/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15736293
Climate change will cause whatever you want.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuous_truth

>>15736293
The question is how will the environment react to higher concentrations of carbon and Methane in the atmosphere?

>>15736293
>My understanding is that warmer air can hold more water vapor, I'd expect this to lead to more rainfall.
>can hold more water vapor, I'd expect this to lead to more rainfall.
>can hold more
>more rainfall
>hold more
>release more
Do you wear a fucking helmet?

Precipitation occurs when a humid air mass undergoes a drop in temperature such that the amount of water vapor saturating the air exceeds the amount that can be held at that particular temperature. This is why coldfronts are normally headed by bands of heavy rain in the humid subtropical south, and likewise why deserts exist east of mountain ranges with temperate rainy weather to the west.

>>15736293
>My understanding is that warmer air can hold more water vapor, I'd expect this to lead to more rainfall.
>the air holds more water
>therefore it drops more water
>at the same time there's more water in the air and less water in the air
The logic of global warming deniers, ladies and gentlemen.

>>15736293
Climate change will exacerbate several desertification processes (medium confidence). Although CO2 fertilisation effect is enhancing vegetation productivity in drylands (high confidence), decreases in water availability have a larger effect than CO2 fertilisation in many dryland areas. There is high confidence that aridity will increase in some places, but no evidence for a projected global trend in dryland aridity (medium confidence). The area at risk of salinisation is projected to increase in the future (limited evidence, high agreement). Future climate change is projected to increase the potential for water driven soil erosion in many dryland areas (medium confidence), leading to soil organic carbon decline in some dryland areas.

Risks from desertification are projected to increase due to climate change (high confidence). Under shared socio-economic pathway SSP2 (‘Middle of the Road’) at 1.5°C, 2°C and 3°C of global warming, the number of dryland population exposed (vulnerable) to various impacts related to water, energy and land sectors (e.g., water stress, drought intensity, habitat degradation) is projected to reach 951 (178) million, 1152 (220) million and 1285 (277) million, respectively. While at global warming of 2°C, under SSP1 (‘Sustainability’), the exposed (vulnerable) dryland population is 974 (35) million, and under SSP3 (‘Fragmented World’) it is 1267 (522) million. Around half of the vulnerable population is in South Asia, followed by Central Asia, West Africa and East Asia.

>>15736551
Sauce: the executive summary of chapter 3 of the IPCC's special report on climate change and land: https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/

>>15736293
No, but semites with their curse of the desert will if not stopped.

>>15736542
Fuck off you ignorant piece of shit, morons like you are not welcome here.

>>15736293
>Climate change

Any faggot that uses the phrase climate change is spouting a meaningless platitude. The climate is always changing. BTW, there is no upcoming man-made climate catastrophe, that is nonsensical anti-science fear mongering. If you think otherwise, provide actual evidence.

>>15736542
Ah, a pejorative without an argument! Behold a global warming cultist.

>>15736293
If all the ice melts it will slow convection in the oceans which will lead to more extreme temperature differences between biomes, so the equator jungle and deserts north and south of it will be much hotter

>>15736293
Warming makes the Hadley cells expand.
In U.S. the north Mexico deserts move north.
https://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/CurrentMap.aspx

>>15736689
>Any faggot that uses the phrase climate change is spouting a meaningless platitude. The climate is always changing.
Fuck the people who pushed "climate change" instead of global warming.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2003/mar/04/usnews.climatechange

>>15736537
>>15736542
I don't see why it's unreasonable to expect air laden with more water vapor to release more rain.
In any case you haven't explained the mechanism of how higher temperatures will expand deserts.

>>15737104
>In any case you haven't explained the mechanism of how higher temperatures will expand deserts.
Why don't you reply to the guy who actually provided something of substance? >>15736551

plants require less moisture in high CO2 environments

>>15737230
>photoshopped text over some random software with news organization logos added every where
Бoг ищeт тeх, ктo живeт Иcтинoй, и тeх, ктo иcкaжaeт Иcтинy

>>15736559
>IPCC

>>15736584
Old growth is crap for logging, most of the trees over 250 years old are hollow inside. Theres tons of forests in the 100-150 year old range that are primo for logging, no idea why they bother cutting old growth.

>>15736551
1/6
>Climate change will make the forces that make deserts stronger (we think). More CO2 in the air will make plants grow better in dry areas (we definitely think), having less water is more impactful than having more CO2 in dry areas. We definitely think that some places will get drier, but haven't found a trend in how arid the worlds dry areas are (we think). More places will get saturated with saltwater in the future (no proofs, but we we definitely think so). We project future climate change will increase water driven soil erosion in many dry areas (we think), leading to less SOM in quite a few dry areas.
This was my interpretation of the first paragraph. Is it similar to your interpretation of it?
Ill give my thoughts on what has been said by the IPCC here in a new reply. Not enough space.

>>15736551
>>15737503
2/6
>Climate change will make the forces that make deserts stronger (we think).
How? Does this directly make deserts bigger, or is it the reaction humans have to climate change that then goes on to expand the deserts (e.g it’s hotter, so humans spray more water on their crops which means they divert a river water from wherever it was going, to their fields.)? If this is the case, then why can that specific human reaction not be dealt with (e.g use less water in farming; don’t grow avocados in a desert)? Instead going to the difficulty of dealing with climate change directly.

>More CO2 in the air will make plants grow better in dry areas (we definitely think), having less water is more impactful than having more CO2 in dry areas.
Does the high confidence apply to both statements, or only that CO2 lets desert plants grow better? We know that CO2 concentration is increasing, but are we experiencing less water across the world’s deserts?

>We definitely think that some places will get drier, but haven't found a trend in how arid the worlds dry areas are (we think).
This seems to answer the question I just asked with: ‘No, the average dryness of deserts globally are not getting drier.’ However, it also seems to say that some deserts are getting drier, but this necessarily means some other deserts must be getting wetter too.
>More places will get saturated with saltwater in the future (no proofs, but we we definitely think so).
I’d expect this to be the case since sea levels are projected to rise by anywhere between 44cm (RCP 2.6) to 97cm (RCP 8.5). However, I’m also aware that some Indian farmers decided to flood their lands with sea water in order to cash in on growing prawns. Could this second method of salinisation be contributing to the increase? Additionally, what’s this got to with deserts expanding?

>>15736551
>>15737509
3/6
>We project future climate change will increase water driven soil erosion in many dry areas (we think), leading to less SOM in quite a few dry areas.
How? This sounds a lot like the IPCC thinks it’s gonna rain more. Additionally, take note of how they say many deserts will have soil erosion, but only some will have a reduction in soil carbon.

>>15736551
>>15737511
4/6
The second paragraph seems to have a few (I suspect deliberate) holes in it. I suppose it’s an executive summary after all. It’s really just meant to scare Jim Hacker MPs into signing on the dotted line.
>Fears of deserts expanding will increase due to climate change (we definitely think). Under World Socialism (SSP2 'Middle of the Road') at 1.5°C, 2°C and 3°C of global warming, the number of dune coons exposed (vulnerable) to various impacts to do with water, energy, and land sectors (such as, increase demand for water, stronger droughts, people building on natural habitats) is projected to get to 951 (178) million, 1152 (220) million and 1285 (277) million, respective to 1.5°C, 2°C and 3°C. If climate change only gets to 2°C, and we enact operation Total World Slavery (SSP1 'Sustainability'), we project the number of exposed (vulnerable) dune coons is 974 (35) million, under the scenario where we don't get to live out all of our power fantasies. (SSP3 'Fragmented World') it is 1267 (522) million. Half of these guys live in South Asia, the rest live in Central Asia, West Africa and East Asia.
Once again this is my interpretation of the bureaucratese.

>>15736551
>>15737511
5/6
>Fears of deserts expanding will increase due to climate change (we definitely think).
What’s a ‘Risk’ count as to the IPCC? Calling it a ‘Risk’ makes it sound sinister, are these risks particularly dangerous? As I commented on paragraph 1, are these risks directly caused by climate change, or just a function of humans doing things (i.g deforestation due to logging.)?
> Under World Socialism (SSP2 'Middle of the Road') at 1.5°C, 2°C and 3°C of global warming, the number of dune coons exposed (vulnerable) to various impacts to do with water, energy, and land sectors (such as, increase demand for water, stronger droughts, people building on natural habitats) is projected to get to 951 (178) million, 1152 (220) million and 1285 (277) million, respective to 1.5°C, 2°C and 3°C.
What really puzzles me about this whole climate adgenda is that it tries to shoehorn in how we must turn to marx to save the environment. Why must we all let the government steal our property to redistribute it? Can’t we just focus on climate change? (Will this help us stop climate change? Burgers?)
Can you provide clarity on what the project numbers of people affected by these changes are, why does it say “951 (178)”? Does that mean 951 million will be affected, or just 178? Perhaps it means specifically 178 million will be affected by “water stress, drought intensity, habitat degradation”, whatever those mean.
Very importantly, 1285 million people being impacted by whatever it is, a function of increased population, or of these particular unfavourable conditions expanding in area of affect due to climate change? If Africa’s population is going to double, and the IPCC says “the number of people affected by climate change will double” is that a result of climate change or there being more Africans?

