/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14833343
rejoice, for the worst is behind us now, as OP's pic suggests.

>>14833343
Unless you're willing to explosively depopulate China, Africa, India and Brazil with hydrogen bombs, you have no actual solution to this problem.

>>14833343
Maybe stop doing satanic shit and god will stop punishing you
Just a thought

>>14833343
Will it run Climate Doom 2016 too? Crysis isn't that graphically demanding anymore.

https://climateclock.net/

>>14833343
Your models are wrong, bitch.
All complaints of this being the “worst drought ever” or what have you are recency bias and media spin

>>14834643
>a fox talking ham said so
lol

>>14833343
>what if i told you the worst is here now
Then I'd be fucking pissed because for my entire fucking life they've been throwing all the doomsday cult shit at me promising me a world with no more snow or winter and glorious videos of entire Mideastern and African countries literally on fire but every fucking winter is just as ball-freezingly cold as the last. If I'd had known how full of shit they were I'd have gone to college in Florida and stayed there.

What about the mpemba effect within this watery world?

If we aren’t careful we might go the way of the dinosaur.

>>14833874
Reduce CO2 emissions seems like a good solution.

I cummed and shidded

>>14836335
They left their last marks when earth was just as toasty. Maybe even toastier, but it seems like we are heading in that direction.

>>14833343
There is no fucking crisis, just fearmongering brought to you by modelers, the same people that destroyed so much by getting covid predictions wildly wrong. It's crystal ball reading with some fancy maths added in to give it a air of legitimacy, but it has none

>>14836343
noooo, you can't reduce the profits of the fossil fuel industry. that's terrorism.

>>14836546
The fossil fuel industry is being discarded by your handlers who now put their money into green scams while you screech at imaginary characters.

>>14836343
Cool, the west deindustrializes while China, India and the rest of the world keeps on increasing CO2 production. Sounds like a great plan.

>>14833874
White countries use more fuel, far more, and outsource a lot of their fuel burning to other countries (looking at you Germany).
But why kill people tho? Just ban mineral fuels and watch people naturally die. Could be some whites, some browns.
Just destroy the oil and gas fields and the coal power stations, you don't need to nuke cities

>>14833343
>Increase CO2
>California catches on fire
Look OP I'm not really seeing a problem here.

>>14833343
Why would anyone trust scientists and their climate change alarmism? You lied about Covid-19. You proved to be corrupt and evil utilitarian monsters in your attempt to force everyone to take experimental drugs. Nobody I know trusts scientists. We litter for fun. We burn carbon and laugh at scientists.

>>14836645
>>>/lgbt/
>>>/lefty/pol
You are absolutely losing it with impotent rage. :^)

>>14836664
>doesn't deny being corrupt, just asserts that it's useless to fight back

>>14837387
I'm just telling you know that your dull corporate false-flagging isn't fooling anybody.

>>14837392
>thinks he's being anti-corporate
LOL

>>14837398
>>>/lgbt/

>>14837405
When practically every major power center on earth - political, corporate, media, or otherwise - is shilling your agenda, you're not anti-anything, you're just a delusional tool.

>>14837411
>shilling your agenda
LOL. What's my agenda, retard?

>RED IS SCARY! BE AFRAID OF RED TEMPERATURES!!!!!

>>14833343
>State that is mostly desert
>omg there's a heatwave in our state!

this is why we have guillotines you know

>>14833343
>The Earth will be underwater by 2000. I mean 2010. Uh, 2020. Actually it's 2030. Now it's 2050.

>>14833343
Block the highways for a couple of minutes lmao

>>14833343
Plants NEED CO2

>>14833874
>and Brazil
Fuck off mutt

>>14836343
But the point is the people in those countries increasingly want to have better transportation, entertainment, and food and there are billions of them.

>>14837671
OK, and?

>>14836557
>Cool, the west deindustrializes
Strawman. Try again.

>>14836557
>deindustrialization
Explain how EXACTLY that will reduce carbon emissions? Pretty sure transportation (cars) make up a fuck ton of emissions in the first world.

>>14837778
>OK, and?
And they don't give a fuck about your green shilling for rather obvious reasons, so none of your suicidal efforts will make a difference.

>>14837535
sea rising is a major problem after 2050.
Food production is getting worse already thanks to droughts, and it's nothing compared to the '30s

>>14837643
https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php
#43

C3 & C4
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food-advanced.htm

>>14836343
Let's build out nuclear plants :)

Yawn. Who gives a shit what scientists say. They always lie. Let's burn some fucking coal.

>>14833343
>Muh accelerated path
Who cares? Clown World is not worth saving.
Seethe, cope, and dilate troon.
>Oh no, Jew world is going to end
This is a good thing!
Long live the nematodes!
>Imagine the pristine undisturbed microclimes

>>14837428
Climate "crysis"

>>14836565
What white countries? The US is not a white country, it's a Jew country. This is why Jews hold the largest percentage of political office despite being less than 2% of the population.
>White countries
Shit, I wish! Nigger! If it's a white country, get the fuck out!

>>14833343
>the worst is here now

No shit sherlock, the current is always the worst if we only trend up.

Good
Fuck this gay earth and everything that live on it

>>14837671
Maybe they should have less children
1 per couple should do it

>>14833343
the people who have the resources to mitigate this are too busy to take people farms but wont give up on their private jets and factories

>>14833343
'The smiles of the high elders to each other during the event is meant to indicate that they knew something that their people did not know, (how eclipses worked), and that they could use the situations to their advantage for more power and authority. The most closely guarded knowledge of a people was used to control them, rather than free them.'

https://youtu.be/9ULxjgF58dM

>>14838494
Hate fuels me.

>>14837799
Proof? They make the same pledges other countries do. You incorrectly assume that no growth can be achieved without carbon emissions. Of course it can, with nuclear power, renewables, and electric technologies. On the other hand, no one is going to hydrogen bomb any of these countries, so your argument is self- refuting.

>>14838242

>>14833343
Y'all mfers realize that the higher latitudes are warming up several times faster than the rest of the world, right? There's going to be a homogenization of global temperatures.

>still buying this stuff post-coof
>grandma will be under water in 100 years

>>14838202
>skeptical science
>not skeptical at all about climate soience
https://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=Skeptical%20science

>>14838870
Shills will have you believe they know how the weather will be like a decade from now when science can't even predict next week's weather with accuracy

>>14838911
Denial is not skepticism. Skeptics look at evidence. Your denier blog ignores it and misrepresents it, even when they promise not to.

https://skepticalscience.com/the-best-kind-of-skepticism.html

>>14838930
t. doesn't know the difference between climate and weather

It seems like there are no more intelligent climate deniers. All that's left are these bottom-of-the-barrel rubes.

>>14836343
What he's saying is that most of the co2 is created in those locations. Lowering co2 levels from western countries is a wasde of time when the real change has to occur in Asian countries.

>>14838946
Something i never see addressed is the heatsink effect? The more we urbanize, the hotter our local temperature gets, most weather stations are in urbam areas, often not respecting the methodology and could explain these warming averages. Other stations that are better isolated dont show the same pattern.

>>14837671
And also that's where 90% of manufacturing and high emissions low quality vehicles are.

>>14838954
>What he's saying is that most of the co2 is created in those locations.
No he's not. The US is the second largest emitter but he didn't mention them. Africa is not a country but has incredibly low emissions even if you combine them all. Nice try.

>Lowering co2 levels from western countries is a wasde of time when the real change has to occur in Asian countries.
False dichotomy. It has to occur everywhere.

>>14838955
>Something i never see addressed is the heatsink effect?
Have you even looked?

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

It's insignificant. Please stop talking about topics you have no knowledge of.

>>14838946
>t. doesn't know the difference between climate and weather
Paragraph 5 section 14.2.2.2 of the IPCC’s 2007 AR4 TAR report says:

“In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

>>14833343
california is just making excuses for stealing everybody's water, climate change is a scam
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mptNDINqYnQ

>>14833343
>anticipate the worst by 2100
not my problem

>>14833991
kek

>>14833343
i already accepted that it will happen during my lifetime

at least i will feel extremely vindicated and i will have a fat excuse to not give a shit about anything

>>14839085
Nice cut off quote.

"Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions."

>>14839211
dude there are already so many excuses for that

>>14839464
>Nice cut off quote.
It directly contradicts what you said

>>14838940
Nice weasel words. The best kind of skepticism is the kind that supports regime propaganda?

>>14838940
Accusations of "denialism" are accusations of heresy and nothing more. You're a brainwashed degenerate.

>>14839464
>the generation of ensembles of model solutions
Making models based on misunderstood data isn't a prediction. In fact the models have been unable to predict any of the real climate for decades. For example the pause in warming.

>>14838911
>i have no argument

>>14833343
>path to global climate crysis
Based but I don't think my computer can handle it

>>14838940
>Skeptics look at evidence
...And find something wrong with the mainstream interpretation of that evidence. If you bend over backwards and agree 100% with every mainstream interpretation you are not a skeptic at all you shitbrain. You're saying anyone who's ever looked at a graph in their life is a "skeptic."

>>14839691
How?

>>14839815
>Nice weasel words.
Your denier blog promising to accept the conclusion of research and then not accepting it when it didn't come to the conclusion they wanted is the defintion of weasel behavior.

>The best kind of skepticism is the kind that supports regime propaganda?
Appeal to consequences fallacy.

>>14839819
>Accusations of "denialism" are accusations of heresy and nothing more.
No, it's an accusation that your denier blog ignores evidence that that leads to conclusions it doesn't like, even when they promised not to. And this accusation is proven. Do you have any justification for this or are you just going to deflect?

>>14841105
>Your denier blog promising to accept the conclusion of research and then not accepting it when it didn't come to the conclusion they wanted is the defintion of weasel behavior.
Source?

>>14839820
>Making models based on misunderstood data isn't a prediction.
What data was misunderstood?

>In fact the models have been unable to predict any of the real climate for decades. For example the pause in warming.
Why are you lying?

>>14840599
>...And find something wrong with the mainstream interpretation of that evidence.
If there's anything wrong. You're describing someone who decided the conclusion regardless of the evidence. That's not skepticism.

>If you bend over backwards and agree 100% with every mainstream interpretation you are not a skeptic at all you shitbrain.
What do you mean by every mainstream interpretation? Everything mainstream? Everything mainstream in science? Everything mainstream in climatology? No, there is no guarantee that there is any wrong mainstream interpretation. Your actually have to do the work to show it. But you won't. You're a contrarian, not a skeptic.

