between the two countries to cause them to go to war with each other. Alternatively, social engineering of a violent civil uprising might be enough, on top of shilling anti-natalism and LGBT to their youngest generations.

>>11819923
>>11819925
neither of you addressed the economic need america has for cheap plastic shit from china to give as christmas presents nor who is going to debug my wifi at 2am

>>11819923

Imagine when u-connect is weaponized and deployed globally by foreign actors or terrorists.

Just google u-connect hacking and you'll find all the reasons in the world to convince normal people. Fear works.

>>11819930

>need

Needs and wants are two very different things.

If wants are unavailable, then the market will correct for it eventually as people develop other interests and domestic manufacturing is revived with high technology that makes products competitive both ecologically and monetarily.

>>11819930

Also, cottage industry COULD replace the cheap plastic shit industry, if the cheap plastic shit was no longer available. Obviously things would become more expensive in the short term. Long term these cottage industries would develop into heavy industry that incorporates high-tech manufacturing practices that meet our western environmental standards.

It would also give us a fantastic export market since Chinese and Indian manufacturing would be gutted post-war(that shit rarely survives insurrections or wars.).

The idea is to force the investment by making sweatshop labor unavailable. It's inertia that keeps companies from making the investments required to compete with slave labor.

>>11819946
>>11819960
wouldn’t abolishing Christmas make more sense? i mean, if kids didn’t expect a bounty of chinese plastic crap every year, that would give a huge hit to the chinese economy. and all it would take is stopping the ritual of indoctrinating kids that a magic bearded white man who legally trespasses is an accepted cultural norm

>>11819966

Parents don't really buy cheap plastic shit for their kids anymore. Kids want tech and tech related shit now. Honestly this trend is pretty good too, since it cuts down on that.

You're also never going to abolish the concept of christmas and birthdays.

>>11819966

It also wouldn't have that big of an impact either.

There is far more plastic in basic consumer goods like packaging materials, bullshit home improvement stuff, hand tools, and a laundry list of other things.

There are a lot of initiatives that could allow for the replacement of plastics, but they would require universal adoption to execute.

>>11819975
birthdays are fine since the kids know their parents are doing it. christmas is different in the sense that our culture has decided to tell children that their gifts are coming from a magical entity (that all adults know is BS)

i just think that the systematic lying we create to deceive children is wrong

>>11819995
the original point of christmas was family, not consumerism
abolishing it is both retarded and pointless
just shear off the jewish trickery

>>11817171
dilate

>>11818333
>Have they helped to solve this problem at all?
The scarce ones that have been implemented have, yes. But you're avoiding the question: How would carbon taxes not solve anything?

>Good luck getting your research funded when it goes against public consensus
How can research in the funding stage go against a consensus? That would only make sense if the conclusion of the research was predetermined.

>See picture plus there is evidence that the poles had not icecaps in the Jurassic and Cretaceous
And how is that relevant to us? Are we dinosaurs? You said we are in an interglacial as if that somehow implies we are not in an ice age.

>So, global warming is much worse but where's the preparation for the inevitable?
What do you mean?

>The cycles coincide with the Vostok Ice core temperature rise, are you going to tell me you haven't seen that graph?
The Vostok ice core shows temperature rising and then leveling out 10000 years ago. It's called interglacial warming. What does that have to do with today? According to the glacial-interglacial cycle we should be slowly cooling now but instead we are warming more than 10 times faster than interglacial warming. Do you have any clue what you're talking about?

>Now we have the data and the developing nations ignore it after various treaties and agreements to try and diminish emissions
Almost nothing has actually been done. Clap yourself on the back. Saying X hasn't done something is not an excuse for you not do it, especially since you're failure to do it is the same exact excuse for X.

>Google "global warming" and tell me you don't find news or research that warns will fuck up Earth so badly it will be no different from a mass extinction.
We're already in a mass extinction. Now please explain who says the world will end as you originally claimed.

>>11819423
>who think creating a financial instrument that allows large companies to pollute MORE
How would carbon taxes allow companies to pollute more? Nothing is stopping them.

>>11819322
This is so vague. If you have an argument then give it.

