calling all climate alarmists: how much of these emissions do we need to eliminate? and where should we eliminate them from for a sustainable future?

File: 793 KB, 2080x1744, Climate_pollution.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 18:48:46 2022 No.14690040 [Reply] [Original]

calling all climate alarmists: how much of these emissions do we need to eliminate? and where should we eliminate them from for a sustainable future?

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 19:22:55 2022 No.14690187

>>14690040
Punitive tariffs on manufacturing junk and interchangeable parts in e.g. China and shipping it back around the world to e.g. America. Redistribute 100% of the tariffs as windfall UBI to counterbalance the higher costs of domestic production until manufacturers adapt. No other changes in the law or tax code.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 19:26:48 2022 No.14690203 >>14690040 climate alarmists should sign a contract where they and their decendants will be arrested for life if their science turns out to not be true within the next 100 years

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 19:30:21 2022 No.14690211 >>14690203 Not fair to their kids, the moral choice is to spay and neuter.

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 19:38:20 2022 No.14690245

Just looking at this graph, there's so little realistic potential to really cut down on.
Best case you can halve road transportatiton, commercial buildings, livestock and aviation, but even those would come at huge cost, and the overall effect would be minor

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 19:47:29 2022 No.14690282

>>14690040
I asked this some time ago. I asked them what level of emissions was considered sustainable. Only answer i got was 10 ppm which was equivalent to 50 billion tons of CO2 per year. Apparently this is what the earth can deal with. Except current emissions are 36 billion tons.

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 19:49:13 2022 No.14690290

>>14690211
>Not fair to their kids
It also isn't fair to the children of the people who have to suck it all up isn't it?
https://inews.co.uk/news/environment/edible-insects-scientists-plan-to-feed-primary-school-children-locusts-and-mealworms-to-make-the-uk-greener-1657372

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 19:49:54 2022 No.14690294 >>14690187 vague. be more specific. how much emissions will this curtail?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 20:00:28 2022 No.14690334 >>14690294 Unanswerable.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 20:05:00 2022 No.14690347 >>14690203 Would do if you and yours would do same. After all, I’m right.

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 20:09:39 2022 No.14690359
File: 3.32 MB, 1612x1209, climate_end_is_near.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14690334
so climate alarmists can't actually answer how to solve their cataclysmic predictions? yet they want to impose how many restrictions on society? sounds like a cult tbqh

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 20:18:53 2022 No.14690385

>>14690359
What predictions and what restrictions? I'm solving "alarmism" and "globalism" at the same time without answering retarded questions that can't be answered. My solution for you, if you're still not satisfied, is to spend your UBI on a nice thick coil of rope and neck yourself.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 20:21:47 2022 No.14690390 >>14690040 We must immediately deindustrialize, send all our capital to China, and cede all our territory to Africa. It's the only way to save the world. You have to do it.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 20:25:23 2022 No.14690403 >>14690040 climate change schizos have no answer to this thread. just like they refuse to zoom their graphs out and refuse to admit that correlation is not causation.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 20:25:55 2022 No.14690404 >>14690385 are you being a sealioning faggot, or do you legitimately have zero understanding of the paris accords?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 20:28:59 2022 No.14690411 >>14690403 Answered >>14690187 on behalf of climate change schizos. So far no climate schizos have complained.

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 20:29:55 2022 No.14690413

>>14690404
friendly reminder not to let these climate alarmist shills get away with the paris accords.
>>Acknowledging that climate change is a common concern of humankind, Parties should, when taking action to address climate change, respect, promote and consider their respective obligations on human rights, the right to health, the rights of indigenous peoples, local communities, migrants, children, persons with disabilities and people in vulnerable situations and the right to development, as well as gender equality, empowerment of women and intergenerational equity
https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/english_paris_agreement.pdf

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 20:30:55 2022 No.14690414 >>14690404 Fuck the Paris Accords. Who cares about bureaucrats fellating themselves with nonbinding "agreements."