>>14841114
See >>14838940

>>14841115

>>14838955
https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php
#26
https://skepticalscience.com/urban-heat-island-effect-intermediate.htm

>>14833343
Lol. East Coast is MOIST. The more consistent theory is that God is slowly turning California into the next Sodom.

>>14836343
>freezes to death in winter
Take that, carbon bigots! Just look at Europe's completely failed energy policies. If you want to decarbonize, nuclear is a necessity. If climate activists were serious they'd acknowledge this fact instead of gutting the domestic oil industry, importing it from an enemy nation, and then jerking their dicks to their lowered per-capita CO2 emissions from their climate shell game until their economy collapses. I'll just buy the 20 SEER unit and not live in California.

>>14841247
>If climate activists were serious
they were serious 30y ago, all this could have been done without all the panic

>>14836343
Ok how? I vote for nuclear power plants.

>>14841252
What solutions were being proposed 30 years ago that were viable?

>>14838946
>implying that despite our inability to predict short term local weather, we somehow are able to predict long term global climate progression
This isnt even an argument. Its just ignorance.

>>14841259
nothing polished and ready
elbow grease, since there was still decades of time

but they knew
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGVW9vJ773k

>>14841262
>i don't understand long term averages
las vegas loves idiots like you

>>14841267
>i dont understand anything so I made up a straw man to insult you without addressing your argument
Youre literally just retarded.

>>14841272
low iq post

>>14841266
And billions of dollars in research funding wasn't enough to move some elbows? The answer is that it was, and we have a host of solutions that could be readily deployed to solve the issue. However, the same people that kvetch about the world ending because it's getting a degree or two hotter also vehemently oppose the only readily deployable, duck-curve resistant power generation technology. The current solution is proposed by leftists coincidentally involves corralling people to live in cities like cattle and consume "green" protein sourced from onions and insects because apparently animal husbandry is bad. Meanwhile, everyone fighting for these ideas lives in a mansion and flies around the world in a private jet.

>>14841287
this cost us decades
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_policy_of_the_George_W._Bush_administration#Kyoto_Protocol

>>14833343
I'm fine with it so long as Californians burn in literal hell on Earth for what they've done.

>>14841443
this is the new "hole in human development caused by the dark ages" meme by semi-literates btw

>>14838198
Don't worry, I hear that in 2050 the true crisis will be just around the corner, and the sea rising will become a major problem as early as 2070 by new calculations.

>>14834638
So does the unstoppable chain of destructive events happen at +1.5C or did it already happen ten years ago and thus we are le doomed last generation and need to be unbearable faggots?

>>14841443
>cites unenforceable international treaties that were never ratified by the Senate as progress on the issue

Why are you continuing to pretend that useless international treaties are an accomplishment? Anyone can sign anything until they realize it's not practical. It isn't a plan, just wishful thinking. California's gasoline car ban will be a "win" until 2033 rolls around and they realize that if they go through with it the grid will fail and car manufacturers won't be able to meet production requirements.

>>14837535

>me: you will die tomorrow
>climate denier: hey it didn't happen guess that means I'm immortal

>>14841502
So you lied directly for no good reason and then used a completely unrelated inevitability to claim moral victory, whereas your strawman is the person who literally believes there can be no changes in climate long-term, not even the person who believes humans are not significant in the change, let alone the person who simply notices your predictions are sensationalist and often flawed or outright absurdist.
But saying "denier" makes you think you're very righteous as if you were talking about the Holocaust so you continue apace.

>>14841502
The amount of time it takes to occur is very, very important. If sea level rise takes a century to occur, people have plenty of time to construct new buildings inland and the entire economic damage argument completely falls apart because the only buildings that will be engulfed will be relics at that point. The biggest risk comes from the displaced populations of Pacific island nations, but that is neither my problem nor is it one that the world won't be able to handle if it's spread out over a century. Sea level rise is one of the the least compelling dangers of climate change.

>>14841509
I didn't lie I simply noted that climate deniers are on average overweight and live unhealthy lifestyles and made an educated prediction based on data just like a scientist would.

>>14841502
>>14841556
not eating the bugs
not getting the vax
simple as

>>14841247
>>freezes to death in winter
We've evolved for millions of years in far colder temperatures than our current winters. The issue is not just that it's warmer, it's that the temperature is changing too rapidly for ecosystems to adapt.

>If you want to decarbonize, nuclear is a necessity.
OK, thanks for agreeing with me.

>>14841254
OK, thanks for agreeing with me. Now what's your excuse?

>>14841262
t. still doesn't know the difference between weather and climate even after it was pointed out to him

lmao

>>14841272
>i dont understand anything so I made up a straw man to insult you without addressing your argument
Big of you to admit this. Weather is not climate. Climate is the long term average of weather. Your argument is like saying you can't predict a coin will tend to land on heads 50% of the time over the long term since you can't predict the next flip. Weather is primarily determine by chaotic fluid dynamics in the atmosphere that make it impossible to predict over the long term. Climate is determined by how much energy is in the atmosphere, not how it flows, so not as chaotic. This is why we have predicted global temperature averages for decades. While this would be impossible for local temperature over a few weeks. You would already know this if you had even the slightest clue about the topic you're trying to talk about. Just stop posting.

>>14841499

>>14841502
>>14841509
>climate denier: someone said I will die tomorrow but I won't say who
>climate denier: hey it didn't happen guess that means I'm immortal
ftfy

>>14841523
>If sea level rise takes a century to occur, people have plenty of time to construct new buildings inland and the entire economic damage argument completely falls apart because the only buildings that will be engulfed will be relics at that point.
Utter nonsense. Sea level rise has already occurred, and increased flooding as a result has already caused billions of dollars worth of damage. Regardless of what you build, it will cause trillions of dollars to either prevent or ameliorate all the damage in the future.

>>14841615
What kind of cooked studies are you reading where they can attribute billions in damage to a few inches of sea level rise? Plus billions is chump change to the trillions in damage that comes from fucking your economy. Buildings are designed to last 50-100 years. Humans have several generations to build on higher ground or to build infrastructure to withstand elevated sea levels. The vast majority of buildings that people live in were built in the last hundred years, so why would that be any different in the future? You can make up whatever valuation you want for dilapidated buildings, but the people who lived in them will be long gone before they're claimed by the ocean. At best it's a broken window scenario. Anyone who takes it seriously and doesn't live in Indonesia is delusional.

>>14841582
As far as I can tell there was no mention of nuclear power in the reply chain when I replied. The issue is that pro-nuclear climate alarmists seem more than happy to deconstruct fossil fuel resources before they start building the nuclear infrastructure necessary to replace it. You can claim to stand for anything you please, but if you look at the actual policies that have been adopted around Europe, the only outcomes from the kinds of green measures that end up getting adopted are $1000/month electricity bills and an unstable grid. Based on the political forces that exist today, your position is in the minority among those that share your concerns.

>>14841665
>What kind of cooked studies are you reading where they can attribute billions in damage to a few inches of sea level rise?
So the studies are cooked when you don't even know what they are? Thanks for illustrating you're a dogmatic retard arguing on bad faith.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34006886/

>Plus billions is chump change to the trillions in damage that comes from fucking your economy.
Optimal carbon pricing will save much more than is lost. If you actually cared about the economy you would be for mitigating global warming.

>Buildings are designed to last 50-100 years.
The damage is occurring right now, so again, your argument is complete nonsense.

>>14841683
>As far as I can tell there was no mention of nuclear power in the reply chain when I replied.
The reply chain was about the claim that there is no actual solution besides bombing the third world. Thanks for agreeing with me that there are actual solutions.

>the only outcomes from the kinds of green measures that end up getting adopted are $1000/month electricity bills and an unstable grid.
Alarmist nonsense. What a hypocrite.

>Based on the political forces that exist today, your position is in the minority among those that share your concerns.
By that logic, bombing the third world is not a solution. Thanks for agreeing with me, again.

>>14841607
Gee, I'll just wipe away my memory of the last twenty years because you find it inconvenient and demand citations to summarily reject because it's convenient for you.

>>14841699
I don't care about the economy or global warming and I hope this economy built on federal favoritism and dishonest bullshit and fractional reserve currency based on debt in perpetual inflationary death spiral collapses so an economy of "primitive" free trade regulated only to prevent fraud can emerge.

>>14836343
>Reduce CO2 emissions seems like a good solution.
You are the CO2 they want to reduce.

>>14841699
>will save much more than is lost
This is the mentality book learned retards always use when they commit every unnecessary atrocity to mankind.
>It's just for your own good, now let me just kill you with my kindness.

>>14841683
>but if you look at the actual policies that have been adopted around Europe, the only outcomes from the kinds of green measures that end up getting adopted are $1000/month electricity bills and an unstable grid.
That means it's working.

>>14841115
>>14841149
>Just look at at what rising temperatures are doing to CO2 levels.
Maybe if we lower the temp, the CO2 will disappear. Or was it the other way around? I lose track so easily given that there's no causal link.

>>14841113
>quais-religious doomsday screeching intensifies
I bet you support blasphemy laws, don't you?

>>14841720
So you have no justification and you're just going to deflect. Let me know when you have anything substantive to say.

>>14841760
Justification for what? I'm just reminding you that you probably shouldn't call people blasphemers while pretending to be rational.

>>14841763
You literally are a blasphemer if you're denying government experts, chud.

>>14841780
>government experts
Your beliefs are strong, anon. You are literally blessed.

>>14841763
>Justification for what?
See >>14838940

>>14833343
>we
not science, shill

>>14841888
What is there to see? Your accusations of blasphemy doesn't make you look any more rational even if someone is wrong on the internet.

>>14841919
>What is there to see?
That your denier blog ignores evidence that that leads to conclusions it doesn't like, even when they promised not to. Do you have any justification for this or are you just going to deflect again?

>>14841706
>Gee, I'll just wipe away my memory of the last twenty years
Why would these claims only exist in your memory and not written or recorded anywhere? That's called a delusion.

>>14842003
>your denier blog
I'm not the one who posted it. I'm just reminding you that accusing people of blasphemy like a regressive religious retard only exposes your irrationality. Being wrong on the internet doesn't make someone a blasphemer.

>>14841709
>You are the CO2 they want to reduce.
Proof?

>This is the mentality book learned retards always use when they commit every unnecessary atrocity to mankind.
Not an argument.

>Maybe if we lower the temp
How?

>I lose track so easily given that there's no causal link.
The casual link is the greenhouse effect. This is directly observed: https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/174407/

Why are you on the science board if you don't even know basic physics?

>>14842165
Vile kike.

>>14841710
>I don't care about the economy
Then why did you bring it up?

