/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11836232
Climate change is going to fuck over billions of people but if you live in the Northern Hemisphere (and New Zealand), chances are it won't be THAT bad. Some forecasts even think Russia's GDP will increase because of climate change. But yeah, India, China and the whole Asian region is giga fucked.

>>11836232

Are you a student or science fanboi?

>>11836232
no one denies climatic change, the dispute is over tyhe causes and propsed "totalitarian" solutions that don't actually solve anything also why the fuck aren't they going after China considering it's the main polluter? this bias is obviously politically driven.

>>11836282
>why the fuck aren't they going after China
China is already doing its job you fucking polfag. The US actually pollutes more than China per capita.

>>11836282
C02 is a greenhouse gas
We put thousands of extra tons of it into the air every day
There is no doubt we are a big part of the problem unless you deny scientific fact

>>11836291

>China is doing it's job

...said nobody, ever.

>>11836291
>China's doing its job.
You're either drunk or retarded.

>All levels are based on average of the top 10 most polluted cities in each country.
This is like making an obesity infographic based on the 10 heaviest people in each country.

>>11836291
>per capita
kek

>>11836232
>Data source: World Health Organization

>>11836388
Yes. Oh wait you expected a industrial country with 4 times the US population to pollute les than the US? Is your IQ in the range of 50-60?

>>11836309
China is working towards reducing its gas emissions harder than the US

>>11836407

I won't insult your intelligence by suggesting you actually believe what you just said

Climate change is a gay meme, but pollution is an actual fucking problem

>>11836407
>believing xinnie the pooh
Lol. China's whole economy is based on international companies arbitraging sewer-tier environmental laws (and slave labor) to ship massive cargo ships of generic industrial parts all around the world to countries with better environmental laws.

>>11836421
Name one country with a larger renewable energy capacity

>>11836407
>Alcoholic is trying harder at reducing his beer consumption than Rev. Bob who has one drink a week
Wow, impressive.

>>11836455
>US emits more per capita
>China is the alcoholic
What kind of mental gymnastics is this?

>>11836403
No. Of course China pollutes more overall but when compared using per capita metric the US pollutes more. China bad.

>>11836459
How many planets are there per capita?

>>11836548
Infinite, as far as we can tell. Was that supposed to be clever?

>>11836546
It's sad that your talking points come from a poorly written script. Here's a freebie for you. If you want to make China look less bad, take a hint from >>11836445 to then credit the pollution from the manufacture of items exported to the country it is exported to. But your script only has "per capita" on it so you neither understand why that's such a crude metric in this context or what demand flows cause.
Countries importing goods should get a complete accounting for the pollution caused by their imported goods and pass laws that require the exporters to abide by the pollution standards of the importer. But that would implode China's economy so you can't support that solution.

>>11836563
>If you want to make China look less bad
nope

It's an old pattern
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3e-v8RiW_Bc

>>11836232
>US least polluting country
obviously not a political propaganda poster at all

>>11836563
also, "script" kek
in agreement with that desu

>>11836309
China and India are doing more than US in green energy tech and reducing number of coal plants

>>11836232
What a shitty propaganda poster.. Nepal is more polluted than US? Lmao

>>11836607
>can't even figure out how to incorporate the article "the" in a sentence

>>11836607
Nepal’s a tiny country and Katmandu is a real shithole in the winter thanks to polluting heating methods and the surrounding mountains. It’s basically Salt Lake’s inversion problem but in most of the country.

>>11836403
Can we also go per capita of car owners of the 2 countries? You know, like half of them are literal fucking medieval farmers.

>>11836563
>credit the pollution from the manufacture of items exported to the country it is exported to
He can't, because as >>11836445 I would agree with that new script enthusiastically, and amplify it into the only political answer to climate change that might actually help: tariff the arbitrage on interchangeable parts. Which would of course collapse Xinnie's tower of cards, so Xinnie will never add that to the script.

The global exchange of culture and geographically unique arts, crafts, and argiculture is a blessing. Shipping fucking toasters and screws around the world should be a human rights violation.

>>11836232
>considers 'denier' a category
>confuses global warming and pollution
>thinks she will live 100 years more
the intellectual state

>>11836603

China and India have both permitted and started building an additional ~300 new plants. USA has zero new plants permitted or planned.

Not to mention cement plants for roads and buildings.


The numbers are clear.
Divide coal plants/M ppl;

China 2.12
USA 1.7

Sorry, you're wrong.

>>11836448

Meaningless parameter. Chinese renewable is hydro. The amount of land use and cement required for their hydro is worth investigating.

>>11836563

Your moral equivalence re environmental damage is disgusting

>>11836459
Clearly the problem is Stacy's prius and not Xi's mountain of coal burning every day to power factories.

>>11836788
You can't reply to my posts, because I'm Xinnie's kryptonite.

>>11836775
It’s almost as if US has already industrialized in the last 150 years and now just has to add additional plants to fulfill demand while China and India are catching up to 100-150 years of colonialism, war and poverty

sub 60 iq retards like you shouldn’t be on 4chan tbqh

>>11836969
No actually, India's quality of life actually declined after the brits left who literally introduced many of the technologies, legal and economic reforms that facilitated India's development and china was fucked up by a literal communist dictatorship.
both of which are strong arguments for free market policies

>>11836986
Mate, the British did permanent lasting damage in the Indian subcontinent by drawing up bullshit borders and segregating people based on religion. For example, the Durand line (Afghanistan-Pakistan) should never have been done. Kashmir was just a free for all. The India-China border was never clearly defined. Bangladesh literally survived a genocide when Pakistan tried to force Urdu on them. Millions of Hindus from Pakistan and Muslims from India migrated to each other countries in levels never seen before in human history.

>>11837060
I agree that the partition was a shit idea. I don't defend it, but the subsequent 60 years of socialist policies fucked them over.

>>11837069
Oh yeah. But I'd argue that socialist policies (which are highly driven by nationalism) are facilitated by wars/border disputes. Just today I read a FT article about how India was limiting Chinese FDI and holding up goods at checkpoints because of their border dispute.

I can't think of a country at war that didn't engage in socialist/protectionist policies desu.

