/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8950548
Check the catalog you retarded monkey.

>>8950548
it doesn't demand enough from China. they get a free pass until 2030. because "china is a developing nation meme".

it wants to give billions in development aid to countries known for fraud, waste, and abuse of foreign aid.

allows certain developing nations to claim victim status due to climate change. (evil western industry flooded our sand bar of a nation. give refugee immigration and welfare please).

it doesn't view climate change as a business opportunity to make everyone more productive and richer. instead takes a socialist view. that the rich have to pay for everything.

>>8950548
The best thing about the deal was that it satisfied a call to action on the subject that was tangible and readily felt. Like many other things people rush to cast a vote on before thinking it through, the quality of outcome was secondary to the urgency to act.

>>8950561
it really didn't go far enough. it was still stuck in the past of Carbon Emission Reductions.

it mentions carbon sinking. though has no call to take on active geo engineering to increase carbon sinking.

>>8950548
Look it up yourself.

$100 billion per year until 2020 as welfare payments to "developing nations" to build emissions reduction targets in said 'developing' nations (though many who classify as developing are richer than the UK/Australia combined).

There's many more payments, all of them benefit some tinpot dictator somewhere who will spend it on robes like the king of Swaziland and by 2020 there will be nothing to show for all those billions spent.

I thought /sci/ was supposed to be smart. Maybe brush up on your reading comprehension you mongoloids.

>>8950590
I don't think this thread would have any replies if it was only people who supported it.

>>8950590
Please enlighten us about how this was ever a good idea.

>>8950776
He's criticizing everyone's reading comprehension
>Can someone who is for the paris deal tell me why
>someone who is for

>he believes the Paris Climate Accord was about protecting the climate

How far up your ass is Yao Ming's cock?

>>8950548
>Can someone who is for the paris deal tell me why without basically telling me that white european nations have to carry the world on their backs because reasons?

The main argument is that since the Developed World already developed off the back of Fossil Fuels, that its the the Developed Worlds responsibilities to put up first to fix the mess "they started." Thus, they take the steepest economic hits first since their economies can "take it" and then they send money to "developing nations" to speed along the path to becoming first world so they then too can take a hammer to their economy and end their dependence of fossil fuels.

So wading through all the paris deal threads I can safely conclude that /sci/ literally has no argument at all why the PCA is beneficial or in any way saving the climate.

Now watch as r/science accuse everyone against the PCA of being climate change deniers while at the same time allowing """developing""" countries like China and India that are also the world's biggest polluters by the way to do jack shit about their environment while siphoning $100b gibsmedat from US

>>8950548
Go back to /pol/ please

>>8951396
>2015
>more ice than ever

You're blinded by your hatred against Al Gore and environmentalist. 3 seconds google search can prove how wrong you are

Onto the paris agreement,

The $100 billion are split from all the OECD countries, not just the US. The US has only pledged to pitiful $3 billion
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/15/us/politics/obama-climate-change-fund-3-billion-announcement.html

China is not doing jack shit. They have pledged $20 billion into the climate fund voluntarily
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/09/25/us-china-joint-presidential-statement-climate-change
>the United States and China recognize the importance of mobilizing climate finance to support low-carbon, climate-resilient development in developing countries, particularly the least developed countries, small island developing states, and African countries. In this connection, the United States reaffirms its $3 billion pledge to the Green Climate Fund (GCF) and China announces that it will make available ¥20 billion for setting up the China South-South Climate Cooperation Fund to support other developing countries to combat climate change

>>8950548
What you call "white european nations" are the ones to blame for climate change due to the uncontrolled rampant industrialization the last hundred or so years.

The developing world cannot be made to shoulder that burden as at the very least they lack the economical capability to do so. Not to mention the idea is ridiculously unfair if you think about it even a bit.

Since the developing world will eventually catch up, the right thing is to guide and help them do it faster so the harm to the environment is minimized.

>>8951404

here's his speech
https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007/gore-lecture_en.html

>Last September 21, as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is "falling off a cliff." One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years.

Stop being an alarmist

>>8951404
>China announces that it will make available ¥20 billion

lolnope

http://earthjournalism.net/stories/china-would-facilitate-south-south-cooperation-on-climate-change-as-third-party-said-former-minister-xie-zhenhua

>A year has past since the announcement, yet no further details have been disclosed by Chinese government except its consistent promise on scaling up the fund.

>>8951404
If you bothered to read the very link you posted, and the PCA document you will realise that China which is included in the "developing nations" are not obligated at all to commit to the PCA standards until 2030.

here's the pdf read it faggot
https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09r01.pdf

>>8951442
Al Gore is an idiot for calling the Arctic sea ice "North Polar ice cap."

Still your "2015 more ice than ever" is more wrong, and based on nothing compared Al Gore's prediction of "sea ice free as little of 7 years." The Arctic Sea ice extent might still be, and likely to be completely ice free by 2030 , the 22 years estimate which is the main estimate of the prediction. Al Gore is an idiot again for using the 7 years, the edge of the confidence inverval in the study

>>8951452
None of the countries are obliged to commit into anything as Paris is non binding. Not even the 100 billion from developed nations.

However, China has pledged to $20 billion voluntarily just like the developed nations has pledged $100 billion voluntarily.

You fucking read the agreement first double faggot

>>8951458
Exactly, it's non-binding so

1. US can back the fuck away from it any time it wants
2. China can pledge any gorillion dorrars it wants and commit none of it

Admit it, neither you nor anyone else knew wtf PCA was about or what's in it until 2 days ago. You're only mad because DRUMPF did X so X must be bad.

Basically you were paying 100B$ a year for what you could do yourself for way less.
Also it's shit since developing countries are huge hypocrites, they are not sticking to it and other countries don't have proper sanctions. They all rely on peer pressure.

>>8951469
>Admit it, neither you nor anyone else knew wtf PCA was about or what's in it until 2 days ago.
Projecting.

>>8951473
>Also it's shit since developing countries are huge hypocrites, they are not sticking to it and other countries don't have proper sanctions. They all rely on peer pressure.
>Also it's shit since developing countries are huge hypocrites
Now this, this is golden.