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 20:31:32 2022 No.14690415 >>14690414 assuming you're the climate shill here >>14690187 how do you propose this occur without political intervention, retard?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 20:34:20 2022 No.14690430 >>14690411 >obliterate the global economy by trying to coerce developing nations into adopting climate alarmism for nil gain why are science worshippers so fond of control and coercion as a means of getting their wacky delusions into reality

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 20:36:32 2022 No.14690441 >>14690415 I don't. Punitive tariffs are explicitly a political intervention, you absolute retard.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 20:37:18 2022 No.14690444 >>14690441 so to address >Who cares about bureaucrats fellating themselves with nonbinding "agreements." You do. You're the retard who cares about this. Dummy.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 20:37:32 2022 No.14690446 >>14690430 What the fuck are you talking about?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 20:38:37 2022 No.14690450 File: 23 KB, 600x625, 46345.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14690446 >What the fuck are you talking about? He's speaking the truth, goylem.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 20:38:45 2022 No.14690452 >>14690444 No, you're the retard who cares. I'm solving the problem YOU care about, dipshit.

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 20:39:43 2022 No.14690456

>>14690452
you solved the problem how exactly? which politician have you convinced to do this? and how are they bound to agreeing to your solution? a solution which, by the way, you've already admitted you have no idea how to quantify... so is it really even a solution?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 20:40:23 2022 No.14690458 >>14690446 see >>14690430

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 20:41:16 2022 No.14690462 >>14690450 >14690450

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 20:41:34 2022 No.14690464 >>14690444 >>14690452 Nobody cares about climate change because everyone knows it is a hoax.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 20:43:09 2022 No.14690467 >>14690456 I solved OPs problem. Fuck politicians and fuck you for being only slightly more sentient than a fucking bot. Idiot.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 20:46:45 2022 No.14690475 >>14690464 >>14690458 Here, I've found you each a new friend. Now you can seethe about the climate together while pretending you're not seething about the climate. Fucking lol.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 20:48:06 2022 No.14690482 >>14690475 Thanks

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 21:21:48 2022 No.14690587 >>14690347 Doesn't quite work that way since my group isn't imposing anything on yours, and you can feel free to mutilate your cows to not ruminate, fart or burp

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 22:29:10 2022 No.14690754 >>14690040 >climate alarmists >alarmists stopped reading there. There's no point arguing with a chud about global warming.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 22:39:41 2022 No.14690775 >>14690754 >t. bumper of thread

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 22:40:58 2022 No.14690776
File: 1.85 MB, 1500x1110, Climate Change _ Weird Al.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14690754
so wait, you believe in the dangers of global warming, but you don't like to be called an "alarmist" for trying to alarm people of such dangers? why does the truth that you're an alarmist offend you so much?

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 22:46:51 2022 No.14690790

>>14690776
He is trying to alarm people of these supposed dangers, but "alarmist" does not mean merely "one who attempts to alarm"; it means "someone who is considered to be exaggerating a danger and so causing needless worry or panic". He does not consider himself to be exaggerating the danger, so he does not consider himself an "alarmist". Hope that made things clear for you

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 03:07:17 2022 No.14691275 File: 316 KB, 600x800, 1657789738354.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14690203 Ok. But what happens when they're right?

Anonymous Sat Jul 23 13:46:45 2022 No.14692495

>>14690290
>https://inews.co.uk/news/environment/edible-insects-scientists-plan-to-feed-primary-school-children-locusts-and-mealworms-to-make-the-uk-greener-1657372
That site is a horrific tracking swarm, better us https://archive.is/IIjmG

>Although edible insects are – for now – not sold widely in the UK, they form part of the diet of around 2 billion people worldwide.
Two billion? That is a third of the world's population. Is this really true?

Anonymous Sat Jul 23 14:36:14 2022 No.14692577

>>14690040
>how much of these emissions do we need to eliminate?
All of them.