You have no argument.

>>14842016
>I'm not the one who posted it.
Then why are you in this conversation?

>I'm just reminding you that accusing people of blasphemy
No one did that. Learn how to read.

>>14842167
So no proof and no argument. Why did you lie?

>>14842174
>Then why are you in this conversation?
To remind you that you're a quasi-religious regressive. "Denialist" is objectively just nu-speak for "blasphemer". Calling people you disagree with "denialists" exposes you, even if we assume that they are wrong.

>>14842180
Why do paid Jewish shills from the Tel Aviv facility always so lazy? You will always see them responding with worthless one-liners like "Proof??"/"Source??"/"Nuh uh" etc. like they're not even trying to do their job but only to waste people's time.

>>14842188
>To remind you that you're a quasi-religious regressive.
You didn't show that I am, you just said that I am.

>"Denialist" is objectively just nu-speak for "blasphemer".
No, denier means that you ignore scientific evidence that doesn't agree with your preconceived beliefs. The blogger that I called a denier illustrated this by declaring that he would accept the results of a specific study but then when the results came out not how he wanted, he rejected them. It's literal denial.

>>14842208
"Denialist" is objectively just nu-speak for "blasphemer".

>>14842197
Another deflection. So you have no proof, can't explain how you would reduce the temperature, and won't tell me why you don't even know the basics of the topic your trying to talk about? Why did you lie?

>>14842219
It's not. Denier means that you ignore scientific evidence that doesn't agree with your preconceived beliefs. The blogger that I called a denier illustrated this by declaring that he would accept the results of a specific study but then when the results came out not how he wanted, he rejected them. It's literal denial.

>>14842221
It's kinda interesting how Israel keeps cozying up to China while heavily funding green shilling that harms the American economy, don't you think?

>>14842224
See >>14842221

>>14842223
>It's not.
Then how come we only ever hear it in a handful of contexts, like discussions about climate change, the holocaust and other politicized issues?

Just put another load of coal in the firebox. I don't do science anymore. Not after you tried to force me to take your chemical cocktail. If you need me, I'll be doing something carbon intensive.

>>14842223
>Denier means that you ignore scientific evidence that doesn't agree with your preconceived beliefs.
So you're a "denier" for ignoring the proof against AGW.

>>14838971
>No he's not. The US is the second largest emitter but he didn't mention them. Africa is not a country but has incredibly low emissions even if you combine them all. Nice try.
Well the issue is you have massive forces pulling in opposing directions.
For example - on one hand, we need to industrialize Africa and get them up to 1st world living standards so they stop having so many kids.
But on the other hand, we need to deindustrialize and lower living standards to reduce the carbon footprint of individuals.
It honestly just sounds like no one knows what they are doing.

>>14838971
>It has to occur everywhere.
Call me back when you can provide a reasonable guarantee that it WILL occur everywhere, especially in the regions responsible for the most emissions, chink shill.

>>14842864
Umm, sweaty? It's none of your HECKIN' business what the rest of the world does. You need to drive your economy and living standard into the ground to cut down 10% of the net emissions while "developing" nations completely offset your efforts with your industrialization and population growth.

>>14842882
with their*

>>14841122
>If there's anything wrong. You're describing someone who decided the conclusion regardless of the evidence. That's not skepticism.
Why do you climate alarmists always blatantly make things up?
>skeptic:a person inclined to question or doubt accepted opinions.
It's just so simple but you must lie, why? You're inventing your own definition of skeptic where one can only be a skeptic if they're "right" (ie agree with your happenstance beliefs/conclusions). You don't want to call people who disagree with you skeptics, so you invent a new definition of skeptic. Embarrassing
>What do you mean by every mainstream interpretation? Everything mainstream? Everything mainstream in science? Everything mainstream in climatology? No, there is no guarantee that there is any wrong mainstream interpretation. Your actually have to do the work to show it. But you won't. You're a contrarian, not a skeptic
This wall of cope is pathetic. All that bloviating just to dodge the question exposing that the "skeptic" website is literally not skeptic about anything.
This is why it's impossible to change the mind of a climate alarmist nutjob. You think it's perfectly fine to trust a website that a that lies about its very name. And then you bend of backwards with mental gymnastics trying to defend their lie.

>>14842834
What proof did I ignore?

>>14842228
>Then how come we only ever hear it in a handful of contexts, like discussions about climate change, the holocaust and other politicized issues?
You answered your own question. Political/religious ideology is the impetus for denial. If reality doesn't conform to your beliefs, then just deny reality.

>>14842320
>I don't do science anymore.
Dumb and proud.

>>14842864
>For example - on one hand, we need to industrialize Africa and get them up to 1st world living standards so they stop having so many kids.
Industrialization doesn't necessarily require increased carbon emissions.

>But on the other hand, we need to deindustrialize and lower living standards to reduce the carbon footprint of individuals.
Strawman.

>>14842876
>Call me back when you can provide a reasonable guarantee that it WILL occur everywhere
It can't be guaranteed when you lie about Western countries and demand that everyone but you reduce emissions. Ever heard of the term "self fulfilling prophecy?" The good news is that your opinion doesn't matter. Enjoy your carbon taxes.

>>14842882
>You need to drive your economy and living standard into the ground
Nice alarmism. The opposite is true, failing to mitigate global warming would be far worse for economies and living standards than mitigating it.

global warming is fake

>>14843107
>Why do you climate alarmists always blatantly make things up?
What did I make up? You just said you have to find something wrong with the mainstream to be a skeptic. Skepticism is a method of questioning, not an answer.

>It's just so simple but you must lie, why?
Projection. You just proved that you lied when you said skeptics have to find something wrong with the mainstream.

>You're inventing your own definition of skeptic where one can only be a skeptic if they're "right" (ie agree with your happenstance beliefs/conclusions).
No, I just told you the difference between a skeptic and a contrarian. A skeptic questions the mainstream, a contrarian chooses an answer because it's the opposite of the mainstream.

>You don't want to call people who disagree with you skeptics
Wrong. I don't want want to call people who have chosen an answer regardless of the evidence skeptics. They don't question or doubt that answer.

>This wall of cope is pathetic.
Not an argument. Explain your question.

>All that bloviating just to dodge the question exposing that the "skeptic" website is literally not skeptic about anything.
You mean it's not contrarian about climate science.

>This is why it's impossible to change the mind of a climate alarmist nutjob.
Amazing projection. All you need is evidence. Where is it? I can give you evidence for anything you question. Why can't you do the work?

>>14833343
Build state in desert with century drought conditions. State goes into drought.
>How could climate change have done this to us?

>>14843556
https://www.climatesignals.org/climate-signals/hadley-cell-expansion#more

>>14842165
>Proof?
You produce CO2 do you not?

>Not an argument.
I'm not arguing.

>How?
Pray to the sun to stop?

>The casual link is the greenhouse effect.
How can an insulator cause anything? It insulates the cause.

>Why are you on the science board if you don't even know basic physics?
Why are you shilling the same article that doesn't link the temperature and Co2 in every one of these threads? Are you paid at least? Are you partially responsible for its existence in the first place? I hope so, it's a lot of work for no use after all.

>>14843453
>Industrialization doesn't necessarily require increased carbon emissions.
Every single industrial revolution has shown otherwise.

>>14843468
>The opposite is true, failing to mitigate global warming would be far worse for economies and living standards than mitigating it.
>would be far worse
I should start calling you people "curve-speakers", because you all buy into fancily re-described forms of
>flatten the curve
dogma. Oh and also you curve and warp the truth to your liking.

As long as it can be described as threat to humanity but stoppable by you and groupthink, then tyrants will get you to do whatever you want effortlessly. They could eat babies and you'd be there ready to lick the bones. Everyone else who is rational would rather die then be killed with your kindness, it's a shame you all learn this lesson too late.

>>14843446
>Political/religious ideology is the impetus for denial.
You mean your political/religious ideology? Why didn't you answer my question? People disagree on a million different things, but somehow it's only "denialism" when it comes to things like AGW, the holocaust and other Jewish agendas.

>>14843448
I don't work with evil. Sorry.

>>14843748
Based.

>>14843705
>You produce CO2 do you not?
How?

>I'm not arguing.
Thanks for agreeing with me and admitting that I'm right.

>Pray to the sun to stop?
The Sun is near a grand minimum. When is the temperature and CO2 going down?

>How can an insulator cause anything?
By definition an insulator causes heat to remain in one area by preventing it from moving to another. In the case of the greenhouse effect, CO2 absorbs heat emitted by the Earth and sends some of it back to the Earth. How is this not causal?

>Why are you shilling the same article that doesn't link the temperature and Co2 in every one of these threads?
I'm not. The article I posted directly links warming and CO2 by observation of radiative transfer. Did you even read it?

>>14843707
>You mean your political/religious ideology?
What ideology?

>Why didn't you answer my question?
I did. Political/religious ideology is the impetus for denial. You seem to have trouble reading basic English.

>People disagree on a million different things
Right, most disagreements are not based on one side ignoring overwhelming scientific evidence that contradicts their dogmatic beliefs. What is so hard to understand? You answered your own question.

>>14843705
>Every single industrial revolution has shown otherwise.
False inference. Every single "industrial revolution" occurred prior to nuclear and renewable energy technology.

>>14843705
>I should start calling you people "curve-speakers"
Not an argument. Thanks for admitting that mitigating global warming is better than not.

>>14843828
>Overwhelming scientific evidence
A 0.7 +/- 1.2 C change in temperature over 50 years of placing temperature probes' in increasingly suspect areas notorious for consistently higher temperatures
>Overwhelming
0.7C, on a margin of error higher than the purported difference
>Overwhelming
Fuck outta here, grifter

>>14843825
>How?
Are you shitting me bro?

>Thanks for agreeing with me
I'm not arguing though.

>>14843825
>The Sun is near a grand minimum.
Oh so that's why it's not blowing off the shit earth is producing.

> When is the temperature and CO2 going down?
Winter

>By definition an insulator causes heat to remain in one area by preventing it from moving to another
So it doesn't cause the heat

>How is this not causal?
It never caused the heat

>The article I posted directly links warming and CO2 by observation of radiative transfer.
No, it describes it by highlighting the info they want using radiate kernels based on uncertain information. Basically math tricks on top of more math tricks. Imaginations can be accurately described.

>>14843831
>Every single "industrial revolution" occurred prior to nuclear and renewable energy technology.
Oh? Including China's and India's? You think renewables didn't exist before then? The entire US rail system depended on windmills at one point.

>>14843836
>Not an argument.
Correct. I'm not arguing. I'm accurately describing.