FUCK DRUMPF AND FUCK ALL PPL WHO DONT WANNA GIBSMEDAT

I have yet to receive a single argument from fellow fedora tippers why PCA is actually beneficial to America.

Well?

>>8951469
You have to start somewhere. You can't just grab the piano and play Chopin the next day.

The Paris Accord is just a gesture of goodwill, with voluntary agreement as a start before we move on to binding agreement that actually does something.

>Admit it, neither you nor anyone else knew wtf PCA was about or what's in it until 2 days ago. You're only mad because DRUMPF did X so X must be bad.
Not true, I'm a climate /sci/entist studying ice core in Antarctica and Greenland and I know about the Paris Accord long before as it relates to my field. I think it is not good enough, but a good start regardless.

This is /sci/ not /pol/, there are some legitimate scientist around here shitposting about how 0.9999.... = 1 in their spare time when they're bored

>>8951486
It is beneficial to the planet

Last time I checked muh Merica is part of planet Earth

>>8951469
>>8951487
Get BTFO

>it's non binding so it sucks
>Admit it, neither you nor anyone else knew wtf PCA was about or what's in it until 2 days ago

So you agree that it should go further, it should be a binding agreement and it should cut emission more aggressively?

/pol/ go home get off my board

>>8951487
>The Paris Accord is just a gesture of goodwill
Meaning it doesn't matter at all whether country X wants to remain in it or leave it. It's just a gesture of how morally superior I am.

Good thing US is leaving it. There's better use for $100b in our $5 trillion debts than handing it to Sanjit Singh to poo in newly constructed streets.

>>8951495
>It is beneficial to the planet
So the whole planet has to pay into it, not just murica ok?

>>8951505
>>8951507
>an actual climate scientist tells you you are retarded and you insist
just admit you lost 100% on this

not only is trump wrong in doing this, but it will shift the conversation for weeks - that's all people, climatologists, media, politicians will be talking about
you have to defend your shilling for a complete failure of a president on 4chan, because you were stupid enough to believe a tv personality could be president
instead of being able to say "shut up leftists we have the paris agreement, we are doing something about climate change" until the next report of the IPCC 5 years from now comes out you have to deal with completely avoidable political consequences of being retarded

the more you defend this shit the more mired you get in your own ideological bullshit

and the /sci/ meme cherry on top - elon musk himself, a guy who tried to protect trump and america from trump himself has left the ship and thinks you are retarded

but please, pretend it's a good thing america's leaving, since the agreement is too weak and you actually care about climate change

>>8951505
>So you agree that it should go further, it should be a binding agreement and it should cut emission more aggressively?

YES YES YES SLAYY. DRUMPF himself said he's open to renegotiation.

go to 6:20
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3wE7MO1uSw

>>8951507
>Meaning it doesn't matter at all whether country X wants to remain in it or leave it. It's just a gesture of how morally superior I am.
It is a gesture of goodwill before you start negotiating further. It's like you shake hand before talking about a deal, as gesture of good will and not punch people in the face right away.

>There's better use for $100b in our $5 trillion debts than handing it to Sanjit Singh to poo in newly constructed streets.
You're not understanding the agreement correctly. $100b will be raised from both private and government sector and will be split between the OECD countries, not just the US.

As I said China already said that they're gonna chip into the pot as well, and the EU have said that they're gonna chip in $60b. Again none of this is binding agreement and just sign of goodwill, as >>8951442 said China was all big talk but no action. However you do have to start somewhere, with international agreements gestures and goodwill are everything before you can move onto binding agreement.

Pulling out of the agreement during the goodwill gesture phase just to spite Al Gore and the environmentalist is not beneficial. It's like aborting a baby even before he/she's born, because it kills any future effort in negotiating and improving upon the non binding agreement into the binding agreement.

>So the whole planet has to pay into it, not just murica ok?
Developed countries like US and the EU emitted cumulatively most of the anthropogenic carbon in the last 100 years. We're in the predicament because of industrialization. So it is fair that the developed countries who have reaped the benefit of industrialization to chip in more, but yeah in the end China and India would also need to be part of the binding agreement if we want to have some fighting chance of having an effective international regulation

>>8951523
You better hope he reenters the deal.

>>8951520

>hurrr everyone that disagrees with the unfair PCA are obviously climate change deniers and hate scienctists and hate science and hate the environment and must be a redneck drumpfy supporters!!!!11!

You're doing exactly what >>8951396 said. You have ZERO argument at all why PCA is beneficial. Just admit you have lost 1000% on this mate lmao.

>>8951535
>You have ZERO argument at all why PCA is beneficial.
The scientist ITT said it better>>8951487
>>8951526

>>8951535
Stop citing yourself to give yourself more (You)'s it is pathetic.

There are many arguments put forward in this thread and you refused to listen, then keep meme'd it up with NO ARGUMENTS LOL gibsmedat

>>8951487
>government scientist
aka gigantic conflict of interest

>muh 1st step
why does the 1st step have to be this?

>>8951540
Your whole argument revolves around "goodwill" which apparently, only select countries are "goodwilling" enough while some (a lot) are not "goodwilling" enough to chip in. It's a dystopian future for planet Earth but only 1/4 of Earth should care for the other 3/4 of Earth that shit out more than the 1/4 while being paid to do so. It's unfair for the 1/4.

>>8951542
I quoted myself to prove myself right. Now go back to r/science and scream YOU FUCKING CLIMATE CHANGE DENIERS all day

>There are many arguments
Where? I've put forth my arguments as to why PCA is unfair and it's not wrong for potus to pull out of it. And so far the only decent argument is that "it's a sign of goodwill" (of which I agree to an extent that I hope it's renegotiated to a better and fairer PCA2.0).

Not mentioned so far is that obongo sent that $3b without the congress consent just like the Iran ransom thingy for $2b. I dont want my tax money being sent as gibsmedat to Ching Chong and Pajeet on the other side of the planet to fuck up the climate which you so love I'm sure.

>>8951552
What do you mean by "fair"?

We're in the predicament purely because of western industrialization, emitting more than 80% of cumulative anthropogenic carbon emission into the atmosphere, and have reaped the benefit of cheap dirty energy with trillions of dollars worth of built infrastructure like roads, power grids, houses, universities, research institutions, etc.