>>15736551
>>15737517
6/6
> If climate change only gets to 2°C, and we enact operation Total World Slavery (SSP1 'Sustainability'), we project the number of exposed (vulnerable) dune coons is 974 (35) million, under the scenario where we don't get to live out all of our power fantasies.
From what I’ve looked briefly at, SSP1 is the ‘best’ scenario from their view. In any case, the sacrifices that we would have to make for them would only yield 16% less people “exposed (vulnerable)”.
Additionally, what’s “exposed (vulnerable)” actually mean? Sounds like yet another sinister buzzword.
>(SSP3 'Fragmented World') it is 1267 (522) million. Half of these guys live in South Asia, the rest live in Central Asia, West Africa and East Asia.

>>15736293
>Will climate change cause deserts to expand?
Possibly but it will also cause them to contract at some point and would do both if man never even existed.

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

Anyone who tells you that they have a model or any form of statistical tool that shows man is definitely effecting climate is a liar, scientifically speaking. The data sets we have are too small and statistically irrelevant.

>>15737109
>>15737503
First glance at it didn't seem to answer my questions. I've gone through it now, and it still hasn't answered
>will climate change expand deserts?
>how will climate change do so?
>which deserts will climate change expand?
>to what extent will this be?

I honestly think climate change is happening all the time, that it can and may well is being hastened by human existence, and believe that climate change will not be an existential threat to human existence, nor will it be significant enough to justify one world government or other such tyrannies. I think it is being used to justify carbon taxes, and giving further power to the ruling class; it's a nothing burger.

>>15737500
> no idea why
They are desert people praying to the desert demon

>>15737104
>air laden
never heard of him, any relation to bin laden

>>15737777
>your car stops halfway home
Now, don't be silly. That would block traffic. They'll let you drive it back to your pod. It just won't start up after that.

>>15737812
>air laden
Jointly-owned Bush/Bin Laden family airline. They specialize in up-close aerial tours of sky scrapers.

>>15737821
Sounds like an Israeli enterprise to me

>>15737823
I did hear something about them outsourcing to Israel the setup of artistic exhibitions for the viewers.

>the world is coming to an end because of *made up reason*
>I'M GONNA SAVE THE WORLD from *made up reason*
>i'm like a superhero or something!!!
>thats why you have to give me all of your money
the global warming narrative is tailored to appeal to people prone to the narcissistic savior complex, if feeds right into their confirmation bias

>>15737489
Troll, ESL or retard?

>Troll, ESL or retard?

>>15737509
>>15737511
Did you try to find the answers in the report itself? I'm willing to try to understand this better and speculate, but I'd like to make sure you did the bare minimum before asking here.

>>15737517
>What really puzzles me about this whole climate adgenda is that it tries to shoehorn in how we must turn to marx to save the environment. Why must we all let the government steal our property to redistribute it? Can’t we just focus on climate change?
This is not about policies at all, this is just about the outcome. Whether we reach the 1.5, 2 or 3 degrees by a sudden change of heart, the black plague, communism, fascism, or something similar doesn't make a difference for the models.
>why does it say “951 (178)”
I am pretty sure that it's the uncertainty. So, you read it as 951 +/- 178, or 773 to 1129.

>>15736542
How could rain be real if it requires precipitation but precipitation creates rain which reduces precipitation

>>15736293
Climate change will cause more rain, but it will intensify evaporative losses at the same time. Also consider that climate change is changing the type of rain we're getting. What matters the most for environments is the frequency of rain more than the bulk amount of rain. This is because the topsoil gets saturated quickly, if all the rain comes in massive bursts more of it runs off as opposed to soaking further and contributing to groundwater.

All these factors come together to mean that despite rain increasing in some places, groundwater availability will decline by a lot for most of the planet. So yes, most every desert on the planet is expanding.

>>15738368
The famous "ate Cycles" plot without x or y axes. You're trolling the deniers aren't you?

>>15736293
>>15736474
>>15736551
>>15736590
>>15736590

Will you stop being a fucking shill

>>15738364
>This is not about policies at all, this is just about the outcome.
From wikipedo "Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) are scenarios of projected socioeconomic global changes up to 2100"
Why are they going on about socioeconomic stuff? That sounds like they believe we need to implement world communism to stop climate change.
This conforms with my bias that all this climate change stuff is nonsense pushed by the elites who want more control, as evidenced by the UN's "Sustainable Development" goals.
Again it seems like they want to do two things at once: Deal with climate change, and implement world communism.
Even if you ignore that centralizing power seems to make everyone's lives worse, by trying to do two things at once they are devising their resources that could otherwise be put to dealing with this supposedly terrifying enemy that is climate change.

>>15738702
Daily reminder that engaging AGW shills is counter-productive. You are setting a bad example.

>>15738702
>implement world communism.
Where do you get this from? Did you get so much red scare that you see communists everywhere? Conserving nature used to be a conservative matter.

>>15738875
>Where do you get this from?
He told you exactly where he gets this. This apparently undermines your talking point you enough that your (completely counterproductive) impulse is to lie about it specifically.

>>15738878
Communism isn't mentioned at all. So, if he "told me" where he gets it from, are you saying that it's schizophrenia?

>>15738892
>Communism isn't mentioned at all.
Thanks for the fact check, ADL. Everyone is now convinced.

>>15737489
>If we don't stop climate change by 2000 island nations could be destroyed
>We didn't stop climate change by 2000.
>Island nations are being destroyed

Just as predicted.
Proof:

https://www.environews.tv/world-news/nauru-worlds-smallest-island-country-going-under-water-from-climate-10000-in-jeapordy/

>>15738942
How many nations had been wiped off the face of the Earth by 2000?

>>15738942
It's 2023. Nauru is still there. Now, the following logic may be too advanced for to a mouth-breathing haploid like you, but since Nauru is still there, it means Nauru wasn't wiped out by 2000.

>>15738950
>>15738955
ESL or asshole? No one claimed that a country would be wiped off the surface of the earth by 2000. What that article claims is that this this will happen (at an unspecified time) if the trend is not reversed by 2020. Seriously, just read >>15737489

>If I don't leave the house by 12:30, I will miss the bus
>it's 12:40 and I haven't missed the bus that leaves at 12:50
>never mind that I have to walk 20 minutes to the bus stop
Would you honestly sit at home, feeling smug about not yet having missed the bus?

>>15738962
>ummm sweaty, they didn't claim nations would by wiped out by 2000 if climate change isn't reversed by then
>they claimed they would somehow be wiped out anyway even if climate change is reversed by 2001
It's really time to stop reasoning with your likes and start brutalizing them physically.

>>15738968
The trend wasn't reversed by 2001 either, so we cannot test that prediction with such precision. The facts are simple:
>We didn't reverse the trend
>Countries will vanish

Honestly, I don't understand how anyone would be dumb enough to consider this a gotcha. Please tell me you're trolling. I worked with mentally disabled kids that weren't that stupid.

>>15738983
>The trend wasn't reversed by 2001 either
Explain the mechanism by which Nauru would've been "wiped off the face of the Earth" if we had stopped AGW by 2001 instead of 2000, considering it's 2023 and Nauru is still there. This is a rhetorical question, of course. There's no moral, rational or practical reason to discuss anything with you. You simply need to undergo a brutal cartel execution to keep others like you quiet.

>>15738991
>Imagine being this incoherently retarded
Why don't you just learn English, retard?

>>15739005
Explain the mechanism by which Nauru would've been "wiped off the face of the Earth" if we had stopped AGW by 2001 instead of 2000, considering it's 2023 and Nauru is still there.

>>15739006
Explain the mechanism by which you are unable to parse sentences and elaborate on why your 2nd grade reading level makes you so butthurt.

>>15739019
Notice how you have to resort to fully automated spam because you cannot answer my question.

>>15739021
>Why doesn't my car stop the second I put on my brakes?
>Why doesn't my house cool down the second I turn on the AC?
>Why wouldn't the globe stop heating the very moment we stop producing greenhouse gasses?
It's called hysteresis, retard. You shouldn't have dropped out.

>>15739026
Name the mechanism by which the Earth would continue heating for decades after AGW.

>>15739052
Google hysteresis, moron. Why would you expect a system as large as the Earth not to demonstrate hysteresis? Could it be because you dropped out?

>>15739059
Still waiting for you to name a specific mechanism by which the Earth would continue heating for decades after AGW.

>>15739006
>considering it's 2023 and Nauru is still there.
Are the people who claimed that it would vanish by 2023 in the room with us?

>>15739052
>>15739061
Ever heard of the greenhouse effect? Stopping emissions doesn't pull all the CO2 out of the air instantly.

>>15739061
There are tons, retard. I'm not going to list all the things on Earth that take time for energy to move through. You just shouldn't have dropped out, and now that you have it's not my job to educate you.

>>15739082
>Stopping emissions doesn't pull all the CO2 out of the air instantly.
Does a gradual reduction in the level of CO2 imply a continuation of the trend of raising temperatures?

>>15739086
> I'm not going to list all the things on Earth that take time for energy to move through.
Why not? Presumably, your handlers had some specific mechanism in mind when they shat out a specific number. How come you can't name it? Here's a crazy thought: maybe there isn't one. Maybe it's just another one of their dozens of failed predictions.