>and where should we eliminate them from for a sustainable future?
Everywhere. Start with the countries with the highest cumulative emissions and the highest per capita emissions.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 14:46:19 2022 No.14692615 >>14691275 AWG deniers' children will be executed for having dysgenic genes. Excellent contract, where do I sign?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 15:01:30 2022 No.14692668 >>14690040 Is the percentage based on GWP, or does it count all greenhouse gasses as equal?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 18:45:54 2022 No.14693173 File: 26 KB, 680x453, ha.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] if scientific evidence won't sway you maybe a global conspiracy will. fucking oil shills https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/07/The-Climate-Deception-Dossiers.pdf

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 18:47:12 2022 No.14693177 >>14690040 we should depopulate pretty much the entire earth except Europe and the problem will solve itself

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 18:54:25 2022 No.14693206 >this problem is deeply complex and has no clear solutions, therefore it isn't worth dealing with absolute state of OP, surely an american.

Anonymous Sat Jul 23 18:58:24 2022 No.14693217

>>14693206
To be fair most Americans have had their head filled with garbage by oil companies for the past 40 years. America is also a lot more dependent on the car, so obviously they'd going to outright reject anything which might significantly change the """American way of life""".

Anonymous Sat Jul 23 19:08:40 2022 No.14693231

>>14693173
>The report was made possible by the support of the Fresh Sound Foundation, Wallace Global Fund, The Grantham Foundation for the Protection for the Environment, The Energy Foundation, Kann Rasmussen Foundation, Center for International Environmental Law
>https://freshsoundfoundation.org/about-us/about/
Lol, I expected a functional site.
>https://wgf.org/mission/
>Wallace Global Fund supports social movements and aligned organizations that are driving systemic solutions in four areas: democracy, environment, corporate accountability, and women’s rights. These programs are fundamentally aligned and interconnected.
Lol.
>https://www.granthamfoundation.org/mission/
These are the cataclysmic doomsday soothsayers climate alarmists say don't exist.
>https://www.ef.org/about-us/
>Under the leadership of our CEO, Energy Foundation has embarked on a major strategy refresh, a prioritized commitment to Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI), and rapid geographic expansion.
>https://vkrf.org/content/our-mission
Skimmed, but didn't seem as retarded as the others so far. I'm willing to accept this endorsement, for now.
>https://www.ciel.org/about-us/
>Since 1989, CIEL has used the power of law to protect the environment, promote human rights, and ensure a just and sustainable society.
Not amused.

Anonymous Sat Jul 23 19:09:36 2022 No.14693233

>>14693206
>>14693217
As an American myself, unironically the best thing we could do is alter city zoning laws to make the towns/cities more compact and walkable, get rid all this suburb nonsense. After that build high speed rail connecting major U.S. cities. Get rid of cars, turn them into a temporary rental service or make cars require licenses only given to farmers.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 19:11:31 2022 No.14693238 >>14690187 >Redistribute 100% of the tariffs as windfall UBI Absolutely based. Also, the carbon tax should increase as long as the emissions are too high.

Anonymous Sat Jul 23 19:14:29 2022 No.14693245
File: 39 KB, 864x524, 984A049C-A3BE-4AC9-88DA-F986916197CD.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14690040
It's a political question. The US and countries like the UK and Germany already emitted more than what's fair, so if you go by historical emissions, these countries would have to shut down immediately, while china and India still have a lot of credit.
We have a rough understanding how much we can still emit. How do we distribute this budget between countries? Not the task of /sci/, but of /pol/itics.

Anonymous Sat Jul 23 19:20:50 2022 No.14693258

>>14693245
By the way, the world is emitting about 35GtCO2 per year and that was from 2020 onwards, so deduct accordingly. The percentages are the calculated probabilities of not exceeding the corresponding temperature above the ones before the industrialisation. From "our" (the scientific) side, the thing is crystal clear. That's why global warming threads on /sci/ are pointless, it's a political problem now.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 19:47:28 2022 No.14693327 >>14690040 We already are doing well ... not as good as possible, but okay. I guess we will still be assing around when we invent doable atmosphere cleaning.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 19:49:18 2022 No.14693333 >>14690040 Source of that data? How did they take the half life into account?