>>11837091
>I can't think of a country at war that didn't engage in socialist/protectionist policies
Is that a threat? Let billionaires control the lives of everyone in every corner of the world, or else you and John Bolton will carpet bomb us?

>>11836248
And that’s a good thing.

>>11836297
It’s a following indicator, you complete twerp.

>>11836595
That's because they dump it in Malaysia.

good thing ill be dead by then.

make sure they bury me with my ass out so you can kiss it goodbye

>>11836407
nice try zhang

>>11836232
What the fuck, Peru?! What the hell is going on with you?

>>11836792
Do you understand what "per capita" means? The average Chinese citizen emits less CO2 than the average US citizen. "Stacy's Prius" isn't enough to tip the average in favor of the US. Stop pretending that the US isn't one of the largest contributors to global warming. If you want to be better than China then you have to actually be better than China.

>>11837328
That's exactly what happens lol. Open up your fucking markets or we'll bomb you. Let Anglo-American companies dominate your market otherwise we'll fuck you up.

>>11838158
Have you been to Lima? The air quality is atrocious. If there was data available for Bolivia I'm sure you'd see a similar trend.

Also, this representation of the data is far from ideal, as it does not include environmental impact beyond city air particulates. If you were to include the environmental damage caused by mining industries in Australia, for example, it'd be a very different situation.

As an afterthought, it seems like Cameroon and Uganda would have been better off not reporting their data.

>>11836309
While far, far, far from perfect, China is actually gearing toward sustainables with a reasonably sound plan, and if you visit Beijing airport for example, there are considerable government funded advertisements promoting clean environmental practises. They are shifting, but it's a nice scapegoat for us 'western' countries to point to as an excuse for not improving our own game.

>>11836291
>>why the fuck aren't they going after China
>China is already doing its job you fucking polfag. The US actually pollutes more than China per capita.
can someone pill me on this shit?
i remember for years and years hearing china is evil and terrible and the worst ever, and then just like 18months ago, all over the fuckiing internet and media i keep reading "china is doing great" "china is leader in non polution" "china is good"

wat?

>>11836232

>>11838525
everyone accuses china of shitty products, abusive labor an polluting factories but us americans (rich people) are the ones consuming all their cheap plastic convience shit.

okay okay so yeah filipines and a bunch of other shitland countries are also wasting a fuck ton of plastic, but not as much as we can afford to waste

>>11836232
Nobody with two braincells denies climate change. Climate is perpetually changing, the debate is about the causes and proposed solutions.
For me there are two criteria until I believe a person has genuine concern over man made climate change:
- He supports nuclear power, at least in so far as not shutting down working powerplants until alternative solutions are secured
- He supports measured against overpopulation, the most obvious are, a stop to foreign aid and a stop to migration into Europe, where we would have a falling population without immigration

If you do not support the above you are not concerned about climate change. You are an idiot on a bandwagon who likes to screech but doesn't care about solutions.

>>11836603
By the way. Germany is starting to rebuild coal plants.
They shut down nuclear, realized that they lack energy and now are building coal plants.

The green party here has probably done more damage to the environment than all other parties. Truly hilarious.

>>11838529
Climate change has become just a topic for international politics, developed countries blaming the developing, and the other way around. Really easy to blame china as it's total emissions is the highest, but just as easy to ignore its population.

Developed countries who don't have priorities need to take major steps towards fixing climate change so developing countries can follow

>>11838559
Developing countries have EVERY incentive not to follow developed countries.
Literally the only way to stop their pollution is by military intervention.

Industry is an arms race, while developed country can afford some setbacks developing nation's can not.

>>11836603
Bullshit, fucking 50 cents army.

>>11838546
>- He supports measured against overpopulation, the most obvious are, a stop to foreign aid and a stop to migration into Europe, where we would have a falling population without immigration
Overpopulation is a meme. Yes, places like New York, London and Tokyo are overpopulated. But places like Wyoming and Scotland have barely anyone living there and could support 10x as many people. And food is not an issue anymore, in fact the US alone wastes billions of tons of food every year.

>>11838574
What???
There is a DIRECT connection between the amount of people and the CO2 produced.
CO2 is released in the creation and transportation of goods, the more people there are the more goods will be produced and transported.

I have no doubt that we *could* sustain many more population doublings purely on food and space, but if you are deeply afraid of man made climate change then overpopulation is the single biggest issue.

Africa's population will skyrocket in the next decades and with it there will be a great increase in industry there. If you care about man made climate change that is an absolute horror scenario.

>>11838546
Cutting off immigration to Europe would not curb overpopulation. In fact it’s the opposite. Immigration to Europe helps to alleviate the problem of overpopulation.

No country is an island, you can’t just keep everyone out and stabilize your own population and say you’re done. Overpopulation is a global issue. One way to deal with it’s effects is to attempt to reduce birth rates to a sustainable level. Another is to shift millions of people from higher to lower population regions to deal with the symptoms of the problem while the longer term solutions take effect.

You’re not some altruist wanting what’s best for the world, you’re just a fucking racist using a paper thin excuse of concern for global issues to justify your xenophobia and selfishness

>>11838590
The people coming into Europe are the excess population of Arab and African countries.
Letting them in increases the population in both countries, as the origin countries do not feel the effects of their high birth rates.
You have made no argument against this and you will not be able to since it is literally common sense.

>Another is to shift millions of people from higher to lower population regions to deal with the symptoms of the problem while the longer term solutions take effect.
Immigrants into Europe produce more CO2.

>One way to deal with it’s effects is to attempt to reduce birth rates to a sustainable level.
Many European countries would have those without immigration. With immigration both the origin and destination have higher birth rates.
You do not care about climate change, you just hate white people.

>>11838590
>. In fact it’s the opposite. Immigration to Europe helps to alleviate the problem of overpopulation.

That's straight up wrong, african and middle eastern immigration is a drop in the ocean compared to their demographic growth yet it still worsens the situation in Europe and increases pollution.

Same thing for the US:
>https://youtube.com/watch?v=FlVMW7g5QBI

The only thing it contributes to is short term consooming but at the expenses of the future climatic and social situation.

>>11838590
You're a genocidal maniac and a pollution denier.