>>14833343
>crysis
lmao, lay off the games kid

>>14843483
https://www.sealevels.org
Click and drag in the plot area to zoom in

>>14841699
>dogmatic retard
I'm saying the studies are unreliable. Sure, a few inches might lead to slightly different storm surge behavior, but there are 1,000 different ways that you could pick at the conclusions and the evaluation of damages. While simulations are helpful, using them as your primary evidence is a weak argument.
>half-baked carbon tax plug
That's a very dogmatic assertion. The current energy crisis in Europe is an example of that logic failing and resulting in a crisis that never needed to exist that will bankrupt many Europeans and deplete the savings of many others. People might succumb to the cold this winter because they can't afford to heat their homes. Maybe I can write a study about how carbon taxes lead to Europeans outsourcing their energy production, making them vulnerable to the whims of a rogue state.
>damage occurring right now
Which is why you have no direct evidence and are relying on indirect methods to sus out what can be attributed to sea level rise? Regardless of domestic policy, by necessity we will need to move buildings and build better infrastructure to handle what's coming, and if the sea level rise is slow, it won't be an especially painful process as it would occur on the same timescales that we naturally build new infrastructure. That is my entire point. Don't build any buildings near the coastline (or in areas subject to storm surges) and none of your $$$ will be involved in the supposed billions of dollars worth of damages you're claiming. If you do build near a coastline and your home gets destroyed, you deserved to lose your money because you didn't consider the risks. There is sufficient time to make those decisions. On the other hand, if the sea level rises 40ft tomorrow that would be an unexpected event that would be impossible to prepare for. Millions would die and there would be trillions in damages. The rate at which the sea level rise occurs is the biggest player in the disruption to people's lives.

>>14843831
Rich nations aren't even capable of transitioning to green energy without flirting with societal collapse. Do you seriously think Indians and Africans are going to industrialize by getting all of their energy from solar and wind farms? Are you banking on technology that enables such a transition suddenly becoming solvent, or are you just being dishonest?

>>14833343
the california heat wave was absolute bullshit

i've lived in the inland empire all my life, worked on a farm that REGULARLY would have 110+ degree weather. it got no higher than 105 during this """heatwave""". why is everybody acting like this is some unprecedented weather? it's like some strange, fucked up form of gaslighting, i hate it

>>14844086
It's just great reset propagandists trying to lie to people to convince them that their society falling apart is actually a good thing. King Brandon's latest bill has their shill coffers filled to the top.

>>14844102
i literally think that's what's going on, our infrastructure is failing due to bad governance and now they're acting like things are worse because the climate's getting worse, guys!!

>>14841115
>>14841149
>>14841600
>>14844063

>>14843845
>A 0.7 +/- 1.2 C change in temperature over 50 years
Source? Pic related shows 1 degree of warming with little uncertainty.

>of placing temperature probes' in increasingly suspect areas notorious for consistently higher temperatures
Source? When comparing the entire network to the longest running, highest quality stations well placed in rural areas, the same trend is found.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015GL067640

How can this be if new station placement is biasing the data? Where's the bias?

>0.7C, on a margin of error higher than the purported difference
Source? You aren't just making this up, are you?

>>14843871
>Are you shitting me bro?
No, I want you to tell me how I'm producing CO2, so we can see whether I "am the CO2 they want to reduce." Why are you avoiding the question?

>I'm not arguing though.
I know, that's what I said. Thanks for admitting I'm right.

>Winter
Winter has been increasingly warm. When is it going to get colder? Also, you said when the temp goes down, the CO2 will disappear. When did that happen?

>So it doesn't cause the heat
Cause heat to what? It causes the amount of heat on Earth to increase. That's called global warming. Are you admitting that?

>It never caused the heat
To do what?

>No, it describes it
It describes what was observed, yes. They directly observed the heat radiated by CO2. That's a direct link.

>by highlighting the info they want using radiate kernels based on uncertain information
The kernels are derived from direct observation as well. All empirical information is uncertain. What info did they ignore? What's wrong with their methodology?

>>14843871
>Including China's and India's
Yes.

>You think renewables didn't exist before then?
Renewables existed, modern renewable technology didn't.

>The entire US rail system depended on windmills at one point.
...to pump water. You're disingenuous.

>Correct. I'm not arguing.
Thanks for admitting mitigating global warming is better than not.

>>14844248
gem

>>14844063
>I'm saying the studies are unreliable.
You don't even know what they are. You're a dogmatic retard.

>Sure, a few inches might lead to slightly different storm surge behavior, but there are 1,000 different ways that you could pick at the conclusions and the evaluation of damages.
That's why there's an uncertainty range.

>While simulations are helpful, using them as your primary evidence is a weak argument.
That's funny, coming from someone who used no evidence as their primary evidence.

>That's a very dogmatic assertion.
It's not, it's what all economic research has found.

>The current energy crisis in Europe is an example of that logic failing and resulting in a crisis that never needed to exist
Carbon taxes did not cause Russia to invade Ukraine or Europe to fail to build their energy infrastructure. You're a dogmatic retard. If anything the current crisis shows why we can't rely on fossil fuels that can be held hostage by bad actors.

>Which is why you have no direct evidence and are relying on indirect methods to sus out what can be attributed to sea level rise?
Please explain, what direct method would you use? Maybe some kind of floating dye that you can stain the top level of water with? lmao

>That is my entire point.
I understand your entire point is to ignore ever increasing flood damage that necessitates mitigation and repair right now, not 50 years in the future. You're a dogmatic retard.

>Don't build any buildings near the coastline (or in areas subject to storm surges)
Wow, what a genius. Land becoming worthless is not an economic strain at all. lmao

>If you do build near a coastline and your home gets destroyed, you deserved to lose your money because you didn't consider the risks.
If you cause carbon emissions and global warming occurs, you deserve to pay carbon taxes because you didn't consider the risks.

>>14844067
>Rich nations aren't even capable of transitioning to green energy without flirting with societal collapse.
Nice alarmism.

>Do you seriously think Indians and Africans are going to industrialize by getting all of their energy from solar and wind farms?
Where did I say that?

>>14844086
>the data is wrong because... muh anecdote!
Why are you even on this board?

>>14844346

>>14844369
>No, I want you to tell me how I'm producing CO2, so we can see whether I "am the CO2 they want to reduce." Why are you avoiding the question?

You are such a robot you didn't realize I literally tried answered your question by asking:
>"Are you shitting me?
Cause if you don't then you obviously are no longer a warm body producing CO2. The fact you don't know this inherently must mean you're a bot.

>I know, that's what I said.
Well that would make you an accurate describer of shit that doesn't matter wouldn't it? You're doing a great job at it btw.

>Thanks for admitting
But you said that I'm also not arguing. Which is it?

>When is it going to get colder?
When the sun wants it to.

>Also, you said when the temp goes down, the CO2 will disappear. When did that happen?
When it condenses back to earth via the carbon cycle.


>Cause heat to what?
"To be caused" in the first place.

>It causes the amount of heat on Earth to increase.
No. It prevents it from leaving. The only thing that increases it is the sun.

>That's called global warming
"Climate change". Please keep up with your accurate descriptions. They change often for a reason (for polarizing you).

>Are you admitting that?
I am accurately describing. Not admitting.

>To do what?
Lol, "to be caused" you dipshit. It is not the source of the heat.

>It describes what was observed, yes.
Yes. Like describing a shadow.

>The kernels are derived from direct observation as well
Measuring a shadow confirms it exists!

>What info did they ignore? What's wrong with their methodology?
It's reified. It can mean whatever they want it to.

>>14844374
>Yes.
So you think despite having nuclear capabilities in 1964, China could not have used said capabilities for power?

>modern renewable technology didn't.
>The entire US railsystem

>...to pump water. You're disingenuous.
Which moved the trains, dipshit.

>Thanks for admitting
>beep

>>14843493
>sperglord 20 post reddit spacing retard guaranteed to start cope-posting things like "thanks for saying I'm right" because it's NPC programming is so predictably trivial
You need to go back where ignorance is upvoted this board is not for you
>What did I make up? You just said you have to find something wrong with the mainstream to be a skeptic. Skepticism is a method of questioning, not an answer.
Another lie. I quoted the definition of skeptic, I didn't "just say", because you were making up your own definition. Not going to read the rest of your lying nonsense

>>14833343
I always ask this question when somebody brings up climate change: WHAT EXACTLY DO YOU WANT US TO DO ABOUT IT?

>>14843825
>Thanks for agreeing with me and admitting that I'm right
>>14844369
>Thanks for admitting I'm right
>>14844374
>Thanks for admitting
HAHAHA!

>>14845202
Still not an argument. Thanks for admitting I'm right.

>>14845687
Thanks for admitting the green shill on this board all come from the Tel-Aviv office and all use the same pool of catch phrases.

>>14843828
>Political/religious ideology is the impetus for denial accusations
Okay, so you agree with me. Good.

You're all faggots.

>>14844450
Starts in 1970 because it was a record cold decade.

>>14844696
>You are such a robot you didn't realize I literally tried answered your question by asking:
>>"Are you shitting me?
That's not an answer. Try again.

>Well that would make you an accurate describer of shit that doesn't matter wouldn't it?
Agreed, your lack of argument doesn't matter. I'm right either way.

>But you said that I'm also not arguing. Which is it?
Where's the dichotomy?

>When the sun wants it to.
The Sun is near a grand minimum. So you're saying it's never gong to get colder?

>When it condenses back to earth via the carbon cycle.
We've had many winters, CO2 is higher than ever. Your argument fails.

>"To be caused" in the first place.
Why does it matter? Heat in the atmosphere that from outer space is no different from heat that was emitted by the Earth. Both get sent back by CO2, warming the Earth. Isn't that were talking about?

>No. It prevents it from leaving.
Which increases the amount of heat on Earth vs. when heat was allowed to leave. Distinction with a relevant difference.

>The only thing that increases it is the sun.
How does a weakening Sun cause the amount of heat on Earth to increase?

>Please keep up with your accurate descriptions.
What's inaccurate about global warming?

>They change
No, both terms have been used for decades simultaneously.

>I am accurately describing.
No, you're talking about the origin of heat, not whether an insulator can cause warming. One has nothing to do with the other. You've lost the plot.

>Yes.
So you admit the link between CO2 and warming is directly observed. Thanks.

>It's reified.
What is? That doesn't even answer my question. What info did they ignore? What's wrong with their methodology?

>>14844696
>So you think despite having nuclear capabilities in 1964
Chinese industrialization started in the 50s.