China and India do emit a lot of CO2, but per capita wise these two countries are nothing. The developed world per capita still emit an order of magnitude way more CO2. So far the US has only pledged a pitiful $3b, EU $60b and developing countries in total pledging (including China, India, Russia, Brazil and South America) $60b to climate development fund
http://www.oecd.org/env/cc/OECD-CPI-Climate-Finance-Report.pdf

Do you think it's fair for the US and EU who were responsible for 80% of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere, to chip in $100b out of $160b total fund pledged (so let me do the math for you, that's 62%). If you want to count the US pledge alone, $3b out of $160 that's less than 2%, while the US is responsible for at least 40% of the CO2 that's already sitting in the atmosphere now.

On an urelated note, the "Iran ransom thingy for $2b" you mentioned are actually Iranian assets that the US just froze. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_frozen_assets
It is their fucking money and assets that we just say gibsmedat. Of course after the Iran deal you have to give back the asset you froze back to where it belong. The $2b is not from US taxpayers at all, it is their money that we stole, froze and rake interest from.

You being unable to articulate the Iran deal properly, thinking that the US and Obama give Iran $2b just because, plus all the buzzwords you spew shows that you've been drinking way way too much /pol/ koolaid and don't know what you're talking about

>>8951568
>Manmade CO2 emissions are much smaller than natural emissions. Consumption of vegetation by animals & microbes accounts for about 220 gigatonnes of CO2 per year. Respiration by vegetation emits around 220 gigatonnes. The ocean releases about 332 gigatonnes. In contrast, when you combine the effect of fossil fuel burning and changes in land use, human CO2 emissions are only around 29 gigatonnes per year.

also
>CO2 emissions are the only factor in global warming
hell
>CO2 is even in the top 5 factors for global warming

>>8951577
All this misinfo memery where do I began,

>Manmade CO2 emissions are much smaller than natural emissions [...]

That's a copy pasted paragraph from skepticalscience, a pro climate change action website. All you need to do is read further than the paragraph
https://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions-intermediate.htm

Manmade CO2 emissions are much smaller than natural emissions. Consumption of vegetation by animals & microbes accounts for about 220 gigatonnes of CO2 per year. Respiration by vegetation emits around 220 gigatonnes. The ocean releases about 332 gigatonnes. In contrast, when you combine the effect of fossil fuel burning and changes in land use, human CO2 emissions are only around 29 gigatonnes per year. However, natural CO2 emissions (from the ocean and vegetation) are balanced by natural absorptions (again by the ocean and vegetation). Land plants absorb about 450 gigatonnes of CO2 per year and the ocean absorbs about 338 gigatonnes. This keeps atmospheric CO2 levels in rough balance. Human CO2 emissions upsets the natural balance.

Let me know which part of the 2nd part of the paragraph that you copy pasted don't you understand and I'll be happy to help your special needs ass

>CO2 emissions are the only factor in global warming
>CO2 is even in the top 5 factors for global warming
CO2 is the 2nd most important GHG after water vapor and yes CO2 is in the top 5. There is nothing we can do to control water vapor, as 71% of the Earth's surface is ocean and you can't put a lid over the whole ocean. Water vapor abudance is strictly a function of temperature, and temperature only following Clausius Clayperon equation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clausius%E2%80%93Clapeyron_relation

CO2 is subject to aggresive regulation because of its 120 years long atm lifetime, hence long lasting impact. In comparison CH4 (methane) the 3rd most important GHG only stays in the atm for about 10 years

>>8951568
>it wasnt ransom
it was

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-iran-ransom-20160819-snap-story.html
>http://nypost.com/2016/09/08/no-we-didnt-owe-iran-that-1-7-billion-ransom-payment/
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/foreign-policy/291999-iran-takes-obamas-hostage-money-and-takes-more-hostages

Regardless, it's $2b that isn't obongo's to give and this $3b too. Gibs the money through the proper legal channel whether you're blue or red, dont just scream "ITS FOR THE GREATER GOOD BECAUSE CLIMATE CHANGE BECAUSE IRAN ASSET BECAUSE TOMAHAWK BECAUSE MOAB".

>What do you mean by "fair"?
Every nation whether developed or developing or ayylmao, chip in to their own fucking country. There should be no intermediaries that pool the excess/donation funds unless there's accountability. I dont trust GCF enough to handle my gibs for all we know they might be pocketing 90% for themselves, 9% for bullshit "green" or "climate" stuff and only 1% to actual targets. There's currently no accountability at all as to where exactly each cent of the $100b will go to. We just have to trust (((them))) to decide which organisation or company or country that gibs is going.

No fuck off with your muh imperialist bs. Im not paying for what John Smith from 1800s did to pinoys or haitians or any past US colonies just like you and I wont pay a dot for muh slavery reparations to BLM.

You should try to understand the other side of the argument that want less government interference eg. PCA, and more individual contributions.
I've lived a good portion of my life in SE Asia volunteering in wildlife and rainforest reserves and trust me, all these multinational umbrella orgs like GCF and WWF contribute next to nothing and most environmental works are done by and within the local communities themselves.

>>8950548
Because southern nations are already feeling the climate change and will continue to feel it much more intensively as the northern nations.

The modest decrease is only true for the northern hemisphere. If the global climate warms up by an average of 2,5 degrees, its like 4 degrees in the southern hemisphere, and 1 degree in the northern hemisphere. If it only warms by 2 percent, it will be 3 degrees in the southern hemisphere, and 1 in the northern. So for the countries in the southern hemisphere its a big difference.

What republicans dont seem to realise is that the USA is basically giving up its status as the world leader. The Paris agreement will still happen, and instead of being lead by the US it will be lead by China and EU. So America is putting the business interest of some few old industries before its own global power position.

>>8951604
>slavery reparations to BLM

Had to look it up because it's gotta be bullshit. There's just no fucking way nighers are demanding slavery reparations.

>mfw its real

>>8951577
>>8951568

>>8951631
>putting the business interest of some few old industries

so the lobbyists-corrupting-politicians wasn't fixed by electing a lobbyist?