>>11819552
>1 is the smallest of natural numbers
>1/10 of 1 seems really unsignificant to me, i mean it is smaller than one. it ought to be small
>therefore i conclude that arbitrary quantity in an arbitrary scale represented as 0.1 will have a minor effect without considering the scale of the problem

>>11819493
>The question is "how destructive will it really be?" Which isn't in the perview of scientists, like say, meteorologists, but rather in the hands of engineers and economists.
Incorrect.

>Also, there's some debate of how much human intervention really matters for climate change.
Not really.

>Throughout Earth's history it's "either been cooking off, or warming up" is a common axiom and if say, you arbitrarily say the earth naturally changes 1% per set period time naturally and with humans intervention it changes 3% per year
Wow those made up numbers sure do sound innocuous. Too bad the real numbers and effects are not.

>>11821667
Yuck

>>11819552
>0.1º per decade
>not rapid

>>11819578
The entire point is it's bad for human civilization. What do you think people care about?

>>11819650
This fails to respond to the fact that carbon emissions are the problem.

>>11819654
>The problem is the CO2 that is pumped into the atmosphere by people isn't absorbed by the planet.
So human emissions are the problem.

>>11819699
No, it's variations in insolation due to Earth's orbital eccentricity and obliquity that drive it.

>>11819683
so you argue that co2 emissions are not a problem without the humans i.e. carbon emissions from natural sources? I don't get why would you want to mention that. Everyone when talking about co2 emissions in that context means what human activity produce.

The planet goes through phases of heating and cooling. We should get off of fossil fuels for different reasons though and cutting down pollution is important too. Just a shame that the biggest polluters of the world are shithole countries like India and China who for some incomprehensible reason cannot see that they are lowering their own quality of life by polluting their water and their air.

>>11821245
If we’re removing the Jewish part of Christmas we need to go back to calling it Yule and celebrating on the 21st by dancing naked around a bonfire.

The chopping down trees and putting them in our living rooms and decorating them can stay tho it’s metal af desu I’m sure the pagans would have approved.

>>11817972
What you mean is that people deny that it started changing hundreds to thousands of times faster than it did anytime before the 1800s.

>>11821705
That's what kick starts the process, but the balance of CO2 exchange between the ocean and atmosphere is what ultimately controls the total CO2 in the atmosphere and therefore the temperature. There's some cool papers about what seeds the microbial life in charge of this in the southern Ocean like dust from South America.

>>11821647
Are you stupid mate the issue is not how taxes could solve it, they have been already implemented and the underlying issues are still there, growing. How have they helped? I ask you, how will MORE taxes help to fix this? The population and industries are still growing and emissions are still going up due that
They were supposedly going to help by discouraging both the general population and industries from wildly polluting and as an incentive to supersede fossil fuel based technologies towards cleaner energies.
>How can research in the funding stage go against a consensus? That would
t. never published anything
>And how is that relevant to us? Are we dinosaurs? You said we are in an interglacial as if that somehow implies we are not in an ice age.
Earth has have more time without icecaps that with them, that's what I was referring to with "geological reference". Mankind doesn't matter in a geological scale, if you haven't noticed.
>The Vostok ice core shows temperature rising and
So you haven't seen the Milankovitch cycle graphs superposed with temperatures, CO2, methane and other related stuff, right
>What do you mean?
>We're already in a mass extinction. Now please explain who says the
>Almost nothing has actually been done. Clap yourself on the back. Saying X hasn't
The current world will gonna end and nothing has been done. No technologies towards fixing the main issue, no halting or reduction of emissions, no new technologies to replace the old polluting ones, no plans that I know of to deal with the hundreds of millions of people that WILL move from coasts and ravaged lands.
You're really fucking stupid mate. You're defending a posture that has all the evidence they want to take actions, any actions, and the only thing they do is ask for more taxes because ???

>>11821747
>That's what kick starts the process
That's what "drive" literally means.

>>11821732
>The planet goes through phases of heating and cooling.
I lose and gain weight naturally, therefore obesity is fine.

>Just a shame that the biggest polluters of the world are shithole countries like India and China
Americans have way more unnecessary pollution, even if you ignore that much of China's is from making American crap.