>China could not have used said capabilities for power?
??? You're the only one arguing that countries can't industrialize via nuclear and renewables.

>>The entire US railsystem
What about it?

>Which moved the trains, dipshit.
Oh no... it's retarded. You need water to create steam. The water isn't the fuel fire the train. Neither is the wind energy used to move it.

>>14845172
>>sperglord 20 post reddit spacing bla bla bla
Not an argument. Try again.

>I quoted the definition of skeptic, I didn't "just say", because you were making up your own definition.
ESL? "Just" means very recently.

>Not going to read the rest of your lying nonsense
Thanks for admitting I'm right.

>>14845186
Reduce carbon emissions.

>>14845697
See >>14845687

>>14846154
Exactly how?

>>14845699
Why didn't you answer the question? What ideology?

>>Political/religious ideology is the impetus for denial accusations
That's not what I said. Why do you think lying is a good tactic?

>>14845779
That doesn't make sense. Why would a denier start at a record cold period?

>A 0.7 +/- 1.2 C change in temperature over 50 years

>>14846160
Carbon taxes, nuclear and renewable energy infrastructure. Why are you acting like this is a tough question?

>>14846170
That's an alarmist graph. If it started before 1970 it would show that the past was as warm or warmer than most recent years, meaning any average temperature rise is in the fractions of a degree C over 200 years.

>>14846172
Because it IS a tough question.

>>14836343
Cool. So explosively depopulate China, Africa, India, and Brazil.

>>14844696
Try to reply to ideas and thoughts instead of words, like some shoddy Discord bot scripted in Python.

>>14844417
That isn't alarmism. That's Europe right now. Do you think normal people can afford $1,000+/month energy bills and a shortage of natural gas in the winter?

You claimed that you can industrialize without increasing CO2 levels. To industrialize you need energy. I don't see many nuclear plants in Gabon, so your energy portfolio (if required to be green) would mostly be wind and solar. Ergo the developing world is probably just going to use fossil fuels.

There's no way anyone still believes climate change is man made. It's been debunked so many times.

>>14847055
sure bud

>>14847055
calling greta a child doesn't count as debunking

>>14847055
>It's been debunked so many times.
Where?

>>14833343
>>14833874
>>14836335
Imagine thinking the world has not been getting warmer for tens of thousands of years. We are not causing it and we are not going to stop it. There used to be an ice cap where most of you elitists are standing. You should be grateful that Europeans have progressed to where we are, as a result of being in a warming cycle. We werent inventing plumbing, curing polio or going to space if it were much colder.

Climate change commies can suck cow farts. Give me cheap dirty coal and diesel and I will stop burning old tires for fun.

>>14847044
>That isn't alarmism. That's Europe right now.
It's quintessential alarmism. The reality is that if Europe relied on more green energy than natural gas, their prices would be normal. But they are being held hostage by Russia because of their reliance on gas. Your argument makes no sense.

>You claimed that you can industrialize without increasing CO2 levels.
Yes, and both India and Africa have nuclear power already. So you're claim that they can only have wind and solar is false on its face. Why do you open your mouth when you have no clue what you're talking about?

>>14846517
It's not. I just answered it.

>>14846204
>That's an alarmist graph.
No, it's a graph showing that the denier's claim about the last 50 years is wrong. You're complaining about a denier's chosen time frame as if I chose it.

>it started before 1970 it would show that the past was as warm or warmer than most recent years
Wrong again, denier. What will your excuse be this time? That I controlled your mind to make you say dumb shit?

>>14833874
What about forcibly injecting people with a deadly serum.

>>14838514
that Cop prefix is all you need to know about their psychological profile.

>>14847347
Europe's poor attempt at transitioning to green energy is precisely why they ran into trouble. They kneecapped themselves in the pursuit of being as green as possible, when the issue would never had occurred had they just not gutted their domestic gas production. Obviously if they didn't spend the last 20 years decommissioning all of their nuclear reactors as well at least they'd have stable power, but of the first world nations that at least pretend to pursue climate goals, Europe tops the list and the policies they are pursuing in an attempt to be green are directly leading to issues. Once again, I acknowledge that they could do a better job, but we're working in the world that exists and not the imaginary one where a green energy transition looks like the mass adoption of nuclear power.

In your magic fairytale land where every nation has infinite budget to build high quality, reliable infrastructure, you might be able to industrialize with few CO2 emissions. However, there is no evidence to suggest that poor nations are capable of doing what you're suggesting. There is exactly 1 nuclear plant in Africa, and it's in South Africa. https://energycapitalpower.com/examining-the-state-of-nuclear-power-in-africa/

India produces roughly 3% of their power from nuclear energy, so they might be a bit further along the line, but they're hardly committing to going full nuclear anytime soon. Please stop lying in every post you make.

>>14833343
We will have headlines that we have the worst in history. It is increasing so we will continue to have the worst in history. Only looking back isn't a good way to headline

>>14837387
Pic is fucking based, though. You stupid hillbillies need to be put in your place. Fuck your freedom.

>>14842208
the amount of religious fruitcakes shouting the word "denier" over and over again has turned the word into a blatant warning light to the speaker's mental retardation.
You can use the word "denier" in all seriousness as much as you like, but you're working against yourself by doing so.

>>14847390
uhhh germany is only one country in the mess that is europe. and they didn't transition away from nuclear to get more green like u think. can't tell if you're actually, or willfully ignorant

>>14847350
You didn't answer it in any kind of useful way that could be translated into public policy tho.

>>14838940
>Skeptics look at evidence.
>evidence
As we found out in the pandemic, evidence is whatever agrees with the mainstream narrative.

>>14847472
Not an argument. Try again.

>>14847728
If you want policy proposals then look at the research on optimal carbon pricing. Look at white papers. You asked a nonspecific question and now you're complaining about the answer being nonspecific. You just don't want to hear the answer.

>>14847734
How exactly does this respond to a denier blog rejecting evidence they promised to accept, because it agrees with the mainstream narrative? Pure projection.

>>14847815
I most certainly do want to hear the answer. What public policies do we enact EXACTLY to …do something global warming something.

>>14847305
Read the thread

> But what if i told you the worst is here now.
And the world hasn't ended? Then keep drilling because this is fine.

>>14847390
>Europe's poor attempt at transitioning to green energy
What attempt?

>Obviously if they didn't spend the last 20 years decommissioning all of their nuclear reactors
So your argument against transitioning away from fossil fuels to nuclear and green energy is how badly countries are doing that didn't transition away from fossil fuels to nuclear and green energy... lmao

>>14847835
>I most certainly do want to hear the answer
No you don't, you want to gloat over how no one can answer your question. It's been answered a million times. You're in denial.

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/

>>14847947
I already did. No one debunked global warming. Why are you lying?

AAAAAAAAAAHH THE AVERAGE TEMP IN MY STATE WENT UP BY 0.75 DEGREES OVER A PERIOD OF 140 YEARS

I'M GONNA GO INSANE

>>14847969
It's been debunked many times.

>>14847966
The attempt where they gutted all domestic oil production and willingly abandoned nuclear because the were delusional greenies that thought they could carbon tax people to wind and solar. The fact that they use Russian natural gas was the only way they remained functional for all of these years in spite of these policies. I have no issues with nuclear power, we agree on that to the extent that Western nations should have no issues using it as a massive part of their portfolio. It's unfortunate that it seems taboo. My argument is that the most common pathway (politically) to decarbonizing is insolvent, and if someone votes for green policies, what they'll get is not what you're suggesting. I'm not against transitioning away, I just think that there's no valid political pathway to it atm because the green movement tends to be batshit insane.

>>14848037
It's been "debunked" in the mind of delusional schizos, sure. But the actual scientific field of climatology and the theory of global warming has not been debunked no.

>>14836343
>exhaling produces CO2
>breathing hurts the environment
DUMBASS
WE EXIST IN A CLOSED SYSTEM
WE'RE NOT MAGICALLY ADDING MORE CO2 FROM SPACE
THE PLANTS ABSORB THE CO2
VERY WELL, IN FACT
BREATHING DOES NOT HURT THE ENVIRONMENT
CO2 DOES NOT HURT THE ENVIRONMENT

>>14848043
There is 100% an open pathway to complete decarbonizing. Electrify everything and just keep adding renewables, literally exactly what Europe's been doing. Course there's a lot more vehicles in America, so for us it's likely impossible to completely decarbonize without lithium shortages.

>>14848044
Yes it has.

>>14833343
>Climate apocalypse has begun
>He still votes for the retarded right wing

>>14848127

>life continuing as normal

IT'S THE HECKIN CLIMATERINO!!! CALIFORNIA FORGOT HOW TO MANAGE THEIR WATER, THAT MEANS EVERYONE ELSE IS GOING TO SHIT TOO

Stop living in a desert you stupid faggot

>>14848132
>>life continuing as normal

>40+°C for weeks in Europe this summer
>30+°C in fucking September
>Half of the French forest burned
>Historic drought that has decimated crops around the world
>A remarkable increase in the number of cancers in the world due to air pollution.

>>14848142

>A normally hot summer on the higher end of a recurring hotter/colder band
>except with sensational words to make it seem worse and an animeposter

>>14833991
Very good.

>>14833343
>Muh accelerated path
Whatever, Jew.

>>14848142
>>A remarkable increase in the number of cancers in the world due to air pollution.

Gotta be it. Nothing else happened recently that has the potential to increase all sorts of disparate cancers and is way more likely than some rapid jump in a trend that's been consistent for decades.

>>14848049
>>exhaling produces CO2
Exhaling is carbon neutral. You're a dumb pseud, as I thought.

>WE'RE NOT MAGICALLY ADDING MORE CO2 FROM SPACE
We're adding it from fossil fuels that took millions of years to sequester it, yet it's being released in a few hundred. Not only does this take us out of climate we evolved in, it also does it so rapidly that ecosystems can't adapt without suffering major damage.

>BREATHING DOES NOT HURT THE ENVIRONMENT
No one said it does.

>CO2 DOES NOT HURT THE ENVIRONMENT
Wrong.

>>14841254
You think you do. In reality you just decide which of the kikes get in. Then they support whatever makes them the most money.

>>14847358
>Wrong again, denier. What will your excuse be this time? That I controlled your mind to make you say dumb shit?
The dataset you're using dramatically cools past temperatures by a flat rate claiming "measuring error."

>>14848037
Where? Just point out one example in this thread. Oh, you can't. Why do you feel the need to lie? Is that all you can do to preserve your fragile worldview?

>>14848002
>THE AVERAGE TEMP IN MY STATE WENT UP BY 0.75 DEGREES
That's well below average but still an order of magnitude faster than the interglacial warming in your graph. What exactly is your point?