>>11838600
>Letting them in increases the population in both countries, as the origin countries do not feel the effects of their high birth rates.
You’ve got it backwards, anon. High local population doesn’t lead to lower birth rates, that’s why the countries with higher birth rates tend to also already be more highly populated than those with less.

Instead birth rates are more a product of society, economic conditions and culture. Removing people from a developing country where having more children is likely to result in a positive payoff, and moving them to a more developed country where there is more individual opportunity and having children is a huge expense will reduce net birth rates.

You’re talking about fixing the overpopulation in your country by making it worse in others. That’s not solving the problem, it should be obvious why.

> With immigration both the origin and destination have higher birth rates.
Once again, only relative to your European country. The global population as a whole has a lower net birth rate.

> Immigrants into Europe produce more CO2
The only valid point you’ve made, yet in theory if the European countries are able to transition more quickly to renewable energy while the developing countries expand dirty power capacity it’s still a long term gain.

And, “immigrants shouldn’t be allowed to live here because they’ll use the same amount of resources as us and we use way too much and don’t want to have to use less” is not a good sell with voters

>>11838623
Immigration doesn't solve shit in the country of origin dumbass.

>During the period of 2000–2005, an estimated 440,000 people per year emigrated from Africa. The figure of 0.44 million African emigrants per year (corresponding to about 0.05% of the continent's total population) pales in comparison to the annual population growth of about 2.6%, indicating that only about 2% of Africa's population growth is compensated for by emigration.[2]

2% OF AFRICA'S POPULATION GROWTH IS COMPENSATED BY IMMIGRATION

NOW SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU WHITE HATING WALKING PIECE OF GARBAGE

>nigs migrate to Europe and America
>even if they get a bit westernised they stop having so many kids

problem solved, we need to make double sure to clamp down on religion though, none of that leftist islam dicksucking which is about the stupidest thing I've seen happen

> you can’t just keep everyone out and stabilize your own population and say you’re done.

>>11838623
>High local population doesn’t lead to lower birth rates
This is obviously false. The correlation is obviously there, look at e.g. the trend if India's birth rates and there is a clear mechanism by which higher population causes lower birth rates.

>that’s why the countries with higher birth rates tend to also already be more highly populated than those with less.
Countries where people reproduce more have more people!!!!!!!!! Shocking.

>and moving them to a more developed country where there is more individual opportunity and having children is a huge expense will reduce net birth rates.
This is insane. Please read again what you wrote.
This DOES NOT SOLVE the high birth rates in the origin countries AT ALL.

>if the European countries are able to transition more quickly to renewable energy while
Germany is building coal power plants again.

>And, “immigrants shouldn’t be allowed to live here because they’ll use the same amount of resources as us and we use way too much and don’t want to have to use less” is not a good sell with voters
Because the voters do not care about climate change.
The green party in Germany has done the greatest harm to the environment.

>>11838645
>You just need to accept tens millions of dead weight 85 IQ joggers every year
Cool it down with the loxism Moshe

>>11838645
>problem solved
Not at all. You just have more consumers in Europe.
The lower birth rates HAVE to be established in Africa, which is set for a population explosion in the near future.

It is literally irrelevant if a few Africans move to Europe and have lower birth rates, except for them causing the population of European countries, which produce far more co2 to not decline.

This isn't rocket science, just think for a second.

>>11838662
He doesn't care, he just hates white people. He knows he is dishonest.

>>11838668
>he just hates white people
im from a slavic country that is 99% white. Maybe an american retard shouldn't offer us oppinions on how we run Europe, you've already fucked your continent up to its breaking point.

>>11838678
>implying I'm american
>implying you're not a kike

I don't understand why they're all anti-white? whites are literally the reason they're able to live such nice lives nowadays?
in the past everyone was enslaving each other and starting perpetual wars.
look at the black americans, they want whitey out of their lives but want all of whiteys stuff like safe neighbourhoods or technological advances. how do they reconcile their cognitive dissonance?

>>11836282
Dude US pollutes about twice as much on a per capita basis. Stop blaming others and get your shit together

>>11838950
>per capita basis
Note this one simple trick to debunk the current script:
Xinnie and his closest 100 friends have a carbon footprint which is thousands (if not millions) of times larger than the USA's on a per capita basis.

Therefore, the first step toward solving our per capita problem is revolution on Jade Spring Hill and a firing squad.

>>11836232
Is the WHO racist for that color scheme?

>>11838986
>Imagine being this retarded
Graduate and then get back to us

>>11838995
Imagine using the per capita script without thinking through what per capita means, then getting so embarrassed you start blurting out more nonsense about graduation.

>>11838986
>Xinnie and his closest 100 friends have a carbon footprint which is thousands (if not millions) of times larger than the USA's on a per capita basis.
And how do you think Donny compares? I wonder what the damage is of all those golfing trips with the insane entourage of chefs, cars and security?

>>11839014
Probably even worse on a per capita basis.

>>11839013
Wew, lad. I didn't think you genuinely needed someone to explain to you that when you divide the total contribution of a population by a factor of that population the resulting number is proportional to the average output of each member of that population.

Did you want to form some sort of argument about why the total emissions of an arbitrary geographical area are more important than the contributions of individuals, or do you just want to keep screeching autistically?

>>11839031
>the contributions of individuals
You're so dumb that you just agreed with me in a post where you were trying to disagree.

>>11839065
>Imagine being so retarded that you don't know what per capita means even after having it explained to you

>>11839078
I don’t have to imagine it, you’re acting it out for me in real time.

>>11839106
Here, bro. This should help you understand. They use lots of small words so you should be able to understand. Let me know if you have any questions.

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

>>11839111
It’s cute how you keep agreeing with me.

>>11836232

I wish man made climate change would be true.
More CO2 plants grow faster, warmer conditions, plants grow faster.

Who cares if Venice and New York gets flooded, if millions and millions of hectare of land gets habitable. All of Greenland, Antarctica, Siberia The big desserts in Australia, Sahara maybe get pushed back cause more heat, more air solved water, more rain. Who cares fucking New York if the land we can gain is maybe as big as all of Asia?