Anonymous Sat Jul 23 20:02:30 2022 No.14693372

>>14693327
>We already are doing well ...
Assuming you're American, and eyeballing the CO2 emissions: https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/united-states
Let's start at 5 Gt/a, which is a bit higher than what you had in 2020, but pandemic etc.
The reduction is ~1Gt/12a, which means you'll reach 0 by 2080.
The integral is easily calculated with a triangle with base 60a and height 5Gt/a, which is 150 Gt in total.
If you linearly decrease CO2 emissions, which probably is optimistic because now you're picking low-hanging fruits.
So the USA alone eat up 30% of our budget for 1.5°C, or 20% of our "well below 2°C" budget. Do you think the USA should get 20-30% of the world's budget? Then you are doing okay.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 20:07:55 2022 No.14693385 >>14690040 population reduction would do a flat cut on all of it. the problem isn't the industry, it's the number of people.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 20:09:02 2022 No.14693389 >>14692495 india/china/africa alone is close to 4 billion.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 20:21:25 2022 No.14693407 File: 15 KB, 474x262, cc_carbon cycle.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14690040 numbers in gigatons

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 20:22:55 2022 No.14693416 >>14693407 The 6 Gt going into the oceans are not good either by the way.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 20:37:33 2022 No.14693444 >>14693416 Looking forward to effervescent oceans.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 20:46:07 2022 No.14693464 >>14692577 >the countries dumbest possible place to start >highest cumulative emissions most useless metric imaginable >highest per capita emissions second most useless metric imaginable

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 20:55:57 2022 No.14693497 Why do people even bother caring about muh climate? If liberals are right we are basically already dead so might as well not give a shit. If conservatives are right(we are) nothing is wrong. Either way caring is a waste of time and money

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 20:56:28 2022 No.14693499 >>14693497 >liberals only care about wasting time and money and this surprises you how?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 21:02:03 2022 No.14693511 >>14693497 >we are basically already Hyperbole. Even as an individual of modest means there's a lot you can do to prepare.

Anonymous Sat Jul 23 21:04:41 2022 No.14693518

>>14693173
>figure 2
hey, why is it acceptable for climate alarmists to cite mainstream media newspapers as evidence that climatologists knew what was happening, but when i cite news articles in newspapers about predictions that were wrong, i'm labeled anti-science?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 21:05:12 2022 No.14693519 >>14693511 I ain't gonna do shit because NOTHING is happening. You "people" have been claiming we'll all be dead by the big bad carbon for half a century. Your grift is getting tired and people are sick of it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 21:07:23 2022 No.14693521 File: 1.10 MB, 1200x796, climate_history.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14693518 meanwhile, this dossier shows a NYT article from 1988 as "proof" that climatologists knew about global warming back then. give me a fucking break.

>>	Sage Sat Jul 23 21:07:33 2022 No.14693523 >>14693519 Okay ExxonMobil shill bot. How's about you show us all who these "people" you made up, are.

Anonymous Sat Jul 23 21:08:54 2022 No.14693525

>>14693497
We're not going to "die" in a literal sense, it's just that climate change is getting dangerously close to impacting the 1st world. I don't know when it'll happen, probably in the next decade, but we'll experience the first mass food shortage from drought. After that probably nothing will ever be the same again, the 1st world wont sit from a comfy vantage point of detached superiority. It's pointless to argue with you over something which doesnt affect you to a great degree, but that'll change in time.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 21:10:10 2022 No.14693528 >>14693407 So 11 gigatons is sustainable?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 21:10:59 2022 No.14693532 >>14693523 If people fell for your grift then Senator Joe Manchin(God bless the man) wouldn't be in office and the GOP wouldn't be retaking congress AND the presidency soon. No one cares about your fearmongering anymore Big Wind shill.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 21:16:07 2022 No.14693545 >>14693532 this nigga tilting at windshills lmao

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 21:21:55 2022 No.14693556 >>14693521 So you try to one-down this and post something even more ridiculous?

Sage Sat Jul 23 21:25:43 2022 No.14693571

>>14693532
>fearmongering
That's the GOP's shtick, it's practically their whole platform.
"Oh no! Le big bad Chinese and Mexicans coming to steal your jobs!" "Oh no le big bad scary queers!" "Oh no! Le big bad socialized healthcare and education! T-t-that's COMMUNISM!! Le SCARY!" "Oh no! Le big-bad scary scientists!" "Oh no! Look out for the big bad greenies coming to steal our- I mean YOUR money!" "Oh no le big bad poor people and colored people coming to steal millions of your money!.. But lets dump trillions of your money into destabilizing the middle east and south America for oil!"