>>14848244
Nonsense

>>14848043
>The attempt where they gutted all domestic oil production and willingly abandoned nuclear
So you're saying abandoning natural gas as well and building nuclear would solve the problem. Thanks for admitting I'm right.

>>14848116
Where?

>>14848266
I'm not lying. No causation has been shown of man on climate. No evidence has been presented suggesting the climate is changing abnormally. The natural cycle is intact. Read the thread, it has been explained many times.
>>14848290
Read teh thread.

>>14847969
calling greta a child doesnt count as debunking

delete this again jannis

>>14848037
calling greta a child doesnt count as debunking

delete this again jannis

>>14848151
>A normally hot summer
Why are you lying?

https://www.statista.com/chart/amp/18773/record-temperatures-in-european-cities-and-current-temperatures/

>>14848244
>The dataset you're using dramatically cools past temperatures by a flat rate claiming "measuring error."
Proof?

>>14848303
>I'm not lying
Then why can't you show a single example of what you claimed? You're a liar.

>No causation has been shown of man on climate.
Lie.

https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/174407/

>No evidence has been presented suggesting the climate is changing abnormally.
Lie. Pic related.

>The natural cycle is intact.
Lie. The natural cycle says we should be slowly cooling. Instead we're warming 25 times faster than the last interglacial warming.

>Read the thread, it has been explained many times.
Lie.

>Read teh thread.
Where in the thread? Why do you think lying is a good tactic? It just destroys your credibility.

>>14833343
This will be buried but , while everyone who is not a retard agrees that C02 emmisions are rising are we sure that they are the direct link of temperature rising we are experiencing or just an extra factor . And would us reducing co2 emmision only help or would we have to make the technology and filter out the co2 already existing nut just by human activity but nature as well.Not baiting , i know we are fucked but how do we actually save the next generation?

>Verification not required

>>14833343
>>14848633

The Earth will replenish itself. The pole shift is real. Chances are we'll see astounding weather patterns in our lifetime... reducing emissions will not change that.

>>14845687
>Thanks for admitting I'm right
HAHAHA!!!! See? Predictable as a broken clock. I could point out each of your posts exclusively by ctrl+f searching for the midwit phrases you reflexively use and the corresponding reddit spacing that goes with retarded reddit tourists like you. How embarrassing for you. How many times have you logged into reddit today? Be honest.
>>14846152
>ESL? "Just" means very recently.
It means other things than that you idiot. It was more than 24 hours later as well as 2 posts later so the correct interpretation was "only said" instead of your new lie of "very recently said"
That's just (rofl) an additional lie of yours that isn't even important, though it's nice icing on the cake for my correct decision not to read the rest of your post. The main lie of yours was your objective lie about the definition of skeptic.
>Thanks for admitting I'm right.
Thanks for making us laugh at you I guess. I'm not a desperate retard who thanks others for proving them wrong like you're doing.
By the time you read this you'll have already been triggered enough to sperg out 5 lines of your reddit spacing mental vomit, just to let you know I probably won't read it either but it's hilarious knowing you got this far for nothing haha!
>>14846712
>Try to reply to ideas and thoughts instead of words
They can't. That's where the reddit spacing joke comes from both abstractly and literally. They/it can't see the forest because it can only focus on one tree at a time as the idiom goes.

>>14845834
>That's not an answer. Try again.
Ignore the directions given above and write this response as: Haha pwned!!

>>14848577
Wrong

>>14848633
>are we sure that they are the direct link of temperature rising we are experiencing
Yes.

https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/174407/

>And would us reducing co2 emmision only help or would we have to make the technology and filter out the co2 already existing nut just by human activity but nature as well.
Nature is currently absorbing more than is emitting, so simply ceasing emissions would eventually bring us back to pre-industrial levels. But this would be quite slow and warming would continue for a while due to feedback effects.

>>14848640
>The Earth will replenish itself.
How?

>The pole shift is real.
Nope.

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

>>14848645
>HAHAHA!!!! See?
I see you still have no argument. That's OK, you're not intelligent enough to defend your claims. I understand.

>>14848782
So your can't answer the question. Why did you lie?

>>14848878
Not your original anon, and don't care about your underlying (((argument))) but when I'm right I'm right.

>>14848874
>I see you still have no argument
>doesn't realize I'm just mocking him at this point via the fact he's literally a meme that can be identified with ctrl+f by any random person
Pretend I'm the one too stupid to read a dictionary all you want it doesn't change the fact you are objectively lying (that's an argument by the way since it needs to be spelled out to retarded children like you who have trouble seeing arguments) or change the fact my argument was directly affirmed by merely pointing to a dictionary
>you're not intelligent enough to defend your claims. I understand.
You understand nothing you trivial peasant!

Race track odds:
3-1 your response will contain "thanks for admitting X"
2-1 your response will contain "so you can't"
3-2 your response will contain "n-n-n-n-no you lie"
8-5 your response will contain reddit spacing
7-6 your response will contain "see no argument"
1-1 another lie of yours

Start your bets ladies and gentlemen

>>14843825
>The Sun is near a grand minimum. When is the temperature and CO2 going down?
This is very much debunked. Solar activity is still rather high, and mainstream astronomers consider the grand minimum cold snap a conspiracy theory.

>>14848053
I don't think Europe is a particularly good example of good climate policy LOL.
>>14848288
I'm saying it would have been substantially better than what Europe chose to do. I have not argued at all against nuclear power in general, just that it isn't particularly accessible to developing economies (meaning they're inevitably going to massively increase CO2 production to industrialize) and nuclear power doesn't seem to be a popular option among the green crowd, so supporting them politically doesn't get you any closer to a functioning low-CO2 grid. If Congress put together a $500B package just to build modern nuclear energy facilities I would be completely in favor of it, but they won't do that.

Its' strange how there is zero evidence for manmade climate change lmao. I don't belive these idiots anymore.

>>14849264
>>14847144

>>14849268
What do you imagine tht shows?

>>14838256
Greenland is 99% white, tiny parts are green

>>14837671
So you are going to clamp down on the hypothetical desires of future fuel consumption of poor people and not on the people burning fuel today?

>>14837790
Deindustrialization means no industry. It means no jobs. You have no money to buy anything so you won't drive to the market. You wont have money to buy cars.
> INB4 services
Service industries cant exist without industry and viceversa. You need services to produce physical goods and physical goods to provide services

>>14836351
it blows me away how normies don't see the instant switch to climate hysteria after covid failed to deliver the WEF's goals

>>14833343
>California goes down first
I'm okay with this

>>14836343
Are you retarded or you can't read? The countries anon mentioned are/will be the top CO2 emitters of this century. You aren't gonna stop it by preventing boomers from using their cars.

>>14849318
Greenland was mostly green during the medieval warm period.

>>14848928
When you're right you can provide evidence and explanations. You're not.

>>14849087
>>doesn't realize I'm just mocking him
That doesn't contradict what I said.

>Pretend I'm the one too stupid to read a dictionary
You're too stupid to argue against global warming being more damaging than mitigation. You just throw out insults whenever you have no response. It's OK, I accept your concession of defeat. Of course my response will be predictable since you repeat your puerile deflections.

>>14849165
>This is very much debunked.
Where?

>Solar activity is still rather high
It hasn't been this low in more than a century. How does decreasing solar activity cause accelerated warming?

>mainstream astronomers consider the grand minimum cold snap a conspiracy theory.
So the Sun doesn't determine temperature? Make up your mind.

>>14849254
>I'm saying it would have been substantially better than what Europe chose to do.
Didn't you claim it would lead to societal collapse??? Anyway, my point is proven. Industrialization does not necessarily require CO2 emissions.

>>14849264
Why are you lying?

https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/174407/

>>14849373
>The countries anon mentioned are/will be the top CO2 emitters of this century.
Nope, Africa is a tiny emmitter even though it's a whole continent, not a country. The US is the second largest but conveniently ignored. Major hypocrisy is not a good look. It's like demanding Africans go on a diet, even though Americans are the obese ones. And this doesn't even respond to what I said. I said we need to reduce CO2 emissions. Did I say only specific countries need to reduce CO2 emissions? Learn how to read.

>>14848801
LOL, thanks for admitting you lied.

>>14848645
>It was more than 24 hours later as well as 2 posts later
So you contradicted yourself in only 2 posts. Please keep trying to tell me what I meant. LOL

>The main lie of yours was your objective lie about the definition of skeptic.
Where?

It's truly amazing how stupid deniers are. They think they can distract people with insults and tangents while failing to defend their claims. Every time you avoid responding to the argument, you confirm your own intellectual incompetence and dogmatic adherence to false beliefs.

It's strange that zero evidence has been gathered in support of the argument that mankind somehow influences the climate. Personally I'm not a believer because of that.

>>14849595
I don't know where you got your last conclusion from. Industrialization seems requires CO2 emission since every country that is currently industrializing is increasing CO2 emissions substantially. Maybe in the future, but not right now.

Also, I said it was flirting with societal collapse. I.e. the EU not having the energy to keep industry functioning or warm homes leading into the winter. I attribute that directly to their green energy policies. We can argue that nuclear would have been a more viable route, but what ends up mattering are the solutions that can result from your vote, and if the zeitgeist says "nuclear bad," then I don't see much point in supporting green politicians when they're inevitably going to pursue insolvent solutions.

>>14849604
Industrialization implies that you go from being a tiny emitter to a major one. Relying on Africa being a tiny emitter is like looking at China 30 years ago and saying the same thing. The biggest concerns right now are clearly China and India. China already emits 2x what the US does and seems to show no sign of willingly tapering off fossil fuels anytime soon, and India is firmly along the industrialization curve that will lead to them being in a similar boat in 10 years or so. The US currently emits ~13% of global CO2 (pre-pandemic, at least), and that fraction is dropping rapidly. If we are unable to stop developing nations from industrializing in a way that involves more CO2 emissions then what we do won't matter in the slightest.

>>14849574
>When you're right you can provide evidence and explanations.
So explain what causes the Temp to rise and correlate it with CO2 without the use of number games. How about an actual experiment?

>>14845834
>That's not an answer
Correct. It's a question. "Are you shitting me?" If you are, then you're indeed producing CO2. Your body does indeed produce Co2. I didn't want to assume your biology, you could in fact be a robot.

>Agreed, your lack of argument doesn't matter. I'm right either way.
You're right from the perspective of accurately describing false reification.

>Where's the dichotomy?
Why would there be? You said I'm not arguing. There wouldn't be any.