I want to be honest with your, because man made climate chance doesn't exist we need to invent it to terraform terra.

It is so egoistic of cost towns, to denie humanity a fertile Land the size of Asia.
Also if we could really chance climate it would be such a slow progress that there would be enough time for coastal towns to slowly migrate inland.

This is so egoistic, fuck New York, fuck Venice.

>>11839123
Bruh, you might actually be retarded. You're entire argument is that the US contributes less to emissions overall, but nearly double on a per capita basis and that somehow means that the US is doing more to halt it's emissions. At this point I genuinely hope you're trolling, and if you're not then please go back to school.

>>11838546

This.

>>11839135
>retarded. You're
What a charming juxtaposition.

No, my argument is literally >>11838986

>Xinnie and his closest 100 friends have a carbon footprint which is thousands (if not millions) of times larger than the USA's on a per capita basis.

>Therefore, the first step toward solving our per capita problem is revolution on Jade Spring Hill and a firing squad.

Meanwhile, you keep agreeing with me over and over again about the definition of per capita.

>>11838986

>Xinnie and his closest 100 friends have a carbon footprint which is thousands (if not millions) of times larger than the USA's on a per capita basis.

What? Thats wrong, Xinnie's per capita footprint is lower than the US.

>>11839164
Maybe you can get the other guy who loves explaining what per capita means to help you out with this.

>>11839157
>When your best argument is a typo
You have no data to support your position. What exactly is the total emissions for "Xinnie and his closest 100 friends"? Do you think it's the entirety of China's emissions? Do you think that dividing by the population is going to somehow inflate that figure?

I'm trying to figure out where your misunderstanding is so you don't embarrass yourself in the future.

>>11839132
Ok guys, Metal foil mirrors in space focused on The best black body we have, water. The best location would be around Greenland i guess. Or on already very warm oceans like Indian-ocean. The idea is that water vapor is a much better greenhouse gas as CO2. To get an grip on this effect. You need to evaporate water (Indian ocean) or melt ice to increase the total surface area from which water can evaporate.

For New York, they just dont give any building licence for coastal buildings, just for inland directed structures.

Problem solved it will take anyway hundreds of years.

What are you guys even arguing about here? That country leaders or elites have a higher consumption and CO2 footprint than the average joe? Thats obviously true, but it will always be true unless we turn to perfect egalitarianism (communism), which is impossible. I dont see how bickering about such trivial things is productive.

Per capita emissions is what matters. A few outliers dont change the general statistical picture.

>>11839179
Xinnie and his 100 closest friends. The total emissions of those 101 people divided by 101 is the per capita footprint of that group of people.

Aren't you supposed to be the resident per capita expert?

>>11839192
>Per capita emissions is what matters.
Brainlet take. If that's true, the solution would be to kill everyone who uses a private jet.

>>11839195
Wew, lad. Let me try it slower and louder:

WHAT
IS
THAT
NUMBER
EXACTLY?

>per capita footprint of that group of people
And what do you think that means? If "Xinnie and his closest 100 friends" emit x units of emissions, and y is the emissions per capita of "Xinnie and his closest 100 friends" then what equation do you believe captures this relationship?

>>11839198

>If that's true, the solution would be to kill everyone who uses a private jet.

Nope, that does not follow at all.

>>11839202
All you really need to know is the fact that they fly around on private jets. Everything else is little o to that.

>>11839198

>the solution would be to kill everyone who uses a private jet.

Not kill, but use of private jets should definitely be discouraged compared to greener transport options. At least until we develop carbon neutral jet fuels.

>>11839209
It follows from "Per capita emissions is what matters." If that's what matters, just kill off the worst per capita offenders.

>>11839217

Congratulations, you now simply have a new group of "worst per capita offenders".

The only true solution is developing carbon-neutral alternatives.

>>11839213
So you have no data and you aren't comfortable enough with your understanding of a per capita basis to define the relationship. I can't say I'm surprised.

>>11836248
>But yeah, India, China and the whole Asian region is giga fucked.
Sweet Justice!

>>11839222
Correct, which is why analyzing per capita independent of group size is nonsense.

>>11839235
Per capita IS independent of group size. That's why it's "per capita"

>>11839229
You are now arguing that a person who uses a private jet might have a smaller per capita footprint that the USA, on the grounds that there's no available data. Peak retard.

>>11839242
I'm not arguing anything. I'm pointing out that you're speaking out of your ass on a subject you don't understand

>>11839240
But the net effect of per capita isn't.

>>11839244
>I'm not arguing anything.
I agree with your description of your posting history in this thread.

>>11839246
The net effect of a per capita figure is still a per capita figure so you're still wrong.

>>11839253
>Maximum damage control
Answer this question correctly and I'll concede so you can add another tally to "internet arguments won"

If "Xinnie and his closest 100 friends" emit x units of emissions, and y is the emissions per capita of "Xinnie and his closest 100 friends" then what equation do you believe captures this relationship?

>>11839265
>The net effect of a per capita figure is still a per capita figure
Lol what? To get the net effect of per capita with respect to group size you literally reverse the per capita division back out into a group total.

>>11839288
No, the "net effect of per capita" would be the effect that each individual has. Do you mean to say that the overall contribution of each country is what matters?

>>11839271
Already did, retard. >>11839195
Now post more wikipedia articles agreeing with me while captioning it with more nonsense.

>>11836232
>Source: WHO
Whatever you say

>>11839296
This is what you seem to be disagreeing with >>11839235
?

>>11839306
That's not a relationship, anon, but close enough. I'm glad you learned something today

>>11836248
If you put into account the migration waves it might be bad for everyone, unless you live in a country that actually cares for their own citizens over foreigners.

>>11839313
It's a nonsense statement. I'm trying to figure out what you meant to say

>>11839317
>I agree with you but I have a big brain so I have to keep posting nonsense.

>>11839335
Sure, kid. Did you mark your tally yet?

>>11839325
If you have 2 groups and the only value you know is per capita, how do you propose to calculate the net effect?

>>11839340
Keep dancing for me, you're cute.

>>11839352
You don't. Just like you don't compare the effects of individuals using the overall total. So to clarify, you believe that the US is doing more to reduce it's emissions than China because the overall total of China's emissions is greater than the overall tot of US emissions?