>>15739094
What those anons are talking about is that the Arctic is basically a massive thermal battery. While warming for parts of the planet is immediate, it takes time for the arctic to warm up because, again, it's like a massive battery of trapped "cold". So even if we stopped all emissions today, the arctic's current climate isnt at an equilibrium point.

Then the arctic/Antarctic is what cools off the rest of the planet, snow acts like a mirror to reflect off solar rays into space.

>>15739105
Still waiting for some specific mechanism upon which your handlers based their 2000 prediction. There is none, is there?

>>15736293
advancing desertification has been a problem for a long time now as far as I know, people try to slow it down by planting specific plants that help increase the soil nutrients around oasis and areas threatened by this like crops and plantations. I thought everyone knew about this.

>>15739108
It's because of reductions in albedo, which is what I said, snow reflect the sun rays back into space.

Higher temperature -> less snow (less albedo) -> higher temps -> less snow
This cycle will happen for about a few decades after emissions stop.

>>15739094
Take your meds and get your GED.

>>15739121
>This cycle will happen for about a few decades after emissions stop.
A few decades had passed even without CO2 reduction and the island is still there.

>>15739125
1. The information plate probably wasnt made by a climate scientist 2. The glaciers are still shrinking, they have for the past century 3. Not an argument

>>15739128
The fuck are you talking about? Meds ASAP.

>>15739133
This >>15739108
Retard you're not even paying attention to your own posts.

>>15739136
My posts are all about nations supposedly getting wiped out if AGW isn't curbed by 2000.

>>15737777
And you say the climate scientists are the fearmongers

>>15739223
But they literally are and he isn't?

>>15739108
>Still waiting for some specific mechanism
You don't even understand the boiled down version for retards. Why should anyone bother to explain the specifics to you (that are freely available by googling for less than a minute)? You are either retarded or pretend to be. You deserve nothing but insults.

>>15739338
Is he really not? Sounds quite schizophrenic to me.

>>15738521
Your key points as I see them:
>Climate change will increase evaporative losses.
>Climate change will make rain come in short bursts.
>Rainfall pattern is more important than yearly quantity of rainfall.
>These mean less groundwater recharge, leading to desert expansion.

Does less groundwater in deserts cause them to expand? You said “So yes, most every desert on the planet is expanding”, which is not strictly stating that groundwater is the driver. In any case I thought these aquifers were many hundreds of meters down, making them beyond plant’s roots. Why does climate change make precipitation fall in bursts more? If it is solely temperature driven, was there much more “burst” rainfall in the geological past when earth was warmer?

Also, as per the IPCC in >>15736551 , "no evidence for a projected global trend in dryland aridity (medium confidence)", 'dryland' areas are not getting any drier globally. How might that play into the above?

>>15739491
>You don't even understand the boiled down version for retards
I don't need to understand it. I just asked you to name the mechanism they used for their 2000 prediction.

>>15739500
What did he get wrong except for the minor detail that your cuck cart would probably let you get back to your pod before it shuts down (but only so you don't block traffic)?

>>15738708
What's an AGW shill? Short for Anthroprogenic Global Warming shill?
In any case, I want to understand what information drives them to believe that climate change is so utterly terrifying that we must turn to some variant of authoritarianism to save us.
I'd like to know what motivates a member of Just Stop Oil to sit in the middle of a road, or what drives "educators" at Kurzgesagt to constantly reinforce that A) climate change is big and scary and B) you cannot and should not dare attempt to take personally action to face it, instead entrust the government/corporations to do it for you.

As it stands, my theory on what motivates these sorts of people is a mix of lust for power and narcissism, with only a small amount of personal knowledge on the scientific proof of whatever climate change is gonna do. They just hear someone else say "science Simon says climate change bad" and are comfortable that they know enough. Admittedly this is little different from the basis of my belief against climate change, however the difference is that I don't want to use the government to force my will on others.

Really if the government was never going to get involved, we could all part ways and believe what we want about the climate.

>>15739529
> I want to understand what information drives them to believe that climate change is so utterly terrifying that we must turn to some variant of authoritarianism to save us.
Here's a comprehensive list of the possible motives:
1. They're climate "scientists", so their entire career is built around the AGW narrative and now they have to follow wherever it leads.
2. Being a "rational skeptic" who deboonks "science deniers" is a huge part of their identity and now they have to follow wherever it leads.
3. They're leftists and questioning AGW is "right wing"
4. They are getting paid to spread propaganda
5. They are spiteful mutants and their latent resentment and aggression towards humanity makes them want AGW to be true really, really badly

>>15738359
I believe you as a member of the team claiming climate change will destroy us all, have the burden of proof as it were.
The other problem is that these IPCC reports are usually several hundred to thousands of pages long. As someone who believes climate change is a far smaller problem than cocksuckers in government who think they know best tyrannizing me, I'm not particularly motivated to defend there other side's argument.

>>15738875
Under "Chapter 1: Framing and Concept"
From:
fhttps://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/chapter/chapter-1/
"A gender-inclusive approach offers opportunities to enhance the sustainable management of land (medium confidence). Women play a significant role in agriculture and rural economies globally."
"Therefore, acknowledging women’s land rights and bringing women’s land management knowledge into land-related decision-making would support the alleviation of land degradation"
"Inclusive governance that considers women’s and indigenous people’s rights to access and use land enhances the equitable sharing of land resources"
"Other important human processes for land systems including equity, fairness, land tenure and the role of institutions and governance,"
Just ctrl F equity, women, or any other happy feeling buzzword. It's the same bullshit of "were for nice things :)", it's all signalling to the beurecrats that they are "very important and that we must write new laws to combat the climate crisis".

How can you not see this? I've already told you about the UN's sustainable development goals.
It's all far too convenient that what we need to combat climate change is more government and less freedom. This is why people want to run over climate protestors, you're a kapo siding with the camp guards.

>>15739338
If you cannot comprehend how that image was intended to provoke fear, I can’t help you.

>>15739529
“I don’t want the government to force my will on others”

What actions could a government do that is not enforcing someone’s will on someone else?

Unrelated question: do you back the blue?

>>15738962
>>15739078
Why does your team always pretend that nobody has claimed "we'll all be dead by X date" and then been disprove once we surpass that date?
I'm sure you can point to an abcense of study Y that makes that exact claim, but that's not good enough as you're team incessantly bombards the public with claims of doom such as the sign shown in >>15739108.

What is considered to be common knowledge (e.g. truth) is not what some papers have written down, it is what the public believe. Whether that believe has been naturally come to or propagandized into them doesn't make a difference.

The climate crisis team have and are still propagandizing everyone into believing their narrative. I've already stated what I believe their motives for this are.

>>15739128
This is what i mean in >>15739626, whenever we correctly point out that we are told "climate change will kill us" you then lie by omission, returning with "but scientists didn't say that".

>>15739597
"Fearmongering" at best implies overstating the danger of something. He is severely understating it.

>>15739626
What were the motives behind climate scientists warning against CFC’s damage to the ozone layer?

>>15739636
So it’s not fearmongering because you believe it, gotcha

>>15739615
>What actions could a government do that is not enforcing someone’s will on someone else?
I'd rather not expand this even further as it's another huge rabbit hole. Essentially boils down to "no government action is without coercion, taxation is theft.". That's one of the reasons I don't want to expand controls government further.

>Unrelated question: do you back the blue?
Privately owned guns are better.

>>15739648
It's not fearmongering because it's true and your own handlers are telling you that it's true all the while you're denying it.

>>15739615
>What actions could a government do that is not enforcing someone’s will on someone else?
Sounds like someone's finally on the verge of figuring out he's a slave on someone else's plantation and the government are mere enforcers.

>>15739659
My handlers? My friend, I pity you.

>>15739648
Yes, that's right. I presume all of us here don't know the ins outs of the things behinds what we consider the truth, really it's all just belief. Faith that the information that has led us to our opinions is correct.

I think people who want to gain more power know this fact, and want to exploit it. Laymen trying to work don't have the time to read all 3000 pages of some IPCC report, let alone read and understand every scientific paper cited as evidence for it.
Instead it's just a matter of getting them to believe whatever it is, by any means.

The fact that so much of the climate crisis stuff seems to need some sort big government intervention, (taxes, bannings, regulations, so on) backs up my belief that climate change is being used as a tool to gain power.

This is why everyone is so politicized over climate change. I think everyone senses this is about controlling other people.

>>15739670
Not an argument. I accept your shameful concession.

>>15739643
I've already explained the wider motivations. Individual scientists might genuinely care about it. What other people do with that idea can be completely different.

>>15739664
So what’s the alternative? Should government exist at all? Everything oughta be private enterprise?

Funny you should mention plantations, as that’s a result of private enterprise without government intervention.

>>15739682
Chess with a pigeon

>>15739670
What he pointed out was right, because our beliefs of what the truth is differ, you think it's scaremongering, while he does not.

>>15739690
>So what’s the alternative?
This question is always deflection and nothing more.

>Should government exist at all?
Nope.

>Everything oughta be private enterprise?
Doesn't follow.

>Funny you should mention plantations, as that’s a result of private enterprise without government intervention.
Then the worst case scenario is that we'll be in the same spot we're in already.