>>8951631
>the USA is basically giving up its status as the world leader

Shouldnt everyone be glad then? You keep crying because US is always acting like the world police to btfo terrorists and norks but now cry because US doesnt want to be the world leader any longer.

lol dont kid yourself m8.PCA is gonna fall apart by itself just like TPP. If not there's always some republicans and dems that will send "freedom" your way to maintain the global supremacy.

>>8951638
Who's crying? Liberal media? the politicians of europe and China are certainly not crying.

>>8951631
>Chinese-EU partnership
Now that's a beautiful dystopian sight. They really do fit each other perfectly.

If the PCA was actually about saving the climate and environment shouldn't they be willing to renegotiate now that US (one of the biggest polluters per >>8951568) has pulled out?

Well /sci/?

>>8951651
Go and fuck your cousin cleetus.

>>8951469
It is non-binding because two years ago US wouldn't agree to any binding proposals because my freedoms.

>>8950548
> it's a shit deal for us
Why don't you elect a businessman for president?

You are admitting in one sentence that it's at least a step towards saving the world from a catastrophe yet "it's a shit deal for us".
Kubrick could make another "How I Learned to Stop Worrying" about this.

Does anyone know which nations have to give $100 billion a year to poorer countries? Does it include the BRICS nations? Or will they be receiving the funds?

>>8951674
>It is non-binding because two years ago US wouldn't agree to any binding proposals because my freedoms.

Source? You're telling me king nigger refused and forbid other countries from paying into climate, while forcing americans to pay for other countries to pollute the planet?

>>8951676
Developing countries will pool in too.
The HUGE sum of 100 billion distributed among many countries and years can only be reached this way

>>8951708
>Developing countries will pool in too.
in 2030 yes. oops whats that? oh no its the year 2029 and i just left the paris deal thanks for all the gibs yurocucks

Where can I read the deal? google gives too many different documents, I don't know which one is the correct one. I don't usually browse /sci/ because I am not smrt.

>>8951520
lol butthurt climate change KEK

Literally nothing wrong with climate change

>>8951710
https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09r01.pdf

you can ctrl+f on this one

>>8951702
http://www.climatechangenews.com/2015/12/15/paris-agreement-does-not-need-senate-approval-say-officials/
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/01/un-climate-talks-deal-us-congress

I think the reasoning was - any obligation to another country means loss of sovereignty.

>>8951712
Fake graph. No labels on the temp axis.

Also, solar radiation does not vary enough to change temps on earth. For example, in the northern winter the earth is closer to the sun.

Volcanic eruptions can only affect temperatures if they are from very large volcanoes that put out tons of ash. Not even the iceland volcano put out enough to do anything.

>>8951708
So the poo, the chinks, the hue, and the Russians don't have to pay a dime until 2030? Trump was right in bailing out.

>>8950590
Since when asian is an insult ?

>>8951753
Not the guy, but about 150 years.

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

>>8951712
>Hebrew exodus from Egypt as a historical event
Kek

>>8950556
This

>Almost everyone who wants to do something about climate change seems to ignore China and India
>Almost everyone who wants to do something about China and India seems to ignore climate change
[pain]

>>8951709
China doesn't do shit meme needs to stop

China aims to spend at least $360b on clean energy
>https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/05/world/asia/china-renewable-energy-investment.html?utm_source=huffingtonpost.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=pubexchange_article

China pledges $20b, more than six times the amount Obama pledged into the Paris climate fund
>https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/09/25/us-china-joint-presidential-statement-climate-change

China pledges to invest $1trillion in sustainable development for other backwater Asian countries
>https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/13/business/china-railway-one-belt-one-road-1-trillion-plan.html

The 2030 estimate is a conservative estimate, with how aggressive China is in pursuing green tech and RnD they might reach their carbon emission peak in 2025 at the latest, 5 years ahead of schedule
>https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/03/07/china-vowed-to-peak-carbon-emissions-by-2030-these-researchers-think-it-could-already-be-there/

Go ahead continue to be a dumb redneck who shovel coal for a living, just like your father and your grandfather and your great grandfather without any improvement in life quality Drumfkin while the world moves on with or without you.

>>8951749
>So the poo, the chinks, the hue, and the Russians don't have to pay a dime until 2030?

Trump misconstrued the underlying tenet of the agreement. China Russia India Brazil and other middle income developing nations pledges to have their peak carbon emission before 2030. This doesn't mean that they can do whatever they want, and poo in the loo and cram building their green energy infrastructure at the last minute. To hit peak carbon emission before 2030, while maintaining sustainable GDP growth these developing countries need to transition right away, phasing out their older coal plants and building more solar/wind farms.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-energy-202/2017/06/02/the-energy-202-trump-s-paris-speech-needs-a-serious-fact-check/59302a21e9b69b2fb981dc14/
>THE PROBLEM: Not so. Again, the agreement does not bind any nation to any emissions target. What China did choose to do under the agreement is have its carbon emissions "peak" by 2030 before then declining. The world accepted that longer leash for China and other developing nations to let them use fossil-fuel energy to promote greater economic growth. But to meet that goal, China cannot "do whatever they want" until then, as Trump said, at least if China wants to meet that voluntary 2030 target. It needs to begin acting now to control emissions -- and in fact, is signaling to the world it is already doing so by announcing in January the cancellation of plans to build more than 100 coal-fired power plants. The Paris deal "is more fair to the U.S. than previous agreements because it includes all the major economies of the world, not just the rich countries, so both developed countries and developing countries have skin in the game," Jody Freeman, a Harvard Law School professor and director of the school's Environmental Law and Policy Program, said. Trump's "portrayal is at odds with reality," she added.

>>8951890
you don't have to believe everything politicians say

don't their calculate their emissions per capita? you don't have to be an expert on energy to realize that's not how to calculate emissions

>>8950548
Fuck off back to pol where you belong

>>8951890
>China aims
>China pledges
>China pledges
>with how aggressive China is in pursuing green tech and RnD
Jesus Christ, what a laff. Careful not to choke to death on those emissions. I'm sure 'Murikkka is the problem Mr. Technicolor Rivers

>>8951943
>Doesn't put the fucking board tag in between forward-slashes
Holy fuck get off this website normalfag

>>8951404
Brah, the guy's pic clearly shows Antartica. Why are you showing data from the other side of the globe?