>>11817171
>climate change denial

Nice strawman. Climate changes with or without humans, why should we care? Because someone made a career out of scaring people about it?

That applies to lots of supplement scammers and other conspiracy theorists too and everyone with a grain of common sense ignore those

>>11821806
>Are you stupid mate the issue is not how taxes could solve it
You claimed they wouldn't solve it. Now you're backtracking and trying to move the goalposts.

>they have been already implemented and the underlying issues are still there, growing.
They have been minimally implemented in a handful of countries in limited cases. But even those were successful in reducing emissions.

>I ask you, how will MORE taxes help to fix this?
By reducing emissions.

>The population and industries are still growing and emissions are still going up due that
Companies would be incentivized to grow without increasing emissions. At this point you're just arguing over what level taxes need to be implemented and not whether they are effective.

>t. never published anything
Incorrect and not an argument.

>Earth has have more time without icecaps that with them
That's great for Earth, but you're not Earth, you're an animal living on Earth.

>Mankind doesn't matter in a geological scale, if you haven't noticed.
Then geological scales don't matter to mankind.

>So you haven't seen the Milankovitch cycle graphs superposed with temperatures, CO2, methane and other related stuff, right
I have. Current warming is not only unexplained by Milankovitch cycles, it's competitive antithetical to them, both in timing and magnitude.

>The current world will gonna end and nothing has been done.
Because of people like you. We already have the technology, it's simply a matter of implementing it.

>You're defending a posture that has all the evidence they want to take actions, any actions, and the only thing they do is ask for more taxes because???
That's not the only thing they do. Your only argument is to misrepresent and lie. Be better.

>>11821857
>Climate changes with or without humans, why should we care?
Why should I care that you don't want to pay more for energy?

>Because someone made a career out of scaring people about it?
Indeed, people who have made a career out of scaring people about alternative energy and carbon taxes should be ignored.

>>11821806
>So you haven't seen the Milankovitch cycle graphs superposed with temperatures, CO2, methane and other related stuff, right
It's not like we're observing a deviation from the Milankovitch prescribed cooling and the climate is not following the natural forcings because of our extra ghg emissions right?

>>11821857
Humans die with or without murders so why should we care?

>>11821865
>Have they helped to solve this problem at all?
>Are you stupid mate the issue is not how taxes could solve it, they have been already implemented and the underlying issues are still there, growing. How have they helped?
How is this moving the goalpost? You're doing that by splitting each argument so the posts are increasingly annoying to deal with.
>They have been minimally implemented in a handful of co
Yes, diminishing <10% of carbon emissions in some areas when the world population grows >10% is an overall win
>Companies would be incentivized to grow without increasing emissions. At this point you're just arguing over what level taxes need to be implemented and not whether they are effective.
Amazing line of thought, seems >>11819423 was right after all
>Incorrect and not an argument.
If you have ever tried to publish something in a medium to high impact journal you'd know that if your conclusions go against a very sensitive topic they need to be really supported by something else or it gets rejected
>it's competitive antithetical to them, both in timing and magnitude.

>Because of people like you. We already have the technology, it's simply a matter of implementing it.
Hmm I wonder why these haven't been implemented, seeing as the clock is ticking for all humans...

>>11821870
Yeah there is a deviation from the expected measurements. Maybe it's a synergistic effect, I don't know.

>>11817762
> I find there are very little people who have the same opinion as me.
You have my ax

>>11821654
Not taxes, credits. The cap and trade scam.

>>11822011

Climate change cultists are a solution short bunch of people. They often fail to identify the real source of issues and would rally against any genuine solutions because they might be politically and socially inconvenient, or worse, functional.

Climate change cultism is a fashion statement for most of the people you discuss it with.

>>11822011
>How is this moving the goalpost?
Because you're original claim was "bandwagon from faggots who want more taxes that won't solve anything." Nice try shithead.

>You're doing that by splitting each argument so the posts are increasingly annoying to deal with.
How is that moving the goalposts? Quit whining that I actually respond to your claims instead of letting you worm away.

>Yes, diminishing <10% of carbon emissions in some areas when the world population grows >10% is an overall win
As opposed to nothing? Yes. Thanks for admitting carbon taxes work.