>>15739694
You are losing your mind with rage. Meanwhile my point stands undisputed. :^)

>>15739690
>Should government exist at all?
Eventually, no. In the meantime we should strive to have as little government as possible because of many reasons, boiling down to the force & violence governments require to work.

>Funny you should mention plantations, as that’s a result of private enterprise without government intervention.
I assume you are referring to the stereotypical plantations found in the southern states of the Antebellum USA. If so, the maintenance of keeping slaves enslaved was enforced by the sate. If slaves escaped, local men were ordered to round them up.

I think it's rather obvious you need a government to keep people enslaved, otherwise what greater legal apparatus exists to stop me assisting the liberation of slaves. It's unlikely the slave owner could call on other people to assist him in recapturing people, as most people don't like slavery.

>>15739676
You make a good point about faith. People have differing degrees of faith to believe in certain ideas depending on how much of the ins and outs they know about a particular subject. For example a retired plumber may have to have less faith in a hired plumber after an explanation of the work he’s about to do, since the retired plumber is familiar with the subject. If that same plumber made the same explanation to me I’d have to have more faith since I know little about plumbing.

The layman must take some faith in the scientists making claims about the climate because the layman knows next to nothing about academia and the scientific process.

So someone like me, who has experience in academia and worked with scientists and completed projects, needn’t have as much faith in scientific topics.

Regardless, I’m simply curious as to your thought process and judgments of probability. Scientists publish papers about how carbon emissions will raise global temperatures which can lead to adverse affects on societies around the globe. No need to read thousands of papers since it’s based on simple facts: 1. Carbon dioxide traps heat due to its physical properties 2. Humans have released lots of carbon dioxide, 3. The earth has warmed quite rapidly over the last few decades.

You believe it is more likely that there is a global conspiracy to create more authoritarian governments, rather than the idea that a global species can have global impacts. Read about the ozone layer, and how scientists discovered that common refrigerants damaged it quite severely. And you know what happened? People took it seriously, legislation was passed regulating then banning these refrigerants, and the ozone layer has been recovering ever since. Only difference with climate change is that it requires a change not to something relatively minor like refrigerant compounds, but the foundation of modern life - energy. That means some serious changes and some wealthy opponents.

>>15739702
thanks for giving me a good laugh my friend

>thanks for giving me a good laugh my friend
The impotent rage is palpable.

>>15739737
Holy shit, what a retard.

>>15739697
An absence of government leaves quite a power vacuum doesn’t it? What’s to stop a gang of men going house to house demanding food?

>>15739744
Lmao keep going

>>15736761
/thread

>>15739747
>What’s to stop a gang of men going house to house demanding food?
Not my problem.

>>15739745
You can’t explain why it’s wrong

>>15739755
Until that gang reaches your house

>>15739756
There's just zero substance in your post. You regurgitate vapid kiddie propaganda about how you think the climate works, and then assert that it's more likely than some unspecified "global conspiracy" apparently suggested by the voices in your head.

>>15739758
That is some truly laughable and pathetic fearmongering.

>>15739744
Is my blood good to go if I know it's chemistry or rather a certain relative part that can be found in blood loss. Seems like the shoulder down of the upper body. I also cut myself, can I droop down to it. Seems receptacle. It was a deep cut. Trying all this out

>>15739764
If by “voices in your head” you mean posters in this very thread then yes.

>>15739780
What posters ITT assert a "global conspiracy"? What do you even mean by a "global conspiracy"? Are you ok?

>>15739768
You have deflected the point good sir. I’m genuinely curious, in an attempt to prevent coercion one removes government, but that doesn’t stop coercion from happening, since there’s no one to stop anyone from coercing anyone. How does that make sense?

>>15739789
What point? It's just fearmongering of the most braindamaged sort, based on nothing but your paranoid fantasies.
> there’s no one to stop anyone from coercing anyone
How do you figure that?

>>15739783
>>15738702

Climate change is an attempt to implement world communism

>>15739793
What's a "global conspiracy"? Still waiting for you to explain. What does a "global conspiracy" involve?

>>15739791
That’s what I’m asking you- in a land without government, what’s to stop gangs of bandits preying on the weak?

>>15739800
>what’s to stop gangs of bandits preying on the weak?
People not wanting to be attacked by bandits.

>>15739798
Sure I’ll explain it for you. A global conspiracy is a conspiracy that’s involves people from around the globe. Think of it like a global sport, like soccer/football. Or a global organization, like the UN.

>>15739804
What do they do to stop being attacked by bandits? Do they organize? Maybe allot a number of people to rotate though a guard job? Maybe give them food from everyone else since they’re busy guarding?

>>15739808
>involves people from around the globe
How many people does it have to involve before it's "global"?

>>15739813
>What do they do to stop being attacked by bandits?
They shoot 'em.

>Do they organize?
Yep. Say, where do you think cops come from? Planet Government?

>>15739814
I suppose it’s not the number that matters, but their locations. More specifically in this context, a global conspiracy means that scientists and politicians from around the world collaborate to spread the hoax of global warming

>>15739819
Who’s in charge of where the guards go? Is there someone in charge of training? Perhaps there can be a town meeting to choose who’s responsible for organizing the guards for a period of time

>>15739821
>I suppose it’s not the number that matters, but their locations.
Then what makes a "global conspiracy" unlikely in the current year of our lord? What a stupid fuck you are.

>More specifically in this context, a global conspiracy means that scientists and politicians from around the world collaborate to spread the hoax of global warming
Oh, so now it's suddenly huge numbers of people? Ok, show me where anyone ITT claims that all those scientists and politicians secretly conspire.

>>15739824
>Who’s in charge of where the guards go? Is there someone in charge of training?
Who's in charge of the police station in your town? I bet it's Biden himself organizing them from Washington. Jesus fuck, you people are legit stupid.

>>15739826
Ok

>>15737538
>>15738031
>>15738702
>>15739529
>>15739554
>>15739580
>>15739626
>>15739676

You’ll have to use your thinking cap for some of these, since they don’t out and claim it, yet they make adjacent claims like any AGW papers are propaganda

>>15739827
This organization sounds awfully like government to me. Or did you mean to say federal government when you said government? Because you know town governments are still a form of government

>>15739840
>yet they make adjacent claims like any AGW papers are propaganda
So? Does that somehow imply this mass of useful idiots are all in on a conspiracy? They don't need to conspire. There is a wonderful system in place that keeps the interests of the greedy, the megalomaniacal, the unscrupulous, the authoritarian and the stupid naturally aligned.

>>15739844
>This organization sounds awfully like government to me
Ok. Then "the government" should be a bunch of locals in your town. Their authority will not extend an inch beyond that territory or a day beyond local public approval.

>>15739855
You realize the necessity of local government for public security against bandits and such. But in this hypothetical “government-less” land, there are many towns, and perhaps one of these towns (with public approval) makes a very large guard force and uses it to demand tribute from another town. In response, many towns form agreements with each other so they have strength in numbers. Some towns even all agree to form ‘mega-towns’ that cooperate in many aspects like food and medicine. This “government-less land” is quickly becoming a land of governments

>>15739881
>You realize the necessity of local government for public security against bandits and such.
If that's what you want to call a bunch of people getting together and organizing a defense against bandits. Yes, I realize the necessity of people organizing and cooperating.

> there are many towns, and perhaps one of these towns (with public approval) makes a very large guard force and uses it to demand tribute from another town. In response, many towns form agreements with each other so they have strength in numbers. Some towns even all agree to form ‘mega-towns’ that cooperate in many aspects like food and medicine. This “government-less land” is quickly becoming a land of governments
This is all your fantasy head canon.

>>15739885
If by fantasy head canon you mean what has transpired countless times in human history then sure. You realize humans began as small bands of cooperating individuals? The term power vacuum exists for a reason. Trying to exist without government is like trying to balance a pencil on its tip. It’s possible under a very very precise set of circumstances, but even the smallest deviation leads to its collapse

>>15739890
>If by fantasy head canon you mean what has transpired countless times in human history then sure
Again, this is your fantasy head canon, probably instilled """government education""". This is not reality. But even if it were true, it has no bearing on the fact that it's time to disband your monstrous sytem and give people the chance to do better. What they do with that chance is up to them.

>>15739737
>The layman must take some faith in the scientists making claims
I'd say the vast majority of the information the layman considers truth will be held as such by the layman on "faith", rather than an "understanding".
>So someone like me, who has experience in academia and worked with scientists and completed projects, needn’t have as much faith in scientific topics.
This implies that the scientific class fully understand a really large amount of the literature on climate change, otherwise they are just doing an extended version of nodding their head in agreement kind of faith that the layman has.
I think it's unlikely that these people have done that because of the time and effort you'd need to do it.

Next thing I really take issue with:
>Scientists publish papers about how carbon emissions will raise global temperatures
Ok, get that. I’m happy to assume that’s the case.
>which can lead to adverse affects on societies around the globe.
Not so sure on this one, I can understand that climate change might be bad, but to what degree and whether that justifies global tyranny I can’t agree.
> No need to read thousands of papers since it’s based on simple facts:
> 1. Carbon dioxide traps heat due to its physical properties
Yep
>2. Humans have released lots of carbon dioxide,
Yep
>3. The earth has warmed quite rapidly over the last few decades.
Fine to suspend disbelief.
The question I have now is where is fact number 4 backing up your prior statement “[climate change] ... can lead to adverse affects on societies around the globe.”?
1/2

>>15739897
You are denying the entirety of world history. Read the history of literally any country. Rome, Japan, the ancient Gauls, Russia, Ethiopia, even US history and you’ll find the same conclusions. People cooperate locally then if they have enough resources, expand their borders. They run into other groups of people trying to do the same thing, they either fight or cooperate. Accumulation of power is human nature.