>>11839359
>He doesn't know that I'm every poster in this thread
We're certainly dancing

>>11839366
No, I'm just debunking the stupid meme script in this thread, that analyzing at per capita independent of group size has any logical or practical value whatsoever.

>>11836969
>china good! their per capita emissions are lower than the US!
>give china a break! they should be allowed to catch up until their per capita emissions are equal that of a western country!
Oh no no no!

>>11839369
Wait until it dawns on you that you're every poster in every thread.

>>11839380
>that analyzing at per capita independent of group size has any logical or practical value whatsoever
That's nonsense. Per capita is independent of group size by definition. Would you like to try again?

>>11839389
Look in my mirror

>>11836232
>we're going to deal with during thr next 100 years.
While Climate Change is definitely real their is no way it will be worse then COVID-19, besides most issues caused by it will be solved by geoengineering and carbon capture.

>>11836232

What do you think about statisticians who argue against climate change as something caused by humans as opposed to just a natural phase in the cycle of the planet because the amount of data humans have gathered on the climate spans something like 70 years which is a totally insignificant amount of time in terms of our planet?

>>11839418
Nope, the net effect isn't. If you have a group of 10 people and a group of 1000 people, and both groups have the same per capita emissions, the group of 1000 has 100 times the net effect as the group of 10.

>>11839481
That means that per capita figure is independent of population. Congratulations on having no idea what you're talking about.

>>11839502
>population isn't a group size
I think you finally beat out the other guy for biggest brain in the thread.

>>11836232
And I hope you have any knowledge whatsoever of the industries that cause it and their evolution over time, but I'll assume you don't considering your 100 year prediction.

Protip: electric motors trump combustion in a growing number of use cases, agriculture, transportation, industry are all affected by this, accounting for over 50% of global emissions

it's not even about saving our climate, it's a matter of simple economics, but i'll take it either way

>>11839516
You don't know what "independent" means, do you?

>>11839596
Go ahead and post the wikipedia link for that, too, genius.

But what we're waiting for right now is your groundbreaking argument for how analyzing per capita independent of group size can give us any indication of net effect.

>>11839682
>Imagine being this retarded
No, what we're waiting for is your explanation of how those variables are dependant.

Protip: they aren't

>>11839695
No, only a retard would be waiting for that.
What we're waiting for is your explanation of how analyzing the first variable independent of the second variable tells us anything about net effect.

>>11839715
>What we're waiting for is your explanation of how analyzing the first variable independent of the second variable tells us anything about net effect.
No, that would mean they're dependant. What we're waiting on is for you to either prove your claims that they're independent or to stop spewing gibberish.

>>11839756
>they're independent
They're not independent*

>>11839756
Do you want to delete that nonsense and try writing it again? I'll give you a do over.

>>11839772
>Imagine being this retarded
I genuinely didn't think I needed to link you to the Wikipedia article, but you have clearly demonstrated that you don't understand even the most basic terms.

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

You're claiming that the variables are not independent. You're wrong by definition. What more do you need?

>>11839790
>You're claiming that the variables are not independent.
Lol what? Are you actually retarded? This is the sentence we're talking about:
>>11839235
>Correct, which is why analyzing per capita independent of group size is nonsense.

How could your brain possibly read that and come to the conclusion that it's a "claiming that the variables are not independent"?

>>11836232
If we let global warming melt all the ice we can have more land. Problem is currently populated land will become too hot to be habitable. I think the land gained would be a profit though.

>>11839801
Because you make the claim that "per capita [being] independent of group size is nonsense" despite the fact that they ARE independent. You're speaking gibberish because you don't understand the words you're using.

is the drop in particulate a cause of the current high rainfall, and massive chinese floods that potentially threaten the three gorges dam collapsing?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/13/drop-in-pollution-may-bring-hotter-weather-and-heavier-monsoons

>>11839875
Notice that you're literally hallucinating a word into the quote, and then blaming me for your own hallucination. This is some of the funniest shit I've ever seen.

>>11839897
Alright

>"per capita independent [sic] of group size is nonsense"

It's still a nonsense statement by definition.

>>11839936
That's not the quote either.
Notice how you also have to keep clipping out the "analyzing," so you can pretend to yourself that the statement is
>per capita independent of group size is nonsense
instead of
>analyzing per capita independent of group size is nonsense
which is the actual quote.

Any other fun hallucinations you'd like to share?

>>11839978
Alright

>"analyzing per capita independent of group size is nonsense"

Is still a nonsense statement. You've had ample opportunity to justify or prove your statement and you either can't or won't. It's gibberish.

>>11839997
I already did, and I think you even agreed. The only thing you seem to be disagreeing with at this point are your own weird hallucinations, where you either pretend a word that isn't there is, or pretend a word that is there isn't.

If you have per capita value of 10, and you try to analyze it independent of group size, it doesn't tell you anything about the net effect.

>>11840026
No, buddy, you didn't. Here, let me help you

Total = T
Population = P
Total per capita = C = T/P
T = C*P = T/P*P = T*1

Holy shit, total equals total times 1? How'd that happen? I guess variables T and C are independent of each other and you have no idea what you're talking about.

>>11840040
>I guess variables T and C are independent of each other
No one disagrees with this, except for you and your own hallucinations, where you see words that don't exist and don't see words that do.

You're literally having an argument with something you hallucinated. Fucking lol.

when china exports their shitty polluting products, how much of the "emissions" is blamed on them even though we are the ones consuming a lot of their products? do these statistics take into account exports being consuming in different countries?

>>11840076
Buddy, YOU disagree with it. That's what that sentence says and that's why I said you don't know what you're talking about. The fact that you don't understand what your sentence only reinforces that.

>>11839235
I don't think you know what "per capita" means

I am a Swede, and although I don't necessarily doubt the other pollution level data, I would like to point out that our country lies about pretty much everything. Please disregard Sweden's spot on the line, we just heavily prefer ground pollution over air pollution.

>>11840113
>do these statistics take into account exports being consuming in different countries?
Yeah it's called per capita consumption

>>11840122
Nope, only you do.