>Amazing line of thought, seems >>11819423 # was right after all
Wrong, see my response.

>If you have ever tried to publish something in a medium to high impact journal you'd know that if your conclusions
So now it's publishing and not funding? No, if anyone actually had evidence against AGW then it would immediately be published as it would save humanity a lot of trouble. You're confusing the delusional incompetence of deniers with censorship.

How are you still not understanding Milankovitch cycles? Interglacial warming ended 10000 years ago. It's right there in the graph you posted and I explained this to you in the my post.

>Hmm I wonder why these haven't been implemented, seeing as the clock is ticking for all humans...
Because of you.

>>11817762
>>11822280
>I find there are very little people who have the same opinion as me

>>11823228
I'm not going to waste more time with you because you the only reason you reply is to bump this thread with your nigger tier replies. I should've seen that coming and ignore you, now I've learned.
I don't even need to defend my position anymore but I'll do anyway, because you're a faggot and life taught people close to me that you never let your guard open from a faggot's attack.
>m: bandwagon from faggots who want more taxes that won't solve anything
Initial argument
>y: How would carbon taxes not solve anything? You're just against taxes so you deny they can ever solve anything.
>m: Have they helped to solve this problem at all?
Still my initial argument
>y: The scarce ones that have been implemented have, yes. But you're avoiding the question: How would carbon taxes not solve anything?
>m: Are you stupid mate the issue is not how taxes could solve it, they have been already implemented and the underlying issues are still there, growing. How have they helped? I ask you, how will MORE taxes help to fix this? The population and industries are still growing and emissions are still going up due that. They were supposedly going to help by discouraging both the general population and industries from wildly polluting and as an incentive to supersede fossil fuel based technologies towards cleaner energies.
I answered your question here and after explaining it you still didn't see the underlying issue for my argument
>y: You claimed they wouldn't solve it. Now you're backtracking and trying to move the goalposts.
>m: How is this moving the goalpost? You're doing that by splitting each argument so the posts are increasingly annoying to deal with.
>y: Because you're original claim was "bandwagon from faggots who want more taxes that won't solve anything." Nice try shithead.

>>11822583
I haven't said anything about cap and trade. Nice strawman.

>>11823323
>I answered your question here and after explaining it you still didn't see the underlying issue for my argument
No, you failed to explain how carbon taxes wouldn't solve the problem and then tried to move the goalposts to they haven't solved the problem, which is also a bunch of bullshit because they have barely been implemented at all.

>>11817171
Climate change is a massive cope. The planet doesn't need saving, it's just a cope trying to trick people into sustaining our current society. Which I have a problem with.

>>11823696
Honk honk

>>11823671
You don't get what a strawman is. My whole point is that cap and trade mathematically produces more pollution. If you agree with me, great, we agree. If you don't, why?

>>11823703
Saying that I take a position I don't take is certainly a strawman. Or would you just prefer lying?

American liberals have turned climate change into a joke.

Look at carbon tax cuck here.
>>11818213 Retards like this have to disappear or no one is going to start taking this issue seriously

>>11823727
I was replying to your strawman about taxes. Me, I never said anything about taxes. I only criticized the idea of a financial exchange that lets people in a certain social circle pollute more. The idea is ridiculous, and the fact that many people (including you?) support this idea (in good faith?) is confirmation that climate change ideas are driven by politicians and idiots rather than scientists.

>>11823767
>I was replying to your strawman about taxes.
You mean me assuming that you were not lying about my position? That's called arguing in good faith. And no, you made the strawman before I said that, so it can't be a response to what I said. Try again retard.

At this point I don't think there are many who deny that the world is currently in a warming period, it's just that a lot of people don't buy the hysteria or attempts to shoehorn socialism by proxy.

>>11824265
what about national socialism?

>>11824267

What about it?

>>11824214
Absolute gibberish.

>>11823696
https://youtu.be/Mc_4Z1oiXhY?t=48m40s
tropical: lat 0 - 23.5°
subtropical: lat 23.5° - 40°
temperate: lat 40° - 65°

>>11824678

>>11824779