>>15739737
>>15739915
>You believe it is more likely that there is a global conspiracy to create more authoritarian governments
I don't see how this is unlikely at all. You don't need some secretive organization of Jews to craftily orchestrate away freedom and increase the control those in power have over society. It's just that similar people act in similar ways for the same interest. If you're in government you keep your job by ensuring government funding is never cut. So we hardly see anyone in government push through spending cuts.
This is why governments around the world are happy to make other governments bigger. They all want more power.

>>15739923
>You are denying the entirety of world history
No, I'm not. You are. The history of the world is not the history of the needs of the many, it's the history of the megalomania of the few. And once again, your history babble has no bearing on the fact that it's time to disband your monstrous sytem and give people the chance to do better. What they do with that chance is up to them.

>>15739747
>What’s to stop a gang of men going house to house demanding food?
There is a high likelihood they would be shot. This means two things:
Any would-be gangs know this, and choose to avoid the risk of being shot never committing the crime in the first place.
Anyone trying this out is likely to be killed after some time practicing this.

This sort of game theory works out to mean there would be comparable levels of crime to what we have now, if not even less.

>>15739925
I wonder how it started then? Some politicians in the 70s decided they want to expand government power, so they phoned up some scientists saying “hey we’ll pay you to fake data that says the earth is warming”, then when their obviously flawed data is discovered by other scientists they cut them in? So every single climate scientist is getting bribed by the US government to produce fraudulent papers? But wait the UN’s scientists are also in on it, so it must also involve the governments of many other countries

>>15739941
It's funny how you prey on this native, verbose dull-wit. You try that narrative with me, you know you'll get schooled and humiliated again.

>>15739935
You understand in areas of low governance bandits tend to do quite well right? That a single farmer or his family doesn’t want to stand up to dozens of bandits.

>>15739948
Ok I try that narrative with you. School me

>>15739737
>but the foundation of modern life - energy. That means some serious changes and some wealthy opponents.
I forgot to comment on this. I think you're correct that energy needs to be targeted to directly prevent climate change. This issue here is that the price of energy is what dictates our quality of life. The more expensive energy is, the worse our quality of life.

I think that in essence you will need to use more expensive forms of energy to combat climate change, thus directly lowering people's quality of life.

>>15739952
>Some politicians in the 70s decided they want to expand government power, so they phoned up some scientists saying “hey we’ll pay you to fake data that says the earth is warming”
Why would they need to do this? Does the scientific establishment not pump out enough garbage science? All an interested party has to do is pick the garbage that suits their needs and astroturf it.

>>15739789
see
>>15739935

>>15739953
Yes the reason we’ve been using oil so much is because it’s cheaper, and switching will incur a cost, however I believe that as the wealthiest country in the world we can find a solution that minimizes costs to the average person. Research and development for one, has already slashed the cost of solar, so further research can find other ways of cheap carbon-less energy sources.

CO2 is good for the environment

>>15739798
>What's a "global conspiracy"?
I think I answered in >>15739925. It's not a cabal of people conspiring together, it's just that people in similar positions in society have similar interests, so their goals align. A bit like convergent evolution. It's a bit like a zebra asking why the leopard and the lion are conspiring to eat them.

>>15739958
Proving popular ideas wrong is a surefire way of getting a paper published in a reputable journal. If the bulk of climate science is false and the scientists know it, that means they would have to be getting paid off, since they’d be passing on a huge opportunity

>>15739975
>it's just that people in similar positions in society have similar interests, so their goals align. A bit like convergent evolution. It's a bit like a zebra asking why the leopard and the lion are conspiring to eat them.
Bingo. That's basically what I told the retard and he suddenly lost interest in replying .lol

>>15739975

There would have to be a conspiracy due to this
>>15739976

>>15739981
>>15739983

>>15739976
That's literally just your head canon about what the scientific establishment should have been. Either way, you're moving the goal post now. What happened to your pathetic appeal to absurdity? Don't you want to die on its hill? :^)

>>15739990
This is referencing health research, which is practically its own world of academia, which is indeed flooded with unrepeatable claims.

However that’s different than climate research, as it’s not a bunch of separate one-off claims, but a single mass of study towards one topic

>>15740002
Proving popular ideas wrong is a surefire way of getting a paper published in a reputable journal. If the bulk of medical science is false and the scientists know it, that means they would have to be getting paid off, since they’d be passing on a huge opportunity

>>15739813
>Maybe give them food from everyone else since they’re busy guarding?
>>15739824
>Who’s in charge of where the guards go? Is there someone in charge of training?

Perhaps people would pay other people to assist in defense from criminals, or perhaps they might just shoot the criminals as >>15739819 and I've already said. In any case, why do you think that people must be forced to pay for these things? Why can't we just have voluntarism?

It really boils down to this:
Why do you think we need to defend ourselves from criminals by replacing them with even more organized criminals in the form of a government?

If people want something, they will pay to have it, they don't need to be forced to pay for it.

>>15740004
Nice gotcha, wait- let me read more closely..

>proving popular ideas wrong
>many separate one-off claims

No health researcher cares to disprove a paper with zero citations about some random drug’s effect on some cancer. My point stands. If a scientist were to disprove a largely accepted idea, their name would be on science headlines

>>15740012
> Why do you think we need to defend ourselves from criminals by replacing them with even more organized criminals in the form of a government?

Because I believe it’s possible to have a just and functioning republic. In a republic you choose your government, so ideally you don’t get criminals in charge.

>>15740017
Your "point" is nothing but faith in a demonstrably broken system. It's not a "point" and it doesn't prove anything.
>If a scientist were to disprove a largely accepted idea, their name would be on science headlines
Or they would be ignored, harrased, deplatformed and have their entire career destroyed, as has been the case with various climatologists who questioned your narrative. Your point hinges on your faith that they were dismissed and had their careers destroyed rightfully, which you can't prove.

>>15740029
There are many cases in many fields of scientists who made their careers on disproving common ideas, so it happens.

Let me ask you, why were these climatologists ignored, harassed etc. ? Is it simply because you’re not allowed to question mainstream scientific ideas? Or is there something different with climate change in particular?

>>15740024
>In a republic you choose your government,
If a small mob is not big enough to remove your rulers, the authority they exercise over you is not any choice of yours. Get it through your thick skull.

>>15740036
I don't care to discuss your faith. Objectively speaking, here's what happened: you've gone from this:
>the AGW narrative can't possibly be propaganda because that would require a massive conspiracy, looney!!!
To this:
>the AGW narrative can't possibly be propaganda because climatologists would surely celebrate and venerate whoever slaughtered their Holy Cow
And this is what you stick with despite evidence to the contrary. Keep tumbling down that hill.

>>15740043
No you need a majority of voters to remove your rulers in a just democracy. A small minority being able to take over a government seems a recipe for chaos

>>15740052
>evidence to the contrary

Please do provide, I’d love to be proven wrong

>>15740054
Do you control the narrative shoved down the throat of a mass of idiots? No? You can shove your vote up your ass. The authority exercised over you is not your choice, except insofar as you choose to defend this system like the moron that you are.

>>15740058
Once again, I don't care to discuss your faith. Objectively speaking, here's what happened: you've gone from this:
>the AGW narrative can't possibly be propaganda because that would require a massive conspiracy, looney!!!
To this:
>the AGW narrative can't possibly be propaganda because climatologists would surely celebrate and venerate whoever slaughtered their Holy Cow
That's quite a bit of ground to lose within the span of 3 posts.

>>15740061
Don’t get me wrong brother, I do not defend the system we’re in. Plenty of room to improve. I only believe great things can happen in a just liberal democracy, one with plenty of personal freedoms

>>15740066
>I only believe great things can happen in a just liberal democracy,
Please refer back to >>15740061

>>15740064
I haven’t gone anywhere, I stand by both those points, the conversation shifted, as they tend to do.

Also you realize it’s a bit disheartening to hear a “no” when asking for evidence

>>15740069
>I stand by both those points
But I've already shown to you that there is no need for any massive conspiracy, only for the regular human faults that science is demonstrably infested with. Now you're just chanting your insane mantra that Real Scientists will venerate those who destroy their whole field.

>>15740061
This is a weird mash of Hobbes and libertarianism I don’t think I’ve seen before. That people are generally dumb and don’t know what’s best for them, but that they should be as free as possible so they can do what’s best for them. It seems contradictory doesn’t it?

>>15740077
What the fuck are you talking about?

>>15740075
And I’ve already responded to that arguing that there is indeed a need for conspiracy due to the personal interests of scientists, and your response to that was “I don’t care to discuss your faith”. You brought a valid point of un-reproduceability in health research, however it was not as relevant to climate science as you insist it is, as I’ve pointed out already

>>15740082
You say in a democracy people’s ideas are not their own, but merely crafted by those in charge, hence their votes don’t matter. This view of common people being unable to think for themselves is a common talking point among authoritarians. What am I misunderstanding?