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 21:26:49 2022 No.14693574 >>14693571 Classic libshit commie, going full hysteria. It's not worth talking to you anymore, your evidently some worthless burger flipper or even worse.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 21:28:21 2022 No.14693577 File: 99 KB, 1024x768, 6EBCC1FE-B99C-48CF-B7F1-83B0C8296237.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14693521 Dude, 1988, this was crystal clear already. Global cooling was pretty much dead by the end of the 1970s.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 21:37:18 2022 No.14693596 >>14693577 But mah 100 year old science! How dare you learn new things can adjust your predictions accordingly.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 21:37:41 2022 No.14693597 >>14693577 you don't understand. >i accept my citation of MSM because it supports my conclusion >i reject your citation of MSM because it repudiates my conclusion learn how to generate a consistent argument, dumbass.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 21:41:11 2022 No.14693606 >>14693597 Show me an article of yours and I can tell you the differences. Choose wisely in order to not embarrass yourself.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 21:42:07 2022 No.14693612 >>14693606 i already know the difference, and already explained it to you. it all boils down to >i agree, ergo it's good >i disagree, ergo it's bad you're deranged.

Anonymous Sat Jul 23 21:45:09 2022 No.14693617

>>14693612
Oh so you give up without even anything remotely similar to an argument?
I'll just assume that your article will use a conjunctive future tense, while the article from 1988 is using the past tense. And yes, "look at the data" is different from "if 12 volcanoes erupt at the same time, we might undergo a phase of global cooling"

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 21:46:18 2022 No.14693624 File: 699 KB, 960x540, An_Inconvenient_Outburst.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14693617

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 21:49:17 2022 No.14693632 >>14693624 >our planet is dying but I'm too proud to admit that I was wrong, so I post pictures of comics.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 21:51:39 2022 No.14693646 File: 660 KB, 1324x720, Correlation_is_Consensus.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14693632 >our planet is dying lmfao! if you're so concerned about carbon emissions "killing the planet", then kill yourself to reduce carbon emissions.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 21:59:32 2022 No.14693670 >>14693574 Those scary libs gonna get ya! Better let the GOP take away your rights to assemble to own those lib protesters!

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 22:00:00 2022 No.14693671 >>14690040 https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=optimal+carbon+tax&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 22:00:20 2022 No.14693672 >>14693646 Assuming your emissions are higher than mine, shouldn't I rather kill you instead?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 22:01:32 2022 No.14693675 >>14690245 >Just looking at this graph, there's so little realistic potential to really cut down on. LOL what? Most emissions come from energy production that can be replaced with nuclear and renewables. Unmitigated climate change is much more costly.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 22:02:01 2022 No.14693677 >>14693672 >assuming once again you fail at consistent logic. even if your assumption is true, all you're revealing is how radicalized you are. >you are killing my planet, so i shall kill you to save the planet you're deranged

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 22:02:56 2022 No.14693680 >>14693677 What do you think beavers would do to that one beaver tearing apart their dam stick by stick?

Anonymous Sat Jul 23 22:07:33 2022 No.14693694

>>14690282
>Only answer i got was 10 ppm which was equivalent to 50 billion tons of CO2 per year.
ppm is not a measure of annual emissions, so you're not making any sense. CO2 concentration has increased 140 ppm since the industrial revolution, so how is 10 ppm "equivalent" to 50 billion tons of annual emissions?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 22:14:49 2022 No.14693715 >>14693680 >i'm going to compare my intellect to a literal animal whatever floats your boat, retard.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 22:17:42 2022 No.14693723 >>14693715 >this retard can't grasp an analogy

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 22:18:59 2022 No.14693727 >>14693715 >I a literally dumber than a bucktoothed animal.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 22:22:44 2022 No.14693740 File: 10 KB, 237x213, girls_laughing.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14693723 you're the one who analogized his behavior to that of a literal animal's. that's not my problem. have fun trying to dig yourself out of this hole.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 22:26:14 2022 No.14693749 >>14693740 >analogized Heh, I bet your 70IQ self had to Google what an "analogy" was. No doubt you're dumber than a beaver.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 22:26:18 2022 No.14693750 >>14693727 epic fail. the argument is that i am above animalistic behavior. maybe that requires more thought than an animal is capable of to realize.