>>8952750
Because it's a common misleading trick to say - "Hey more ice on East Antarctica"
Omitting The North Pole and even Greenland


anyways al gore is not a scientist anyway so the original post's premise was already retarded

>>8951910
China and India won't do shit, the only guaranteed effect of this agreement is gimmies for UN bureaucrats

>temperatures slightly rising for a few hundred years
>be shit tier government funded scientist
>pick arbitrary date like the invention of combustion engine
>say look temperatures been rising since the invention of this

One of probably thousands of examples of dishonest data.

>>8951426
So me and my future generations will suffer economically because my dad and his dad wanted a job?

>>8953116
>So me and my future generations will suffer economically

US pulling out of Paris accord will cause future generations to suffer from climate change.

Again, for the mathematically challenged, the $3 billion that Obama pledged is nothing, the federal government alone have $3.5trillion in operating budget from tax revenue.For comparison, the total damage of hurricane sandy alone was $70 billion for the whole US. That's 23 times more than the pitiful $3billion pledged into the climate fund.

Pulling out of Paris Accord unlike what Trump blatantly lied to, will cost the US jobs rather than save jobs.
>https://www.c2es.org/international/business-support-paris-agreement
Microsoft, Apple, Adobe, Facebook, Unilever etc all have urged Trump to not pull out of Paris Accord.

>https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/01/us/politics/fact-check-climate-change-trump.html?action=click&contentCollection=Politics&module=RelatedCoverage&region=Marginalia&pgtype=article
>Economists argue that the projected job losses in the study assume the American economy will not use innovation to adapt to the new regulations. Apple, Mars, and Unilever are among companies that have said complying with the Paris agreement would open markets and generate jobs.

You are absolutely caught in the tribalism of defending /pol/king God Emperor Trump and licking the tears of butthurt liberals that you're blinded by the facts and numbers. Trump pulling out of Paris is massive opportunity lost to US business, according to all top companies including fucking Exxon.

But go ahead, keep bury your head in the sand and support daddy Drumf blindly. Keep believing he'll "renegotiate" the deal, as if other nations would bother to spend resources and time renegotiating a non binding agreement. The goodwill and political capital has already been spent, Trump just wasted all of that to spite environmentalist and do pseudo populist political gesturing.

>>8953058
>I don't understand anything about a subject, but let me tell you why everyone who works in it is a fraud.
Just fuck off already.

>>8953232
not an argument retard

>>8953210
>ulling out of Paris Accord unlike what Trump blatantly lied to, will cost the US jobs rather than save jobs.
>>https://www.c2es.org/international/business-support-paris-agreement
>Microsoft, Apple, Adobe, Facebook, Unilever etc all have urged Trump to not pull out of Paris Accord

nice article, I really like where the explain how it will lose us jobs...

oh wait...

>>8953210
>if we dont give billions of dollars away to other countries we will lose jobs!

I know this isn't /biz/ but come the fuck on my dude.

tfw work for the ESSC and they are talking about cutting entire programs now instead of getting rid of useless bureaucrats. There are people in my depertment that make walmart greeters look like an amazing investment.

But I feel for a shitty degree meme and here I am stuck forever and basically forced to shill with these people unless I want to work at... walmart.

>>8953332
>depertment

>>8953279
>I know this isn't /biz/ but come the fuck on my dude.
Nice strawman buddy. You just purposely meme'd it up and refuse to see the point.

Staying in Paris agreement would drive tech and renewable innovation because the federal government and the state would spend money internally trying to meet the emission target. With the federal government being out, now in the US there will be less amount of spending on renewables and less incentive for the US based tech companies to innovate, hence less high paying jobs

This problem came to a head when in 1894, The Times newspaper predicted... “In 50 years, every street in London will be buried under nine feet of manure.”
This became known as the ‘Great Horse Manure Crisis of 1894’.
The terrible situation was debated in 1898 at the world’s first international urban planning conference in New York, but no solution could be found. It seemed urban civilisation was doomed.

http://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/Great-Horse-Manure-Crisis-of-1894/

Will we look back on this in 100 years and laugh?

>>8953355
You are dodging the question, and assuming that it is up to the government to drive innovation when it has never innovated anything but wasting untold sums of money.

>>8953360
The 3 billion dollars is chump change compared to the federal budget of 3.5 trillion, and only act as goodwill for the non binding agreement.

What gonna spurt jobs is that all the 150 countries in the agreement hiring tech companies and RnD to meet their emission target

What's so hard to understand

>>8953366
R&D won't make up for the estimated 6 million job loss in america to meet standards. And those R&D jobs wont be anywhere near all american.

>>8953373
oy vey the 6 milion, the jobocaust!

>>8953373
>estimated 6 million job loss
Estimated by your ass.

>>8953373
>6 million job loss
Where the fuck do you get this meme?

Even your daddy Trump said it's only 2.7 million job loss, and that number is being questioned. Trump got the number from
http://www.nera.com/content/dam/nera/publications/2017/170316-NERA-ACCF-Full-Report.pdf

Trump didn't read the footnotes
>“Does not take into account potential benefits from avoided emissions.
>“The study results are not a benefit-cost analysis of climate change.
>“The long run, year 2040, impacts which are representative of the Obama Administration’s long term emissions goal of an 80 per cent reduction by 2050 are subject to a great deal of uncertainties about the future.
>"The model does not take into consideration yet to be developed technologies that might influence the long term cost.”

Also you had the balls to question climate models in which it is based on first principles physics, while all these economic ((models)) are way way shoddier as they're based in unphysical parameterization and correlations

>>8953373
>the estimated 6 million job loss in america to meet standards.
Did you make that number up yourself, or did you get someone to do it for you?

>And those R&D jobs wont be anywhere near all American.
No shit. Of course if the US government repeatedly makes it clear that's it's very hostile to clean energy and wants to go back to burning coal, then people who are developing renewable will go elsewhere. This is a problem entirely of your own creation.

>>8953399
It's literally not a problem, it won't be warm enough to make a shit for hundreds of years which by then we will look back on this "problem" like we did on the 1894 horse shit crisis.