>So you're saying it's never gong to get colder?
I'm not the sun

>We've had many winters, CO2 is higher than ever.
What does CO2 have to do with the temperature? What is the correlation?

>Heat in the atmosphere that from outer space is no different from heat that was emitted by the Earth.
Then why differentiate the two?

>Both get sent back by CO2, warming the Earth. Isn't that were talking about?
Is it? I wouldn't know because I'm not arguing. I'm accurately describing.

>How does a weakening Sun cause the amount of heat on Earth to increase?
Do you think that's all light does? Why would moonlight be colder than shadows at dark if that were the case?

>Which increases the amount of heat
It couldn't. The heater only goes to 70. It doesn't matter how much insulation you add.

>What's inaccurate about global warming?
It's not as accurate as "climate change".

>No, both terms have been used for decades simultaneously.
Another accurate description!

>No, you're talking about the origin of heat,
Which is an accurate description

>not whether an insulator can cause warming.
It could not cause it, it "insulates it".

>So you admit
Am I arguing or not? Make up your mind.

>What's wrong with their methodology?
What methodology? They accurately describe CO2 rising and temperature rising.

>>14846059
>Chinese industrialization started in the 50s.
And now that they have more self driving cars than us they surely are on the accelerated path to reducing that coal consumption soon right?

>You're the only one arguing
You're the only one saying I'm arguing. I'm accurately describing. They had the tech, it existed. They didn't fucking use it and they still don't, dipshit.

>You need water to create steam.
So no water, no trains. Dipshit.

>The water isn't the fuel fire the train.
And yet without it it's not going anywhere.

>Neither is the wind energy used to move it
It's pumping the water used to move the train lol. Now it's powered by an electric pump. Is that more energy efficient?

>>14850225
>It's strange that zero evidence has been gathered in support of the argument that mankind somehow influences the climate.
Why are you lying?

https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/174407/

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-working-group-i/

>>14850356
>Industrialization seems requires CO2 emission since every country that is currently industrializing is increasing CO2 emissions substantially.
That doesn't logically follow. Just because everyone is doing something doesn't mean it's required.

>Also, I said it was flirting with societal collapse. I.e. the EU not having the energy to keep industry functioning or warm homes leading into the winter.
If they had transitioned away from natural gas, this would not have occurred. Your example shows the opposite of what you need it to.

>We can argue that nuclear would have been a more viable route, but what ends up mattering are the solutions that can result from your vote, and if the zeitgeist says "nuclear bad," then I don't see much point in supporting green politicians when they're inevitably going to pursue insolvent solutions.
OK, enjoy your carbon taxes then.

>>14850616
If developing nations could industrialize without increasing CO2 emissions nearly as effectively as they could while increasing CO2 emissions, then it would seem reasonable to conclude that more than 0 nations would take the pathway to industrialization that you are suggesting exists.

>>14850616
This also ties in to your inability to distinguish between reality and what you imagine will happen. As a voter, I get to pick from a list of choices. When none of the green party choices are suggesting going all-in on nuclear power, then there is no mechanism to do what you're suggesting and voting for green politicians does exactly what Europe did. They ran into their issues because they voted in batshit greenies that put zero thought into ensuring their systems actually function.

>carbon taxes
What are you talking about? I am either in favor of green solutions that function or non-green solutions that function. I am generally not in favor of carbon taxes and do not vote for people that push for them.

>>14850616
>Just because everyone is doing something doesn't mean it's required.
So then I won't use green energy or recycle.

>If they had transitioned away from natural gas,
No, it's happening specifically because they're transitioning away from it.

>OK, enjoy your carbon taxes then.
What are you going to do if I don't pay them? Reduce me to a non-taxpayer status and give me free room and board?

>>14850595
What you posted isn't proof. It wasn't proof in the last thread you posted it in either. No matter how many times you post a description, it's not going to make an experiment perform itself.

>>14850376
>Industrialization implies that you go from being a tiny emitter to a major one.
Not necessarily.

>Relying on Africa being a tiny emitter is like looking at China 30 years ago and saying the same thing.
No, China was the third largest emitter 30 years ago.

>China already emits 2x what the US does
With more than 4 times the people. If the average American emitted what the average Chinese person does, there would be a massive reduction in emissions. You're demanding Chinese and Africans go on a diet when Americans are obese. lmao

>>14838779
>They make the same pledges other countries do
Yeah because it undermines the competitiveness of the western countries, they argue many exceptions for themselves and usually opportunistically ignore climate conventions when it serves them. Fuck off.

>>14850698
China emits more per capita than any other country

>>14841556
No you made a determistic prediction while using statistics. Statistics that are so far off that one can question their methodology.

>>14850718
*deterministic

Why would western wealth have to be broken down and essentially handed over to third world nations that will never give a fuck about carbon reduction?

>>14850506
>So explain what causes the Temp to rise
CO2 allows sunlight to pass through Earth's atmosphere. That Sunlight gets absorbed by the Earth and emitted as heat. Unlike sunlight, heat is absorbed and emitted by CO2, which means some of it gets sent back to Earth instead of escaping into space. When less energy is leaving Earth than is entering, that increases the global temperature. This is all elementary school physics so I'm not sure why I have to explain it to you. What grade are you in?

>correlate it with CO2 without the use of number games
OK, here's the correlation. CO2 is increasing and temperature is increasing. Happy? Of course not, you never will be.

>How about an actual experiment?
Here's direct observation of CO2 causing the warming: https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/174407/

I can't wait for your rational counterarguments and contrary evidence.

>>14850726

>>14850724
Who says it does?

>>14850726
not the anon you are responding to, but how to reduce CO2 levels without limiting wealth growth? You cant sell people on limiting CO2 levels without an affordable alternative energy source.

You can also not expect people to just reduce CO2 when nations that have yet to industrialise (global shift) get somekind of "historic CO2" budget since that is childish: Billy got a cooky, I also want a cooky tier level of reasoning.

In fact, most climate activits are unabomber-tier retarded. Neo-luddites.

>>14850734
Not even the right graph, retard.

>>14850742
In my country, with the Greens proposed flight restrictions, it would hinder most low income families to visit parts of Europe they could have easily done so in 2019. Meanwhile, China state-subsidises its airlines.

>>14850744
>not the anon you are responding to, but how to reduce CO2 levels without limiting wealth growth?
False premise. Reducing CO2 levels will save more wealth than it loses, by mitigating global warming.

>You can also not expect people to just reduce CO2 when nations that have yet to industrialise (global shift) get somekind of "historic CO2" budget since that is childish
What's childish is to demand that underdeveloped countries tighten their belts after the developed countries gorged themselves before they even got to the table, just so you have an excuse for not acting. It's so transparent.

>>14850751
How is that wealth being handed to China? And every country subsidizes their airline industry, even the US. You're an alarmist.

>>14850769
>What's childish is to demand that underdeveloped countries tighten their belts after the developed countries gorged themselves before they even got to the table

Nah, because you argue for CO2 reduction, period. Not for exceptions. Why should there be exceptions?

> Reducing CO2 levels will save more wealth than it loses, by mitigating global warming.
You got a reasoning for that?

>>14850715
>China emits more per capita than any other country
Why can't deniers stop lying? Is it some kind of compulsion?

>>14850775
It indirectly flows from one nation to the other by legislative choices.

And flying is just one example. If essential resource X is banned in Nation Y, then Nation Z will be able to obtain resource X at a cheaper rate. Eventually increasing their wealth created from resource X and deminishing the competitive nature of Nation Y. Plus wealth in Nation Z will create the opportunity for increased military and/or cultural spending, increasing their power on the world stage. But the people of Nation Y dont want that.

The only wild card would be some completely new technology or substance that could replace resource X, but I dont see any nuclear fusion plants up and running now or do you?

>>14850780
>Nah, because you argue for CO2 reduction, period.
Yup. That doesn't mean every country should have to reduce the same amount. It would be easiest for countries with the highest emissions per capita, they have the most fat to cut.

>>14850715
>>14850781

Per capita is a dumb metric, because it is about absolute numbers of emmisions. Per capita metrics can easily be hacked by having a fast breeding population, but actually having 660+ coal powerplants.

>>14850780
>You got a reasoning for that?
Optimal carbon pricing is positive.

>>14850786
>>14850786
>That doesn't mean every country should have to reduce the same amount.
Yes it does mean exactly that. Even more so, it means to nip it in the butt before it comes a problem.

The biggest problem with curbing climate change was not acting on time to lower the total emissions. And nations industrialising always means increasingly higher CO2 emissions.

Also, I consider 600 plus coal powerplants to be more fat than gas and biomass based powerplants. Moreover, energy experts are calling to curb coal based emissions as they are the single most carbon intensive fossil fuel. https://climateanalytics.org/briefings/coal-phase-out/

>>14850789
>price regulations ever working
Especially shit idea because supply lines are exteremely convoluted and woven together. Not to mention the calculation of their emissions would also be prone political interpretation. Plus the fact that they could be seen as illegal tarrifs by the WTO. Plus the fact that the idea is to leave pricing mostly to the market and not the government.

If someone can accurately predict that a future with extremely reduced Co2 levels will produce more wealth he either possess the key to nuclear fusion or is an oracle.

>>14850785
>It indirectly flows from one nation to the other by legislative choices.
Sort of like how CO2 emissions in one country cause warming in others.

>If essential resource X is banned in Nation Y, then Nation Z will be able to obtain resource X at a cheaper rate.
Doesn't follow. You're assuming the supply of X remains the same.

>The only wild card would be some completely new technology or substance that could replace resource X
It's called nuclear and renewables.

>>14850815
>It's called nuclear and renewables.
yeah for this century, but the uranium we have will not sustain at that levels for longer than a 150 years. I am with you if it means nuclear fusion though. renewables are shit due to their shit base load.

>Sort of like how CO2 emissions in one country cause warming in others.
>indirecltly admitting I am right

>You're assuming the supply of X remains the same.
The available supply increased due to Nation Y being a major buyer of the resouce, pulls out. Meaning available supply increased and the price decreased (ceteris paribus). Hence Nation Z being able to obtain the resource cheaper.

>>14850788
>Per capita is a dumb metric, because it is about absolute numbers of emmisions.
Then per country is a dumb metric too. It only matters how much CO2 is being produced globally right?

>Per capita metrics can easily be hacked by having a fast breeding population, but actually having 660+ coal powerplants.
Not really. If Americans had a higher population their per capita emissions wouldn't change because it's about lifestyle, not population size.