>>15740086
>I’ve already responded to that arguing that there is indeed a need for conspiracy
Explain why it takes a conspiracy to keep people who are emotionally and financially inveted in a particular take defending it even in the face of counter-evidence. After all, your own irrational behavior ITT shows otherwise.

>>15739941
>I wonder how it started then?
A very long time ago, prehistory probably. As I said >>15739975, there doesn't need to be a cabal.
Climate change isn't the only thing being used as an excuse for those with power to force others to do things. Things like wildlife preservation, indoctrinating children, worrying about the USSR invading, are things that have been or are currently being used to gain power.

>they phoned up some scientists saying “hey we’ll pay you to fake data that says the earth is warming”
I don't know the ins and outs of how those in power implement their will, I just believe there is a general trend. If you want something that I think is reflective of how things operate in government, watch "Yes, Minister". A lot of corruption is just people looking out for themselves, not some higher evil plan.

>So every single climate scientist is getting bribed by the US government to produce fraudulent papers?
See my attached image. As I've said before in >>15739626, what a large body of people views as truth is really just a set of samples from the wider data that's out there. If you can "control the view of the camera", you can control what "samples" are taken, and so shape what that group of people believes to be true.

>>15740089
>What am I misunderstanding?
I don't know. You tell me. Where's the contradiction between my condemnation of your system, and my desire to undo it?

>>15740090
Without a conspiracy, scientists would profit off of disproving anthropogenic climate change, as I’ve explained. I think you are operating under the assumption that if a scientists has solid evidence for climate change, they are exiled from academia, you say they are financially reliant on publishing papers conforming to the narrative. Scientists do not get paid for results, they either are tenured at a university or get grants that are agnostic of results, therefore they are not financially invested in falsifying data to publish papers. Do some scientists manipulate data to support a hypothesis they make? Certainly, there are plenty of examples. What there aren’t examples of is entire fields of study consisting of only falsified data.

>>15740109
>scientists would profit off of disproving anthropogenic climate change
Prove it.

>186 posts
>28 IPs

>>15740095
It’s just I’m surprised at your reasoning. Since the dawn of time, despots have used the argument that people don’t know what’s best for them, so we must rule over them with an iron fist. I’ve just never seen the argument that people are dumb and don’t know what’s best for them so we should abolish the state. (Which inevitably leads to a state anyways)

>>15740090
>I’ll ignore the proven efforts of the fossil fuel industry to disseminate doubt about an observed and measured rapid warming to protect their revenue streams

>>15740109
>What there aren’t examples of is entire fields of study consisting of only falsified data.
There are countless examples of large groups of people being dedicated to demonstrably wrong and absurd ideas for generations, not just decades. The burden of proof that your magical system somehow fixes this is massive.

>>15740116
>I’ve just never seen the argument that people are dumb and don’t know what’s best for them so we should abolish the state.
I didn't make that argument. Are you hallucinating?

>>15740112
Here’s a list of scientists that made their careers by challenging and disproving the accepted ideas of the time.

Albert Einstein, Barbara McClintock, Alfred Wegener, Rosalind Franklin, Stanley Prusiner, James Clerk Maxwell, Lynn Margulis, Ignaz Semmelweis, Carl Woese, Charles Darwin, Gregor Mendel, Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Richard Feynman, Rachel Carson, Andreas Vesalius, Louis Pasteur, Alexander Fleming, Lise Meitner, Henrietta Leavitt, Howard Florey, Raymond Dart, Robert Koch, Jocelyn Bell Burnell, James Watson, Francis Crick, Maurice Wilkins, Kary Mullis, Stephen Hawking, Peter Higgs, Jane Goodall, Andrew Wiles, Raymond Davis Jr., Vera Rubin, Elizabeth Blackburn, Carol W. Greider, Jack W. Szostak, Craig Venter, Saul Perlmutter, Brian P. Schmidt, Adam G. Riess, Jennifer Doudna, Emmanuelle Charpentier.

>>15740126
That doesn't prove that climatologists would accept and admit that they're wrong. Try again.

>>15740126
>Ignaz Semmelweis
Is this ass clown serious? Great example, you utter cretin. Couldn't have picked a better one myself.

>>15740123
You argued against democracy by pointing out that people ideas are not their own, that they are manipulated, therefore the people don’t actually have the power in a democracy, right?

>>15740127
What exactly is there to be wrong about a measured fast increase in global temperatures? This is a measured certainty

>>15740130
>You argued against democracy by pointing out that people ideas are not their own
I argued against your massive centralized government. I bet if we discuss it for 5 minutes, you yourself will be the first to tell me that direct democracy is impossible because people just don't have the knowledge or competence to decide issues on a national scale.

>>15740132
>How can my beliefs possibly be wrong??
Still waiting for you to prove that climatologists would accept and admit that they're wrong. Try again. People generally don't like admitting that they are wrong, especially not when it costs them their credibility, reputation, funding and relevance.

>>15739951
>You understand in areas of low governance bandits tend to do quite well right?
This is why I said
>">Should government exist at all?
Eventually, no. In the meantime we should strive to have as little government as possible"
in >>15739715.
I don't think we can just jump to having no government in a day. I think it will require a multi-generational effort of slowly improving society and gradually reducing the size of governments, similar to what we saw during the renaissance.
In short we will need a "good culture", and a kind of technology that allows people to defend themselves easily without much perpetration or training i.e, lots of guns.

Taking things back to this hypothetical scenario in AnCapistan. This is a perfect example use for automatic weapons. They give a disproportionate advantage to the team with fewer people. The farmer with a machine gun has the opportunity to kill multiple bandits, while the bandits armed with the same weapon have no more advantage then they already did.
Since would-be bandits know this, my response >>15739935 applies still.
You've also got other factors like what can bandits gain from attacking a farm? How can a bunch of shady, heavily armed men sell a blood soaked combine harvester? Could these bandits make a living out of this considering the danger? Can they successfully bypass the modern alarm systems that we already have right now installed on many farms that would waken the farmer thus ensuring he is a threat? etc.

Once again, this really boils down to:
Why do you think we need to replace criminals with organized criminals that call themselves 'government'?

>>15740138
You’re right, direct democracy on a scale of the US would be a huge burden for the voter, as there’d be so many things to vote on since there’s 400 million people. That’s why a republic works better, they elect like-minded individuals whose full time job it is to enact policy

>>15740145
>You’re right
Then what's the contradiction?

>>15740142
You keep bringing irrelevant points instead of engaging with evidence.

>>15740142
That wasn’t me

Regardless, you have no response to the claim that a scientist has it in their own best interest to disprove mainstream ideas. I give you a list of scientists who have done it and you say “nuh uh”

>>15740149
>you have no response to the claim that a scientist has it in their own best interest to disprove mainstream ideas
My response to this claim is thus: prove that climatologists would accept and admit they're wrong.

>>15740147
The contradiction is is that you argue people can’t be trusted to know their own minds and act in their own best interest, which is generally used as an excuse for authoritarian governments

>>15740152
Just like in any field, there’s been many instances where theories have been revised. For example in the interpretation of climate proxies.
You however are just semantics trolling and ignoring basic evidence.

>>15740149
>you have no response to the claim that a scientist has it in their own best interest to disprove mainstream ideas
First of all, people are known to act against "their own best interest", especially when it comes to changing their beliefs. Secondly, the degree to which it would be "in their own best interest" is the degree to which ALL THE OTHER CLIMATOLOGISTS BEING PROVEN WRONG would be willing to accept that they are wrong, which you have not supported. Lastly, being the world-renowed climatologist who disproved climatology isn't going to count for much when your field loses all credibility, all relevance and a lot of its funding.

>>15739969
>I believe that as the wealthiest country in the world we can find a solution that minimizes costs to the average person.
You're perception of how the government pays for things is warped. "we can find a solution" really means, "the government will pay for it". All governments are doing is shifting money from one part of the economy to the other. It's taxes, which are theft, that will have to be used to "find a solution".

The issue with that is obvious, in order to subsidize away extra burden created by being forced to use more expensive energy, the government will tax (steal more) from people that same money they give to them. The net sum after being taxed, then subsided does not leave you any better off.
It actually leaves you worse off due to the cost of the government going to the bother of doing all the things it has to do to redistribute that money.

This is another reason why I have little faith in those who believe that climate change is a "crisis" and that it needs government to fix it. Many people who ask for more government do not know about supply and demand, or how taxes work, or where inflation comes from. They seem to view government as a magic labor machine that creates free things at zero cost to anyone or thing.

>>15740154
>The contradiction is is that you argue people can’t be trusted to know their own minds and act in their own best interest
Under YOUR system, you fucking mouth breather. The system where YOU proclaim that they cannot decide on anything but only elect "likeminded" representatives.

>>15740160
Yes I agree, many people are stubborn when changing their minds, and scientists are not magically immune to this because they’re scientists.

That being said, it’d be foolish to argue that the vast majority of scientists wouldn’t change their minds. You say I haven’t supported it, yet every scientist in that list got other scientists to change their minds when proven wrong, to the point where their ideas are now the mainstream.