What I think
>>11839235
>analyzing per capita independent of group size is nonsense

What you think (lmao)
>>11839875
>per capita [being] independent of group size is nonsense
>>11839936
>per capita independent [sic] of group size is nonsense"

I've never seen anyone beat themselves up in public for so long without passing out. You should get a job as a clown.

>>11840157
Wanna post some more of your wikipedia articles again, Jimmy?

>>11840169
haha you don't know what "per capita" means you dumb faggot

>>11840179
!

>>11840159
>Yeah it's called per capita consumption
so when the 'world emissions organiztion' calculates america's emissions does that mean they count emissions produced by polluting factories abroad as america's own emissions since we are the ones consuming the product?

>>11840182
I hope somebody kills you with a brick lol who let you use the internet

>>11840186
No, only their consumption of said products

>>11840189
Don't hope, just hallucinate it. Same thing, right?

>>11840165
How many people need to tell you that you're wrong before you get it?

>>11840213
2

>>11840216
We're well past that

>>11840233
>anonymous posts telling me that a literal hallucination is wrong
Keep dreaming, sparky

>>11840271
Hallucinations are wrong. That's why they're called hallucinations. Do you need some meds?

>>11840290
>Hallucinations are wrong.
Wow, you think?

>>11840296
Yes, that's why I suggested you get medication. There are pills that can make the hallucinations go away.

>>11840333
Sorry to break it to you, but your pills clearly aren't working.

>>11840342
You're the one talking about hallucinations. You should talk with your doctor instead of shitposting about your mental illness on /sci/

>>11840358
I am your doctor. Your parents pay me for this.

>>11838590
>No country is an island

>>11838843
>how do they reconcile their cognitive dissonance?

The same way polfags argue whites made non-white lives better with technological advancements while ignoring all the non-white lives lost in the process due to whites.

>>11838843
>Sure we might have gotten a lot of you killed but look at these cool cars we made

>>11839466
>the amount of data humans have gathered on the climate spans something like 70 years which is a totally insignificant amount of time in terms of our planet?
This is a blatant lie.

>>11836232
>going to deal with during thr next 100 years.
Your whining for 100 years? Sounds tiresome, better get a loud diesel generator to hear the pure of civilization instead

>>11840927
>of you
hilarious how there’s no difference between /pol/ and /leftypol/ in terms of their reactionary fetishization of race as identity. i’m almost positive it’s the same retards on both sides just pretending to fight

>>11836232
>GDP growth +60%
>food production +30%
>no more cold winters
>less spending on heating
>less deaths from cold and car crashes on icy roads
I think we will be fine

>>11840990
Nothing on your list is correct

>>11840990
less death or fewer deaths, not less deaths

>>11840968
What are you talking about?

>>11840999
you are right, it’s +88% GDP not +60%

>>11840999
>Nothing on your list is correct
I am afraid it is doomonger

>>11841023
>Based on how GDP growth rates are affected by temperature
>still a 51% chance world GDP drops more than 20%
Literal tarot reading

>>11841053
>2030's
You're cute

>>11836282
US does more per person. China and India just have a lot of people.

>>11841107
if you're arguing that we should proactively cut the populations of china and india down to 1% of their current levels, i completely agree but you'll have a hard time selling that geopolitically

>>11840938
I suppose it's importantly to say good data instead of just data. Some temperature predictions or wave heights by some bumfuck nobody trader shipping goods from port to port isn't actually valuable data when talkin about climate change. The general estimates I've seen for the amount of time humans have good data on the weather, for example measured with thermometers that are still at least somewhat accurate by today's standards, is something like a 100 years.

>>11836232
How about a third option where I don't give a fuck?

the Arctic is literally melting away now

>>11842208
the polar bears and the ice bergs are both literally anorexic

>>11841951
Anyone who mentions per capita emissions is unlikely to be a proponent of genocide.
Learn to read the room

>>11843062
Why are we focused on increasing the number of people with high per capita emissions?

>>11836232
good, mankind has got to die
the joke is too far now

>>11843086
If "we" means /pol/ then
>more whites = good, fuck the climate

>>11843062
Oh you think? Watch this.
>import millions of overpopulated Africans into high per capita emission countries
>let them die in the low per capita emission countries they've outgrown.
Pro-genocide, mentions emissions.

>>11843141
>>let them die in the low per capita emission countries they've outgrown.
Not realistic. Would need a healthy amount of french military interventions to destroy their countries every now and then.

>>11843162
When will white boomers start petitioning the UN for slavery reparations? They built the entire Nigerian economy through one simple email trick, and yet have no stake in the country's success.

>>11836248
I secretly hope this is the case.

>>11838529
Western countries exported all their polluting heavy industry to China which makes western numbers look better and Chinese numbers look worse.

>>11843203
>whites
>ever building anyone's economy

>>11843291
Oh I'm stupid, I forgot the Nigerian prince emails.

>>11843283
true, which is why the paris accord was a perfect litmus test for retards

>>11836291
>per capita
Does it matter if it's one single polluting spot or a hundred polluting spots if they pollute at the same intensity and rate?

>>11843360
Watch out, you just pissed on the third rail of this thread's Xinnie bot script.

>>11843360
>>per capita
>Does it matter if it's one single polluting spot or a hundred polluting spots if they pollute at the same intensity and rate?
Yes it matters.

>>11843379
Lol

>>11836232
It doesn't matter since everything is getting swallowed by a giant nigger

>>11843360
>if they pollute at the same intensity and rate?
They don't, as demonstrated by the differing per capita rates of every country

>>11843884
>t. Xinnie bot
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commutative_property
Isn't China supposed to be good at math?

>>11836232
>polution=climate change
why are alll climate change fans allways so stupid? I mean it's true but considering all the other shit it's pretty much irrelevant

>>11844019
It's called a slide thread

>>11836407
>>11836291
>>11836603
oh yeah all of you cc fans are a bunch of ignorant lefty redditor soiboys indeed. if chinks had the US pbi per capita they would polute per capita 10x what the us polutes.

>>11836969
It's almost as if you're arguing in bad faith.