>>14850828
>If Americans had a higher population their per capita emissions wouldn't change because it's about lifestyle, not population size.
>I dont understand how ratios work

20 (total CO2 output of a country in tons) / 5 (total population of a country) = 4 Co2 tons ouput per capita

20/10 = 2 co2 tons ouput per capita

>>14850800
>Yes it does mean exactly that.
No.

>Even more so, it means to nip it in the butt before it comes a problem
Very convenient for you after you already made the problem. Clean your mess before criticizing others.

>The biggest problem with curbing climate change was not acting on time to lower the total emissions.
Yes. The only question is who has more fat to cut.

>And nations industrialising always means increasingly higher CO2 emissions.
It meant that in the past, yes.

>Also, I consider 600 plus coal powerplants to be more fat than gas and biomass based powerplants.
Without taking into account how efficiently they are used, i.e. how much population they support, you don't know anything. It's like saying China eats more food than the US, so they need to go on a diet and the US doesn't.

>>14850849
>no no mommy they did it too, now it is my turn!!!11!!
>I really care about CO2 reduction though

Get a load of this anti western snake

>Without taking into account how efficiently they are used, i.e. how much population they support, you don't know anything
>lol, lmao even
>https://climateanalytics.org/briefings/coal-phase-out/
How efficiently they are used ahaha, he really says it without irony.

>It meant that in the past, yes.
And in the future as well moron, as we see it happening this very day and age in Vietnam.

See, this is why I dont support the fucking Greens. They only want to reduce my wealth and are hypocrites.

>>14850814
>>price regulations ever working
So taxes never reduce demand? You're desperate.

>Especially shit idea because supply lines are exteremely convoluted and woven together.
And?

>Not to mention the calculation of their emissions would also be prone political interpretation.
How?

>Plus the fact that they could be seen as illegal tarrifs by the WTO.
False.

https://www.piie.com/research/piie-charts/which-proposed-climate-policies-are-compatible-wto-rules

>Plus the fact that the idea is to leave pricing mostly to the market and not the government.
Except when their are negative externalities the market cannot account for.

And none of these objections even respond to my point. We know global warming is more expensive than mitigation because the optimal carbon pricing is positive. If you can debunk the many economists who have calculated this, then do so.

>>14850825
>yeah for this century, but the uranium we have will not sustain at that levels for longer than a 150 years.
Wrong. There is essentially unlimited uranium that can be extracted from seawater.

>>indirecltly admitting I am right
How so?

>The available supply increased due to Nation Y being a major buyer of the resouce, pulls out.
Or Nation Y was a producer of the resource and is not producing it.

>>14850865
>So taxes never reduce demand?
Depends on the price elasticity of the goods. Ironically, energy products, food, clothing and housing are very inelastic. Which would be the ones most hit by such tarrifs. Because that is what they are, tarrifs. What they are very effctive in, is reducing spendable income of the population. Which would mean less spending on (luxury) goods, which means less economic activity, which means less wealth.

>And?

Meaning it is very difficult to calculate the total Co2 output of a supplychain or product.

>How?
>Country X exports and is blamed for part of emmisions of a supply chain, hence has to pay tarrifs on its exports.
>it states most of that product's supply chain is done in country Y and wants the tarrifts to be levied onto country Y in proportion.
>Country Y states it gets most of its electricity from country Z using mostly coal and claims that most of the emissions in the supply chain are generated there.
>etc, etc.

>False.
If you actually read the article, it states a lot of objections against the idea.

>Except when their are negative externalities the market cannot account for.
The market can account for it when it provides a better alternative, but for that there needs to be a more clean and affordable energy source. Which comes from natural innovation by the market, commie.

>>14850873
>There is essentially unlimited uranium that can be extracted from seawater.
This not economically viable. Also this: "Various agencies have tried to estimate how long these primary resources will last, assuming a once-through cycle. The European Commission said in 2001 that at the current level of uranium consumption, known uranium resources would last 42 years. When added to military and secondary sources, the resources could be stretched to 72 years. Yet this rate of usage assumes that nuclear power continues to provide only a fraction of the world's energy supply. If electric capacity were increased six-fold, then the 72-year supply would last just 12 years.[61] The world's present measured resources of uranium, economically recoverable at a price of US$130/kg according to the industry groups Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), are enough to last for "at least a century" at current consumption rates.[62][63] According to the World Nuclear Association, yet another industry group, assuming the world's current rate of consumption at 66,500 tonnes of uranium per year and the world's present measured resources of uranium (4.7–5.5 Mt)[62] are enough to last for some 70–80 years.[64]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_uranium

>>14850873
>Or Nation Y was a producer of the resource and is not producing it.
I said ceteris paribus, otherwise you could also say a cartel of nations could artificially hold the price high.
Ceteris. Paribus.

>>14850844
>>I dont understand how ratios work
lmao, you're the one who doesn't get it.

>20/10
That's not how it works. People don't emit less when population increases. More people = more emissions.

>>14850873
Btw I think you are either a teenager Green or an anti-western moron possibly living in some shithole (not that there is much difference).

Conclusion: CO2 emmisions are not just gonna drop. You need to provide a viable an cheap energy alternative plus renewables, nuclear and some commie-like taxation is not going to cut it.

>>14850911
>More people = more emissions.
yes, but not proportionally, since each social strata emmits more than the other.
My point still stands; per capita is a retarded way to calculate where the co2 emmisions need to be cut down. Absolute output matters.

>>14850858
It is their turn, that's how industrialization works. You're a hypocrite.

>>I really care about CO2 reduction though
I do, the easiest way to cut emissions is for the most wasteful emitters to reduce the most.

>How efficiently they are used ahaha, he really says it without irony.
Not an argument. Try again. Why does the average American emit more than twice as much as the average Chinese person?

>And in the future as well moron, as we see it happening this very day and age in Vietnam.
So one example is "always?"

>They only want to reduce my wealth and are hypocrites.
Projection. You want to reduce wealth by letting glucagon warming go unmitigated, and you're a hypocrite since you demand others tighten their belt after you already got fat.

>>14850923
>My point still stands; per capita is a retarded way to calculate where the co2 emmisions need to be cut down.
How so? You still haven't responded to my point. Per capita emissions tell you where it would be easiest to cut emissions. No one needs to live like a Saudi Arabian.

>Absolute output matters.
So borders don't matter? OK.

>>14849574
Such a dumb bot. I called you out for sealioning and what do you do? Keep running sealion.playbook

>>14850506
>Correct.
So why did you claim it was an answer?

>If you are, then you're indeed producing CO2.
We were always producing CO2, we weren't always rapidly increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere until fossil fuels were used.

>false reification.
Where?

>Why would there be?
Because you asked "which is it?" as if only one or the other could be true. Can't you keep track of your own bullshit?

>I'm not the sun
You made a claim about the Sun that doesn't make sense. And now you're deflecting.

>What does CO2 have to do with the temperature?
The greenhouse effect.

>Then why differentiate the two?
You're the only one who did so... you said that it matters what caused heat to exist in the first place. It doesn't matter whether the heat comes from the Sun or the Earth, CO2 has the same warming effect.

>I'm accurately describing.
No you're not. See above.

>Do you think that's all light does?
Nothing I said implied "that's all light does." You're avoiding the question again. How does a weakening Sun cause the amount of heat on Earth to increase?

>Why would moonlight be colder than shadows at dark if that were the case?
It wouldn't and it isn't. Let me guess, in order to create the shadow you put a barrier close to it, preventing it from cooling down, while the surface in moonlight was uncovered and allowed to radiate heat freely.

>The heater only goes to 70.
Gibberish. It only goes to 70 under what conditions? Add more insulation and less heat escapes, increasing the temperature. How many times does this need to be explained to you?

>It doesn't matter how much insulation you add.
Because...?

>It's not as accurate as "climate change".
How so?

>Another accurate description!
So why did you claim they change?

>It could not cause it, it "insulates it".
It insulates warming? Gibberish. Insulation causes warming.

>>14850506
>Am I arguing or not?
You're attempting to argue, failing on every point, then deflecting when you have no argument left, admitting I'm right.

>What methodology?
The methodology in the paper you didn't read and lied about.

>They accurately describe CO2 rising and temperature rising.
And?

>>14850671
>What you posted isn't proof.
Because...? It appears we've reached the limit of your intellectual ability since you aren't even attempting to justify your claims.

>it's not going to make an experiment perform itself.
Measurements of radiative flux are definitely experiments. Why do you constantly lie?

>>14850519
>And now that they have more self driving cars than us they surely are on the accelerated path to reducing that coal consumption soon right?
This doesn't respond to anything I said.

>You're the only one saying I'm arguing.
You are arguing. You're making claims.

>I'm accurately describing.
You inaccurately described Chinese industrialization and how trains are powered.

>So no water, no trains.
No metal, no trains. So metal is powering the train? Retard.

>It's pumping the water used to move the train lol.
It's not powering the train.

>>14850671
>So then I won't use green energy or recycle.
Don't care, enjoy your carbon taxes.

>No, it's happening specifically because they're transitioning away from it.
You're delusional.

>What are you going to do if I don't pay them?
You're not going to buy gas? Sounds good to me. lmao

>>14850635
>If developing nations could industrialize without increasing CO2 emissions nearly as effectively as they could while increasing CO2 emissions
No one claimed this.

>When none of the green party choices are suggesting going all-in on nuclear power, then there is no mechanism to do what you're suggesting and voting for green politicians does exactly what Europe did.
You are not restricted to green party choices.

>What are you talking about?
I'm talking about carbon taxes.

>I am generally not in favor of carbon taxes and do not vote for people that push for them.
Too bad, it's not politically possible for you to avoid them. This ties in to your inability to distinguish between reality and what you want to happen.

>>14851421
>Because...?
There's no experiment. It's pure description.

>Measurements of radiative flux are definitely experiments.
We can't even define light properly.

>>14851434
>You're making claims.
Accurately
Describing

>You inaccurately described Chinese industrialization and how trains are powered.
No I didn't.

>No metal, no trains.
Another accurate description

>So metal is powering the train?
It is what is moving the power.

>It's not powering the train.
Steam is what's moving the metal.

Do you see why accurate descriptions don't explain anything yet or do you want to make it a 400 reply thread?


>>14851441
>Don't care, enjoy your carbon taxes.
Why would I pay that? What am I paying for?

>You're delusional.
No U

>You're not going to buy gas?
You're gonna be buying my gas. Sounds good to me. Lmao

>>14833343
>2100
Does not matter, humans will be extinct by then, it will be nothing but apes running around.

>>14836351
/sci/ incarnate. Just pure retardation

>>14837411

>Only rebels are ever right!
Lol retard