>>8953405
>your numbers get called out and BTFO by multiple people
>don't even deny that you pulled it out of vacuum of your ignorant ass

I-tt's literally not a problem guys, deflect and change the subject. I

t's embarassing /pol/kin, stop your pollution and get off this board. This is a science board, you need numbers and source to back your argument

>>8953413
not even that guy dipshit

>>8953405
lol /pol/ gets called out and BTFO again

>>8950556

>still talking about this trash

No one gives a shit about trump or grant babby scientists.

t. making big bucks at shell as an inorganic chemist

>>8953427
le ebin government funded research is useless meme

really got my spaghetti al dente

>everyone in this thread using reddit spacing
GO BACK REEEERRR

>>8953430
fuck off retard
people have been formatting with "reddit spacing" on 4chan since before reddit was even a thing

>>8953359
I really want you to be posting this sarcastically, or as a joke but I feel like you're serious and that makes me sad.

>>8951890
I wouldn't trust a single thing those gooks say.

>>8953455
Is it problematic for you?

>no warming the past 17 years
>All ipcc models failed

It's a brainlet field, how do the models even look like? Do they even know how to apply a differential equation?

>>8950548
It's good signalling, which matters. But it's not going to fix the problem, which will require a massive rollout of nuclear, and the biggest obstacle to that are the so-called leftist Green environmentalists.

>>8953569
Let me guess, you're cherrypicking based on the single RSS data set when multiple other ones noticed that there has been warming for the last 18 years.
>https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/ytd/12/1989-2016
>https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
>http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/ann_wld.html
The RSS dataset that you arbitrarily decide is the only reliable one isn't considered reliable by the RSS itself, which realized that they had made a major error where they didn't notice that the orbit of their satellites had degraded.
>"Sensitivity of Satellite-Derived Tropospheric Temperature Trends
to the Diurnal Cycle Adjustment” – Mears and Wentz, Journal of Climate 2016

>>8953569
>no warming the past 17 years
You lie.

>>8951404
>¥20 billion
That's 3 billion dollars you retard

>>8953579
That Chart is fake, giss and headcrut both report no significant warming.

Still, all predictive models failed.

>>8953594
>get BTFO
m-muh chart is fake fake news! Let me repeat saying all predictive models failed over and over again so it must be true!

>>8953594
>That Chart is fake, giss and headcrut both report no significant warming.
What the fuck are you on about? The chart came directly off the CRU website.

>Still, all predictive models failed.
No they didn't.

>>8953594
>https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/~timo/diag/tempdiag.htm
If it's fake, then why did HadCRUT put it on their website. I already know you won't have a satisfying answer since your brain is smooth.

>>8953576
Not cherrypicking. The arrogance to believe us humans decide the faith of Earth's climate (which is the most stable for the last 500 years since the beginning of mankind), coupled with the fact that environmentalists shill millions from the public while unable to perform even the most basic diffeq modeling any 2nd year engineering student can do, proves my point.

>Muh climate is a chaotic system
Then why do you even exist? It's either predictable, and you are doing a shit job, or it's unpredictable, then why even study it in the first place?

And even if man-made climate change was real, so what? It's not like we could reverse it, humanity is not getting rid of cars, ships, factories or planes anytime soon.

Hope you all get defunded.

>>8953614
Look up washington monument syndrome. It's going to be impossible to defund them without civil war. Same reason drug war will never end.

>>8953569
>how do the models even look like? Do they even know how to apply a differential equation?

Legit climate scientist here, this is one example of 1/20th excerpt of a script from NASA GISS E2 model that calculates CH4 decay via reaction with OH radical.

If you're curious download it for yourself
https://simplex.giss.nasa.gov/snapshots/

I bet you can't even compile the whole thing to get it running. I'll wait anon, prove me wrong if you're such a good coder and post some webm of

tail -f log command

just showing that you compiled the model correctly and it didn't crash within the first 2 seconds. I'll even provide the howto link
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelE/HOWTO.html

Make us proud /bigguy/

>>8953604
They put whatever shit they like and what fits their agenda. Why? Because funding.

10 years ago Al Gore has been shilling his hockey stick myth, and people later found out he lied and faked data. Five years ago ipcc faked data aswell, which got public by some whistleblower.

In the 80s environmentalists believed the earth will freeze, and even planned on spreading charcoal to artificially melt the ice poles.

The whole field is governed by brainlet frauds, proper students study stem.

>>8953614
>even the most basic diffeq modeling any 2nd year engineering student can do, proves my point.

I can do dozens types of numerical integration, from simple forward euler to the conditionally stable crank nicholson.

So you were saying?

Still waiting for you to compile the NASA GISS ModelE2 genius

>>8953625
Brainlets rely on goverment cheese to fund the research no one in the free market wants to pay for.

>>8953625
>>8953638
All this edgy talk and no show. What's the matter big guy? If you're so smart show us how you would integrate the continuity equation better than we do

https://simplex.giss.nasa.gov/snapshots/modelE2_AR5_branch.2017.06.03_07.50.01.tgz

>>8953638
Just because something isn't profitable doesn't mean it shouldn't be invested in.

>>8953644

>>8953643
>>8953636
>>8953621
What's up /pol/kins???

Got cold feet eh? Can't talk shit about how smart you are huh? What happens to being expert in modelling differential equations?

>>8953614
>The arrogance to believe us humans decide the faith of Earth's climate
Paying attention to reality isn't arrogance.

>Then why do you even exist? It's either predictable, and you are doing a shit job, or it's unpredictable, then why even study it in the first place?
It's difficult to predict. Like most other things we really care about.

>And even if man-made climate change was real, so what? It's not like we could reverse it, humanity is not getting rid of cars, ships, factories or planes anytime soon.
Even if we couldn't reverse it, we could at least stop making it worse.
Hell, we could even just slow down the rate we're making it worse. Event THAT would be an improvement that would save lives.
Seriously, do you think at all before you type this garbage out?

>Hope you all get defunded.
Because that would make you right... how?

>>8953625
>They put whatever shit they like and what fits their agenda. Why? Because funding.
Do you have any evidence they faked it?

>10 years ago Al Gore has been shilling his hockey stick myth
a) No-one but you cares about Al Gore. Stop bringing him up.
b) The "Hokey Stick" was Michael Mann, not Al Gore. You really should at least look at wikipedia before pretending to have a clue.
c) The "Hockey Stick" graph has been confirmed multiple times by different people with different datasets.