>>11844023
>slide thread
>t. pol boomer
i mean the posts go by so quickly on /sci/ how could anyone keep up

>>11836232
>all of the shit that we're going to deal with during thr next 100 years.
Hearing your whining and doomsday predictions while the weather keeps being weather for another 100 years will be painful, I agree.

>>11843996
>Everyone pollutes at the same rate because a total value exists
Imagine being this retarded

>>11836248
I support climate change.

>>11836248
And China will invade. They're already preparing.

>>11838581
>Africa's population will skyrocket in the next decades and with it there will be a great increase in industry the
That's assuming africa goes straight into dirty heavy industry instead of skipping into other fields

>>11838600
>Immigrants into Europe produce more CO2.
Not exactly. Many of them live a bunch to one house on top of many not being as heavy consumers as you think.

>no matter what we do, immigration will inevitably shift even European countries to majority brown or black while sub Saharan Africans will make up the bulk of the human population by 2100

>at its current rate climate change will also render the earth a collapsing barely inhabitable hell by 2100

As far as I’m concerned these trends balance themselves out, whites should burn more oil and gas like the Arabs while we have the chance

>>11845218
>killing all humans is more desirable than anyone having sex with people who aren't their birth ethnicity
This is what the far-right actually believe.

>>11837590
Following what? Warming? Being caused by what?

Retarded deniers deny causality itself. Hilarious.

>>11836548
China has more total fat than the US, therfore the Chinese are obese and need to go on a diet.

>>11838546
>the debate is about the causes
Nope, try again retard.

>>11842040
We're not talking about weather; we're taking about climate. 150 years of thermometer data is good enough to see a 150 year warming trend. And we have much more than 150 years of data in the paleoclimate record. What we see is that the natural cycle for the past million years has been a cycle between glacial and interglacial periods, caused by Earth's orbital eccentricity and precession. We had interglacial warming 10000 years ago and are now in the slow cooling phase of that cycle. But instead of slowly cooling over the past 150 years, we are warming more than 10 times faster than interglacial warming. So right away we can see this warming isn't natural, in both timing and magnitude. But even if we lacked all that data, we could still easily see that the warming isn't natural based on purely causal factors. We can measure how much warming is being caused by CO2 via radiative spectroscopy and we can measure how much CO2 is man-made vs. natural via isotope analysis. So you're wrong about both the data and what we can conclude. Please show these "statisticians" that have debunked climate science. Skeptical statisticians have confirmed it:

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

>>11844099
>weather keeps being weather
>average increases and extreme weather becomes common

>>11844946
>asinine greentext
Imagine believing that 1 x 100 and 100 x 1 don't produce the same value.

>>11845554
>Imagine being so retarded that you thought one 10' plank of wood was the same ten 1' planks of wood
It's still 10' of wood though, right?

>>11845761
Lmao, your argument is literally 1 x 10 ≠ 10.

>>11845772
No, it's that units are important. I'm not surprised that you aren't clever enough to grasp the distinction.

10 feet x 1 piece =/= 10 pieces x 1 foot

I am not going to have any children so what is exactly my incentive to give a shit about all this?

>>11845781
>I am not going to have any children
Might as well just kill yourself

>>11845777
No shit, and it's still the same total value.
Now give me the next argument in your script for why 1 x 10 ≠ 10 x 1

>>11845790
>it's still the same total value
Never do science, construction or anything that doesn't require direct supervision by someone who isn't drooling

I don't deny climate change.
I just don't really care.

>>11845799
That's the next argument for why 1 x 10 ≠ 10 x 1? Wow they just keep getting sillier and sillier, don't they. What's the next one?

>>11836282
>>11836291
Jesus Christ west is so fucking retarded.

China is the#1 polluter because 90% of western industry moved their production there. And for decades west was shipping waste to China.

You retarded monkeys should be thanking them not blaming them.

Also, China stopped taking western waste few years ago and is shifting into ecological energy production hard. It's USA who is the#1 problem now.

>>11845807
I hope you're just trolling. If not, I have 9,000 1' bridges to sell you.

>>11845781
By not having children your carbon footprint is already much lower than that of the average normie

>>11845855
Lol your new argument is that 9000 1' segments of a bridge don't add up to a length of 9000'.
What does it add up to then?
Just imagine the cope.

Why cant we just nuke all the chinks and pajeets?

>>11845895
and so is your genetic footprint

>>11845941
>He thinks bridges snap together like K'nex
Lol what a fucking moron. I'll sell then cheap, too. Just send $1 per segment to my PayPal.

>>11845974
>asinine greentext
Fascinating, tell us more about how 9000 1' segments don't add up to a length of 9000'

>>11845956
so what?

>>11845981
8,998 of them wouldn't be connected to anything. I'm still waiting on that PayPal transfer BTW. Call it a gift in the description for tax reasons.

>>11846003
you're the one making a value judgment on genetics vs carbon, retard. it's just another variable

>>11846008
>more nonsense about paypal and snapping a bridge together
And yet the total length of 9000 1' segments is still 9000'

>>11846028
Yep, and they're unconnected. Compared to a single bridge of that length that is one piece. I'm trying to make this easy for you, but it's getting sad.

>>11846054
Which has nothing to do with the total length. Keep coping.

>>11846127
The total length being the same does not mean it's the same thing. You can't use 9000 1' bridges to cross the distance spanned by 1 9000' bridge.

>>11846705
You can if you're spanning a field of grass. And whether you can or you can't still has nothing to do with the total length.

Do you have some point about per capita emission footprints that you're too stupid to articulate?

>>11836232
Ukraine is fucked up

>>11836232
Ukraine is fucked up (about 60)

>>11846753
>Using a bridge to cross flat terrain
U wot?

>>11845341
>average increases
Nice, then the local farmers benefit.

So either nothing happens or something good happens. What are you so scared about?

That Saudi Arabia is going to be more desert? Also win situation.

Unfortunately nothing is going to happen, but all your retarded predictions would actually be beneficial.

>>11847838
>Nice, then the local farmers benefit.
In some regions they will benefit and in some regions they will be harmed. On the whole it will be negative.

>So either nothing happens or something good happens. What are you so scared about?
I'm scared that people as dumb as you influence global policy.