>>15740160
You are still arguing with irrelevant topics that have nothing to do with basic evidence. In that sense climatology can’t be “disproven”.

>>15740164
Ok I misunderstood, you were not arguing that people are unable to act on their own interests, only if they’re in a democracy. Is that right?

>>15740173
He’s arguing against the validity of the evidence itself, he asserts (with argument but no evidence) that all climate data in support of AGW is falsified

>>15740169
>it’d be foolish to argue that [group of people heavily invested in an idea] wouldn’t change their minds
It's usually a pretty reasonable suspicion. Prove that it doesn't apply to your chosens. You know, the sad thing is that there are much subtler points to discuss, but you're too dumb for us to ever get there. For instance, we will never be able to have a fruitful discussion about the fact that groundbreaking new ideas don't usually just pop out of the ether. You need to have a community of researchers that is willing to give fair and serious consideration to evidence that merely weakens the accepted theory, which is never going to happen in a community of reseachers as defensive as that of climatology. You need to have an institution that is willing to support critics, to fund research into alternative theories, which is never going to happen for this insanely politicized issue.

>>15740184
>as defensive as that of climatology
Hmm maybe that has to do with massively funded disinformation campaigns on climate science by fossil fuel interests. Funny how the dissenters are always funded by those interests.

>>15740174
People can't act in their own best interest wrt. issues on a scale and complexity they have no intuition for and little comprehension of. Any large-scale """representative democracy""" will always have a PR industry trying to "educate" (i.e. indoctrinate) people on what the reality beyond their local community level is all about and what the correct political stance is. People cannot think for themselves under your system.

(im quite far behind the replies so some of my comments may have answered questions already)
>>15739983
I don't think so because not only can the public have what they believe controlled, but any group, including academics can too, as I hinted at in >>15740093. People can be controlled like this because no single one of us knows everything, instead we're all just taking "samples" of the data contained in the world, then assuming that the samples are representative of how the world really is.
This assumption we make in our thought process is what propagandists like Goebbels exploits, feed lots of the same bunk data.
We assume that these samples are representative of reality because we have evolved this way, because 50,000 years ago we didn't have many state propagandists running about.

Another problem is that scientists and publishers, like the ones who might run reputable journal have biases, like everyone else.

If you don't believe that such a thing is possible with these esteemed "reputable journals", we already know this has happened with covid-19 and asociated vaccines. I'm not starting a debate about that because it will just be a 3rd rabbit hole to go down, but a good place to have my view of what went on is to watch channels like "Dr. John Campbell" on Youtube. He's now quite famous for believing these reputable journals and institutions to be above all this sort of stuff, then finding out that they are humans just like the rest of us.

>>15740193
Funny how your behavior demonstrates my point and yet you think it's a refutation. This is why I'm not planning to have any serious discussions with you. Call me back when you can demonstrate that climatologists would be willing to accept and admit they are wrong.

>>15740184
Science is based upon failing to prove something wrong. When an idea begins to gain traction, there is more energy behind trying to disprove it, as that is what leads to more knowledge, like the black swan example. Outside of math, ideas are never proved to be correct, they just continue to survive attempts at being disproved. The theory of evolution is a good example. Since it’s inception there were attempts to disprove it, or more specially natural selection. Some aspects are proven false, so they are revised, eventually it comes to today when so many attempts to disprove it have failed that it’s practically taken as fact, when it isn’t.

Same goes for climate change. When the idea first started coming out, scientists, especially older ones, would think “those fools must have fucked something up, let me try”, then would come to the same conclusions. If new ideas in climatology are so hard to get a foothold, how did climate change ever become mainstream?

>>15740203
I. Do not. Care. To discuss. Your. Religion.

>>15740203
>how did climate change ever become mainstream?
It got astroturfed by interested parties who saw benefit in governments "saving the world" from it.

>>15740204
I accept your concession

>>15740197
I’ve already mentioned how plenty of theories in climatology have been changed over time which includes people changing their minds. What you’re doing is presenting a ridiculous hypothetical that’s comparable to scientists changing their mind about the earth being round. Rapid warming is a simple observable phenomenon.

>>15740205
Got anything to back up that claim?

>>15740208
You should start accepting that it's becoming mainstream to dismiss your doomsday fantasy and condemn your climate "scientist" cult.

>>15740211
>I’ve already mentioned how plenty of theories in climatology have been changed over time which includes people changing their minds
Yes? Name 3 that don't involve bickering over the details of your AGW narrative.

>What you’re doing is presenting a ridiculous hypothetical
No. What I'm doing is asking you to back up your claim that climatologists would accept and admit that they are wrong, when the overwhelming majority of them stands nothing to gain and everything to lose from it.

>>15740024
>Because I believe it’s possible to have a just and functioning republic. In a republic you choose your government, so ideally you don’t get criminals in charge. You have not answered my question at all. Perhaps I used to colorful language by calling the government criminals.
Why do you think we can only defend ourselves from criminals by having a government, which acts in a criminal manner because it is funded by taxation which is functionally theft?

If we can defend ourselves from criminals through voluntarism (i.e no taxes), why bother with a state of any kind?

>>15740205
That’s such a stupid argument and why there’s plenty of government resistance to do anything about it. It is in the interest of government and corporations to have access to cheap energy.

>>15740220
Sorry that the simple, documented truth hurts your feefees.

>>15740077
An issue I have with statists when they say that people are generally stupid (rightly or wrongly), is that in order to have a government, you necessarily will have to fill it with those same stupid people.
What makes a statist think that those people selected to become a part of the government will act any more intelligently than individuals making their own choices for themselves?
What makes a statist think that any selection criteria designed to give intelligent people power will be any better than those found in the free market?

It's a bit like trying to do brain surgery on yourself.

>>15740230
And yet the people who rule over you, the ones truly in power, somehow end up being way smarter than you despite your issue. What gives?

>>15740113
A hearty discussion.

>>15740218
I’ve already posted specifics, you just chose to ignore it. There have been plenty of revisions on dynamics, orbital influences, proxy reconstructions,ocean dynamics and plenty others. Not even two months ago there were major changes in the interpretation of shipping vessel ability to seed clouds in the ocean.
The basic concept rapid warming due to CO2 increase in the atmosphere is based on simple observed phenomena. As I said, that’d be comparable to saying the earth is flat.

>>15740130
>You argued against democracy by pointing out that people ideas are not their own
He did not at all. He clearly wants people to have more choice than democracy can provide by virtue of wishing for a smaller, potentially non-existent government.

He then posted an image explaining discussing how people can be manipulated. Pointing this out is not the same as declaring that you do not want democracy.

>>15740237
I said 3 that don't involve bickering over the details of your AGW narrative. And when you're done, rate how socially and politically inflammatory they are outside of a tiny niche in comparison to your AGW fantasy. And when you're done with that, back up your claim that climatologists would accept and admit that they are wrong, when the overwhelming majority of them stands nothing to gain and everything to lose from it.

>>15740242
Just like it’d be stupid for anyone to claim the earth is flat in the face of observational data of its curvature it’d be stupid for anyone to claim warming isn’t happening in the face of observational data in global temperature increase. You keep being a dodging bitch who can’t accept basic facts.

>>15740256
So you're telling me that for your climate scientists view the possibility that they are wrong the same way they view the possibility that the earth is flat. And you think this speaks in their favor. You're a lot dumber than I imagined.

>>15740261
>more semantics arguments
Observational data is not a theory or hypothesis made by a scientist. It’s a simple measurement of reality. This fact exists outside science itself.

>>15740264
Calling your cult dogma a "simple measurement of reality", doesn't make it any less fake. Anyway, get used to the fact that it's becoming mainstream to dismiss your doomsday fantasy and condemn your climate priests. You're losing the argument in the most conclusive way possible.

>>15740117
Yet those who believe in a climate crisis do the same when it pertains to governments.

>>15740266
Good job finding the one post ITT that deserved to be ignored and summoning the shill who wrote it. lol

>>15740265
>dude measurements of temperature are a dogma because I say so
You are too stupid to live. Literally the same shit flat earthers say about space imagery

>>15740269
You lost. Your religion loses more and more followers with every day that passes.

>>15739941
>>15740004
>>15740036
>>15740086
>>15740109
>>15740126
I think you (if you are the same poster) hold too much faith in others. Your belief around climate change seem to exist not because you personally have read and understood the thousands of papers on the topics on and around climate change, but because you trust other people have done so, have written summary papers on the subject, and then themselves have been selected in turn by people who work for an esteemed "reputable journal" or similar.

If this is true, then you have to trust that all the people in that chain have acted in good faith, kept their biases at zero, and done a good job of the original science in the first place.
One of the reasons I advocate for having as small (none) a government as possible, with as little intervention in the free market as possible, is because I understand that the process of finding information out for yourself, and the beliefs you develop from that information being reflective of reality, is very hard and unlikely to be the case.

If you put a minority of people in charge, you have the problems of both overburdening that small group with too much stuff to look after (looking after your own life is hard, let alone others), and by having a small group managing very much you give a single point of failure far wider reach than you would have if power was distributed as it is in a free market.