>In the 80s environmentalists believed the earth will freeze
No they didn't. Please top lying.

>>8953621
>Fortran
Gross.

>>8953658
fortran is the fastest, leanest language. Literally zero, zero differential equations in the whole 3D climate model can be solved analytically.

If you take fluid dynamics you'll know that the 3D Navier Stokes continuity equation for momentum transfer cannot be solved analytically. Therefore everything needs to be solved numerically

Fortran is still the best , leanest, fastest language for numerical methods, as we cannot afford to even use C++ due to computational time.
http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u64q/fortran.html

> $0.10 has been deposited in your account.

>>8953666
Oh noe I've got caught. How would I make 10 cents from now on?

Not bad for a CTR shill to be able to run state of the art AOGCM eh? Shilling in 4chan science board is a very competitive and lucrative job even moreso than a permanent tenured position at NCAR

>>8953682
>tenure
>actually being a ctr shill

neck urself

Nuclear was the only real chance for humanity to stay below 2 degrees warming target. You can thank clueless environmentalists for ruining that. Paris deal is borderline irrelevant anyway.

>>8953699
>not even knowing the source image

I'm still waiting for the /pol/kins to prove how much of a genius mathematician/engineer/programmer they are and help me improve the GISS model before the upcoming AR6 IPCC.

We're planning to freeze the model down in the next couple of weeks after the final tuneups for the upcoming IPCC AR6 runs

>>8953621
> legit clima scientist
> sitting in front of a pc all day
> beat me @ my hacking game

Your methology is flawed right off the bat.
See, when us engineers dont understand a system, yet have to make a prediction, we look at it as a black box.

What kind of system are we expected to have (LTI, nonLTI, nonLnonTI)?

What is the I/O data?

Is there some kind of feedback / some kind of storage / some kind of leakage?

Is it even reasonable to attempt to find some kind of causality for the invonlved dynamics, or do we need to resort to probabilism?

Can we find some reasonable model that replicates historic data?

Before even answering any of this basic questions, we do not delude ourselves into thinking we deserve to get money for our work.

Now whatever you do is reductionism without any further significance. What about vegetation growth? What about oceanic energy storage? What about solar emission variations? Dust formation? How is the ratio between anthropological and natural emissions? What about water vapor?


>>8953658

There have been multiple scandals in regards to IPCC members faking scientific reports in order to align with the agenda, exluding critical opinion and critical peer review.

>Paying attention to reality isn't arrogance.
No, but the moment scientist (or anyone) tries to influnce and lobby politics by commiting fraud is the moment some line has been crossed.

>Even if we couldn't reverse it, we could at least stop making it worse.

Without understanding how the mechanism works any action might make it worse.

>>8953718
>What about vegetation growth?
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/projects/ent/

>What about oceanic energy storage?
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ru02000x.html

>What about solar emission variations?
You can turn any kind of variations on and off
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelE/cmip5/

Dust formation?
We have 4 aerosol/dust formation configurations
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelE/cmip6/

>How is the ratio between anthropological and natural emissions?
GISS is a forward model, we don't make assumption about natural emission and let all the components run forward with the given parametiraztion. With anthropogenic emission we're using the prescribed RCP (representative concentration pathways forcings), they have 4 main scenarios from RCP8.5 to RCP2.6. Different GCM running the same perscribed RCPs are crucial for the climate model intercomparison
http://sedac.ipcc-data.org/ddc/ar5_scenario_process/RCPs.html

>What about water vapor?
Water vapor is rolled into the climate dynamics forcing as part of equation of state (ideal gas law + water vapor from Clausius Clayperon eq). It is easy and the most fundamental component, as modeling water vapor is purely a physical phenomenon.

Even if you can't get the compiler to work, feel free to open the files one by one and see how each component work

>>8953736
>>8953718
Just to add, here is one sentence description on each component of the models, with primary references if you want to look further
https://simplex.giss.nasa.gov/gcm/doc/ModelDescription/

>>8953718
>sitting in front of a pc all day
Also, nope. That >>8951487 was me too. I've been to Antarctica and Greenland multiple times.

What have you done with your life Mr. Engineer?

>>8953718
>Your methology is flawed right off the bat.
>See, when us engineers dont understand a system, yet have to make a prediction, we look at it as a black box.
The fact that you don't understand climatology doesn't mean that no-one else does.

>There have been multiple scandals in regards to IPCC members faking scientific reports in order to align with the agenda, exluding critical opinion and critical peer review.
And none of the scandals turned out to be slightly credible.

>No, but the moment scientist (or anyone) tries to influnce and lobby politics by commiting fraud is the moment some line has been crossed.
I know. That doesn't stop the deniers from doing it, though.

>Without understanding how the mechanism works any action might make it worse.
It's a good thing we do understand the greenhouse effect then, isn't it?

>>8953750
best /sci/ poster

>>8953754
>armchair engineer and (((climate scientist))) argue over nothing.

ahhh im so zzz sleepy guys time for bed, not much to see here anyways yawn*

>>8953718
>Your methology is flawed right off the bat.

Your brain is flawed right off the bat because you assume to know about something (climate models) where you most certainly don't. You can't even compile the basic source code to prove me wrong.

Without looking into any of the guts and check the codes by yourself, without even reading any of the papers published about the GCMs you assumed people who have spend their whole lives working to tune the models don't know what they're doing and just as ignorant as you are.

You seriously think that a state of the art GCM in 2017 doesn't implement water vapor? If anything your rebuttal shows how ignorant you are about the state of the art GCM.

You read up and lap up whatever conforms to your beliefs from denier sites, infowars or whatever bullshit news source you consume and since it confirms your preconceived notions about how climate scientists work you never bothered to check our body of work through primary sources yourselves.

Get fucked you dumb brainlet

>>8953762
that's some serious projecting

>>8953768
I'll reply with /pol/'s favorite rebuttal
>not an argument

>>8953758
Thanks anon it's appreciated

>>8953777
still projecting

>>8953762
I'm on my phone. Phones work, climate models don't. Reality is cruel, but I'm not to blame for it.