>>11847981
bring proof that climate change is man made or fuck off

>>11848015
edgy

>>11847981
I'm what keeping progress possible.

Without progress-oriented people like me who aren't scared shitless by memes the green movement would've destroyed society half a century ago.

And you're still trying to make everyone else join your retarded mass suicide campaign. Despite your track record of being 100% wrong every single time.

But this time it's different? Yeah sure.

>>11848015
OK, here's direct observational proof:

http://asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/journals/nature14240_v519_Feldman_CO2.pdf

But you will never ever respond to this, like every other retarded denier.

>>11836232
>it’s another thread about whites cherry picking data and blaming India and China for everything bad

why do you faggots even have a discussion, that’s what you will ultimately do anyway
if whites care so much about climate they can feel free to fuck off to mountains and caves and never return

>>11848026
>I'm what keeping progress possible.
>Without progress-oriented people like me who aren't scared shitless by memes the green movement would've destroyed society half a century ago.
Nice alarmism.

>Despite your track record of being 100% wrong every single time.
Yes, those dumb scientists are wrong 100%of the time. Evolution, round Earth, etc.

>>11848026
Why do you think progress is good?

>>11847790
>he's never heard of erosion

>>11848163
>the arrow of time has a moral value
shit, lotta retards itt

>>11848018
Not an argument, name calling isn’t science

>>11848034
>only measured co2 levels and “clear sky indices of Alaska and Great Plains for 10 years
>it proves anthropogenic climate change hypothesis

How did such garbage get publish in the first place? Muttmerica is a polluted shithole, that doesn’t prove shit

>>11848026
>scared shitless by memes the green movement would've destroyed society half a century ago.

you are right about that, without naive idiots like you, climate science fraud wouldn’t have ballooned into a multi billion dollar industry and just another avenue for international and national politicians to eat up more of our tax money. I am all for reducing pollution and sustainable development, but the meme peddled by green loonies belongs in a garbage bin, preferably a recycle bin so it can be used to make organic manure and raise some corn in the future

>>11848172
Huh? I asked you a simple question, you attach some moral value to being progressive so I asked you why should I or anyone else be progressive? What’s the value of being one? There are futurists and all kinds of people who believe all kinds of things, doesn’t mean we all should follow em blindly

>>11848182
The atmosphere is well mixed. You lose, pathetic retard.

>>11848198
you didn't ask me anything, i'm not the guy you originally replied to. i'm just shitting on your moralist cavil that "progress" can be defined as good or bad

>>11839466

That's bullshit. Climate Science is based in establishing trends over time periods that matter by finding relevant geological and geographic 'time capsules' essentially - ice cores for the most part.

That and for the period we have recorded the temperature increases have been accurately modelled long before any of you fucks were born. Before I was born too, and I'm 30 now (why am I here).

Man it's fucking great being a millennial outside of a climate relevant industry. What a great feeling of betrayal by the previous generations and also helplessness.

Seriously pals just spread the word about climate and sustainability, we only have this one planet and nature is fucking nice. It breaks my heart to know it'll be irreparably fucked by us.

>>11848991
>relevant geological and geographic 'time capsules' essentially - ice cores for the most part.
also known as "reading tea leaves"
>accurately modelled
the models backfit data, they don't predict. same scam as currency trading systems

>>11849682
>also known as "reading tea leaves"
Your opinion is less than worthless.

>the models backfit data, they don't predict.
Wrong.

>>11848991
Climate “science” isn’t a science it’s a political front

>>11849779
Agreed, evolution and round Earth too.

>>11849777
your infographic is asinine and meaningless, and you are personally so stupid that you push currency trading systems without even knowing it

>>11849792
>your infographic is asinine and meaningless
I'm sorry you can't understand a simple graph. If you ever you graduate from elementary school we can continue this discussion.

>>11849800
you're literally an autistic 5th grader sitting at home posting retard bait images on an anime forum, why the fuck would i want to have a "discussion" with you

>>11849818

>>11849829
i'd delete that post, someone here might recognize and dox you

>>11849844
your post is asinine and meaningless, and you are personally so stupid that you push currency trading systems without even knowing it

>>11850560
mostly true, but i push currency trading systems with malice aforethought

>>11845195
invade who. they'll have a hard time against any of their neighbours. Russia would be the only good option to invade.

>>11836232
Mongolia is only polluted because it's only got one significant city

>>11836232
Thx for telling me the world is fucked, didn't know

climate changes every month brainlet

>>11850621
Mongolia is "polluted" because the chart measures particulate matter in the air, e.g. sand

>>11850917
Why hasn't Mongolia joined the Chinese Union yet? Shouldn't there be a vote coming up soon?

>>11850932
Anon...inner mongolians already hate chinese why would mongolians want anything to do with it?

>>11850621
I thought it was polluted by all the heavy industy and coal plants? they wear face masks.

>>11836232
Eh, tech will keep up

>>11836232
We might all be dead by next year if covid spreads through sewers in India and China.
Especially if you drink desal.

>>11836407
It needs to. In fact all states should because those hydrocarbons are fucking our oceans up.
Forget the atmosphere, the ocean is the immediate driver of climate. The atmosphere is it's bitch essentially.

>>11838007
This.
Australian's are just really discovering this shit. Although I heard it was India that took our trash.

That's fucked up because that trash goes right back into the ocean and we drink out of the ocean. These people making these decisions to deal with trash this way are killing us all.

>>11838525
They're still lagging because they turned themselves into the factory of the world. Really we should be minimising and dispersing such polluting sectors of the economy globally in order for the planet to reduce the density of pollutants in areas.
That said, none of these pollutants are a good thing.

>>11839881
Are they having Glen Canyon Dam tier problems with that dam?

I wonder if the increase in temperatures will lead to more or less saharan dust and therefore more or less American hurricanes.

>>11852852
>we drink out of the ocean

>>11836291
>The US actually pollutes more than China per capita
what a dumb fucking comment.
the physical chemistry of the fucking atmosphere doesn't vary according to how many people live on an arbitrary geopolitical surface

>>11838007
This.

Our """""recycling""""" program is just sending our trash to other nations

>>11845824
>>11836291
>>11836407
lol why is Chink butthurt so funny?