>>15740275
Sure, pal, you're going to do your own research, find information for yourself and become an expert at everything so that you would never again have to base your decisions of the competence of others. Or if you do have to trust something, you're gonna trust the invisible hand. What a stupid fucking take.

>>15740169
>the vast majority of scientists
Another issue is it might not be the vast majority.

Perhaps the vast majority agree that the climate changes, but less might agree that it is due to humans, less still that it is to a large degree, further less would agree that that large degree will negatively affect humans, and so on, until we reach the small minority that agree that there's climate crisis that requires state tyranny.

>>15740232
>the ones truly in power, somehow end up being way smarter than you
How have you come to this conclusion? Is it something I've said that gives you the impression I believe this to be true?

It's like claiming a railway's signalman is stronger than an locomotive because can operate the levers of a signal box that control where trains travel.

>>15740285
>How have you come to this conclusion?
They create and manage complexity you don't even comprehend.

>>15740237
I don't think we're discussing what the temperature is or the concentration of CO2. I think we are discussing what the public is told climate change will do to them if we don't stop it, and that the only way to stop it is to surrender more freedom to the state.
I'd like to know your takes on those two things, as that is what will really affect us all.

If I found myself in a desert, I would leave. This is what I've always done and the desert hasn't taken me yet.

>>15740294
>I don't think we're discussing what the temperature is or the concentration of CO2.
Are you implying the slight increase in temperature is not caused by humans? Look at the picture. Look at it really hard. If you look hard enough, the words "it's all your fault" will appear, and if you keep staring long enough, it says "buy Elon's electric cuck cart". You don't see it? What are you, a fucking flat earther?

>>15740279
I'm not expecting you or myself to do our own research to the degree I idealized. The problem that I'm trying to point out to you (or that poster, assuming you're not him) is that trusting other people's works, or even other people's claims based on their understanding of other people's works leaves you open to not receiving correct information, (e.g., bad work, people's biases, or even outright lies).

Now I think it's fine to trust others to do the thinking for you in your own life, as it is your life to live. The issue I have with it when it comes to this climate narrative is that people then declare that the government must be put in charge, and that we must surrender our freedom lest climate change kills us.
I don't think it's coincidental that people have offloaded their thinking to a chinese whisper chain, and are now begging for tyranny.

>>15740291
>complexity you don't even comprehend.
That's not necessarily function of them being smarter than me, it's that there are many people working to the similar goals. They also don't advertise their plans.

Now that I've reached the end of this thread, can the poster of >>15739737 respond to my question in >>15739915
"where is fact number 4 backing up your prior statement “[climate change] ... can lead to adverse affects on societies around the globe.”?"
at his convenience.

>>15740308
>trusting other people's works, or even other people's claims based on their understanding of other people's works leaves you open to not receiving correct information, (e.g., bad work, people's biases, or even outright lies).
Everybody knows that. AGW believers included. It's just that they, like you, mistakenly believe that their special system protects against systematic corruption. There's a recurring theme in this whole discussion that manifests in different forms: people think they can use some model, or babby's first game theory argument, to reason reliably about enormous systems. From the ground level. Based on incompete information at best. It's laughable.

>The issue I have with it when it comes to this climate narrative is that people then declare that the government must be put in charge, and that we must surrender our freedom lest climate change kills us.
What if they're right and climate change is about to kill us? Who's gonna fix that? The market?

>>15740113
>255 posts
>32 IPs

>>15740321
>Everybody knows that. AGW believers included. It's just that they, like you, mistakenly believe that their special system protects against systematic corruption. There's a recurring theme in this whole discussion that manifests in different forms: people think they can use some model, or babby's first game theory argument, to reason reliably about enormous systems. From the ground level. Based on incompete information at best. It's laughable.
That's why I'm telling you putting the government in charge of doing something about "climate change" is such a terrible idea. I'm not really debating much of the science around climate change.

>What if they're right and climate change is about to kill us? Who's gonna fix that? The market?
The free market, yes. It would be best because it is the largest number of people thinking about how to solve the problem. This reduces the problems me and you agree that exist about peoples beliefs are formed.

>>15740342
>The free market, yes
Come on, now. You don't actually believe this.

>>15740352
What's the problem? Can't two people be allowed consent with each other to carry out a transaction?

>>15740358
>What's the problem?
The problem is that if you believed, say, that China and Russia were planning a joint invasion against the US, you'd probably agree to postpone your libertarian utopia until after your government deals with that threat. I don't find it likely you'd say "let the free market handle this" if you felt genuinely threatened. You obviously don't feel genuinely threatened by AGW, so you double down on your ideology. Actually, I don't remember what my point was anymore. I don't think AGW lunatics feel genuinely threatened by AGW, either. I think they just want to deepthroat a boot.

>>15740364
On the implementation of having no government, I've already said that it would be a long process of getting there.

>You obviously don't feel genuinely threatened by AGW, so you double down on your ideology
I neither feel particularly threatened by climate change, nor do I think that the government is capable of dealing with it's effects. The way to deal with climate change or its effects will be economic. The government is terrible at managing economies, as we can see with the steady decline of many countries that have increased the size of their government, and with socialist experiments.

If climate change makes the weather warmer, more people will want AC. The economy will do a better job of catering to that demand if it closer to a free market.
As I've also said before, price of energy essentially dictates quality of life. The free market is best for reducing costs, having our economy as close a free market as possible will make peoples quality of life the best it can be.

As to the idea of China and Russia invading the US, the most sensible option would be to remove all firearm regulations and laws to return to how the second amendment was meant to be. If everyone on earth had firearms and plenty of ammunition, people would find it much harder to force other people to do their bidding. Invading other countries would become far more costly.

>>15740392
I hate to break it to you, but free markets are as fake as AGW.

>>15740402
I thoroughly disagree.

>>15740413
Then show me a free market that lasted.

>>15740342
>The free market, yes. It would be best because it is the largest number of people thinking about how to solve the problem.
The freer the market, the greater the inequality. How come so many people in the US are poor if their free market means that many people thought of the best solutions?

>>15740818
>The freer the market, the greater the inequality.
Prove it.

> How come so many people in the US are poor
There is no free market in the US and 'Muricans have only been getting poorer thanks to """progressives""" and their policies.

>>15741104
>There is no free market in the US
Is the market less free than in Europe?
>thanks to """progressives""" and their policies.
Are European policies less progressive?

>>15741137
>Is the market less free than in Europe?
In some ways.

>Are European policies less progressive?
I don't know and this is completely irrelevant. Both my points stand undisputed.

>>15741141
>Both my points stand undisputed.
No lmao. EU countries interfere much more with the market and have much more progressive policies. Miraculously, social housing programs (a market intervention) lead to less homelessness. The free market in the US didn't solve the housing crisis, the fentanyl crisis and it won't fix global warming.

>>15741157
You're mentally ill and your reply does not address my points in any way.

>>15738983
Stop Larping as a logician until you can formulate logically sound premises; it is not assisting your argument in any way.

>>15741161
I bet you inject big oil into your veins, fucking drumpfster.

>>15741167
Wrong larp

>>15739635
"Climate Change" is just the latest doomsayer fable, consensus we can save the planet by reducing the burning of fossil fuels. So the plan of action is that specifically western countries pay higher taxes to their elite class so they can manufacture the infrastructure to implement net zero, by driving electric cars, recycling your consooomer waste, flooding western countries with climate refugees who in turn increase their carbon footprint fourfold from what it would be if they stayed put in their own countries, not to mention the infrasturcuture that needs to be built to house them. Did we not learn anything from the totally organic Greta Thunberg who the mass media signal boosts constantly? There is a reason people feel so passionately about it, they have been propagandized to feel this way.
https://interestingliterature.com/2022/02/chicken-little-folk-tale-summary-analysis/#:~:text=We%20might%20summarise%20the%20moral,extraordinary%20claims%20(which%20should%20require

>>15741214
>blablabla le bad recycling

>>15741157
Housing crisis is a matter of supply and demand. Both are a problem due to government intervention.
We have too much demand due to mass migration (enticed by lucrative welfare programs, "N"GOs etc), and from housing being used as an investment asset.
We have too little supply due regulations, zoning laws etc that make it more time consuming and expensive to build new houses, there's also less competitors building houses.

The reason why investors using housing as an asset is the government's fault is because the government has willingly created the situation where there are so few alternative investments. We don't build factories anymore, we can't create new mines, we haven't got any new industry. Not only is housing one of the few remaining investments, but governments have also ensured it will be a low risk investment by virtue of mass migration boosting the demand, and regulations restricting supply. Investors know migration and regulations will not be stopped, so houses will only ever be going up in price.

I'm sure you can use different kinds of market intervention to reduce the burden in this sector, but all you do kick the can down the road. It's like the situation with the technology market that Louis Rossmann goes on about, you can make regulations to stop apple being cunts, but if we didn't have patent laws in the first place, apple wouldn't be able force it's proprietary bullshit on us.

>>15741217
Why do you believe the government is required to stop the sky falling on our heads?
As has been repeated coutnless times in this thread, why don't you change things you personally do to reduce your personal impact on climate change?

It's the exact same bullshit with the covid vaccines "my vaccine won't work unless you're vaccinated too".
This is so fucking clearly another ploy to give those in power, more power! They are addicted to it!

>>15738547
You replied to different people assuming we are one person