>>8953791
>Phones work, climate models don't.
Only when it's compiled by you

Also dumb phoneposter

Why can't we plant a bunch of trees to take care of the CO2?

>>8953809
Because when trees die, they decompose, releasing practically all of that CO2.

Step 1: massive roll-out of nuclear to reduce CO2 emissions from electricity to zero.
Step 2: Figure out something for transport fuel. I personally favor dumping lots of money into synthetic hydrocarbon research from atmospheric or ocean CO2, but I think we should invest into everything promising here.
Step 3: Do even more, whether that's negative emissions, or something with agriculture.

>>8953791
>climate models don't
Climate models work, denier logic doesn't

>>8953813
can't have have a bunch of nuke plants with 3rd world savages taking over. Look at what south africa did in prep dor abolishment of aparthied.

>>8953818
That's why you build it for them, ship it to them, and have it be an idiot-proof design, i.e. ThorCon.

Also, stop being a racist asshat. gb2 >>>/pol/

>>8953820
>look at history

yes im so sorry for my privledged white revisionist history.>>8953820

>>8953820
they will just sell the cores to terrorists eventually. You cannot let low iq populations get ahold of nuclear anything.

>>8953813
>>8953820
Why are you against solar & wind Tripfag? Sorry the more exotic the ideas, the less likely it's gonna work. Solar and wind despite being boring is guaranteed to work. With transportation there's this thing called electric car/trucks that is also guaranteed to work rather than doing crazy research into making synthetic hydrocarbon. With synthetic hydrocarbon you cannot beat 2nd law of thermodynamics and entropy. It would take more energy to synthesize fuel out of ocean CO2 than the energy fuel itself contain. Why not use the energy you're gonna use to synthesize fuel in the first place? With synthetic fuels also you're still stuck with combusted CO2 in the atmosphere.

With nuclear despite being zero emission you're stuck with nuclear waste, and a lot of countries simply can't have nuclear plants. Japan arguably shouldn't have any nuclear plant as they're right on plate boundary. With safe disposal of nuclear waste, you need to dig tunnels which in itself cost tons of energy that can only be provided from fossil fuel, unless you want to invent some electric tunnel digger powered by a monstrosity of a battery

The only problem with classic but boring renewables like solar and wind being the storage problem as peak household energy usage doesn't coincide with peak sun/wind. The solution is obviously to invest more in cutting edge battery research.

>>8953835
>Why are you against solar & wind Tripfag?
Start here:
https://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-energy-storage/

The argument holds true even for today's numbers:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_0aZwNFdJIZW8MG1P-D7NjaY3Hc6DkEe42lSFlcULHk/edit

Also see:
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/11/pump-up-the-storage/
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/08/nation-sized-battery/

> Solar and wind despite being boring is guaranteed to work.

It's practically guaranteed not to work, due to the low energy density, low lifetimes and high maintenance costs, and intermittency plus all storage being extremely expensive.

> With transportation there's this thing called electric car/trucks that is also guaranteed to work
For commuter traffic, sure, but I'm dubious about long-distance trucking. Maybe.

You definitely need synthetic hydrocarbons for air travel.

> With synthetic hydrocarbon you cannot beat 2nd law of thermodynamics and entropy.

You're an idiot. No one is suggesting that.

> It would take more energy to synthesize fuel out of ocean CO2 than the energy fuel itself contain.

Obviously true.

> Why not use the energy you're gonna use to synthesize fuel in the first place?

Because for some applications, we as a society are willing to pay more in order for higher energy densities of the fuel, in order to make certain applications feasible, such as trucking, and especially air travel.

> With synthetic fuels also you're still stuck with combusted CO2 in the atmosphere.

And if that carbon is pulled from the air, then it's carbon-neutral.

> you're stuck with nuclear waste

A complete non-issue by people who don't know what they're talking about.

http://thorconpower.com/docs/ct_yankee.pdf

Many things that you think you know about nuclear power are lies.

TBC

>>8953820
>let's give raving muslims and niggers access to nuclear
>that will definitely save the planet
>what could possibly go wrong?
you're a retard. nuclear is only good for us (and even we can't use it because are countries are overrun with morons who are scared)

>>8953835
> and a lot of countries simply can't have nuclear plants. Japan arguably shouldn't have any nuclear plant as they're right on plate boundary.

Eminently fixable problems. I would remind you that no one died from acute radiation poisoning nor cancer from radiation from Fukushima, and the chances are good that no one will ever die either. Plus, modern plants are extremely safe. Compare that to hydro power, where a single accident killed hundreds of thousands.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam
> estimated 171,000 deaths and 11 million displaced
No one ever talks about that shit.

I'm not saying hydro is unsafe. I'm not saying we shouldn't use hydro. I am saying that people can take a reasonable view of the actual risks for hydro, but they've been lied to concerning the rissk for nuclear, and they blow it all out of proportion. Fukushima, no one died. Three Mile Island, no one died. Chernobyl, maybe 300 people died from cancer from radiation. This is nothing.

And again, newer designs are even safer still.

> With safe disposal of nuclear waste, you need to dig tunnels which in itself cost tons of energy that can only be provided from fossil fuel, unless you want to invent some electric tunnel digger powered by a monstrosity of a battery

Again, nuclear waste is a complete non-issue. Nuclear weapons proliferation? Let's talk. Reactor accidents? Also worthy of consideration. Disposal of nuclear waste? It's not a problem at all. It's absurd that we're pretending that it is.

TBC

>>8953835
> The solution is obviously to invest more in cutting edge battery research.

Climate change and ocean acidification are severe problems right now that will likely lead to wars, famine, mass deaths, etc. It's a possible threat to civilization. We need to be doing something about this shit right now. It's grossly irresponsible to put off the solving the problem until some unspecified time in the future, based on the unreasonable hope that battery technology will advance fast enough to save us. It's beyond the pale. It's sticking one's head in the sand. What the flying fuck.

>>8951520
Was agreeing with you until you mentioned Elon musk which is how I know you're an idiot redditor or a troll

Fuck off

>>8953854
racist

>>8951712
Fake graph ice ages dont exist ((climate science)) reparations, whit guilt. Virtue signalling. Admits its a gesture. Latte liberal vacation to antarctica paid for on gibmedats