Anonymous Sat Jul 23 22:28:44 2022 No.14693760
File: 17 KB, 600x600, 668C09D6-97E4-4D8C-BB2B-26A864F94BFD.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14693750
>Epic fail
Hey oil lobby boomer, I haven't heard that in years. Maybe update your "how to talk to people on imageboards" memo once in a while.
>the argument is that i am above animalistic behavior.
Your behaviour is objectively worse.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 22:34:12 2022 No.14693780 >>14693760 >efg Where has the time gone? I swear it was just yesterday that guy called sage was making fun of me...

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 22:40:21 2022 No.14693793 >>14693760 i'm not zoomifying my diction. fuck you.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 22:53:44 2022 No.14693829 File: 178 KB, 200x182, C1D87039-DBB4-47DD-94DB-810F89FE941C.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14693793 Ok boomer (who's probably younger than me, but boomer is a mentality)

Anonymous Sat Jul 23 23:03:45 2022 No.14693854

>>14693670
>the GOP take away your rights to assemble
I'll never understand why people's brains seem to freeze and they keep saying things that made sense in the past but don't make sense in the present. You really didn't notice that since Bush II was replaced by Bush III (Obama), "the Dems" have been the anti-civil-rights extremist party? Really?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 01:11:57 2022 No.14694136 File: 446 KB, 948x420, 1514490820286.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14693521 ftfy

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 01:16:00 2022 No.14694151 File: 739 KB, 750x500, Climate_told_ya!.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14694136

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 01:25:08 2022 No.14694168 >>14694151 Is this idiotic strawman cartoon supposed to justify your lies?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 01:39:23 2022 No.14694194 >>14694168 it's a pretty good description of what people see on the news

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 04:21:37 2022 No.14694498 >>14694194 It's a pretty good example of your retardation and constant lying.

Anonymous Sun Jul 24 11:36:15 2022 No.14695368

>>14694498
i'm not the anon who posted that, i'm telling you it's a fair portrayal of what the news is selling. maybe you should start being mad at the political propaganda for undermining your message instead of being mad at the people who accurately mock the propaganda

Anonymous Sun Jul 24 11:43:30 2022 No.14695378

>>14694194
Is this like looking through midwit goggles? I actually think we can learn about science communication from idiotic things like this. Yes, I didn't realise that someone could possibly misunderstand the statements in the way that you posted them.
I think it's good to check in with midwits every once in a while. Thank you, Anon.

Anonymous Sun Jul 24 11:48:28 2022 No.14695388

>>14695368
>i'm not the anon who posted that, i'm telling you it's a fair portrayal of what the news is selling
I doubt it. If the cartoonist misrepresents scientists this badly:
>>14693521
>>14694136
then why should I trust him?

>maybe you should start being mad at the political propaganda for undermining your message instead of being mad at the people who accurately mock the propaganda
That's what I'm doing. I'm upset when the news misrepresents climate science. I'm especially upset when deniers misrepresent climate science for nefarious purposes.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 11:52:13 2022 No.14695394 >>14695378 Yep, if sciencists stop lying people might start trusting them

Anonymous Sun Jul 24 11:55:00 2022 No.14695399

>>14690040
Ideally, everything. The easy targets are transportation (using more public transport or walking), not overeating, eating less meat (that's the livestock one), and heating less in winter.

Stopping any fossil fuel subsidies (they are currently subsidized more in both relative and absolute terms than renewable sources of energy) will also mean that for all the energy that we do need, renewable sources will eventually be the cheaper option.

That's basically it.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 11:57:48 2022 No.14695402 >>14695394 It's fascinating how they say one thing and later midwits say "But you said ${different thing}, you liar" I dare you find these exact quotes. I'm sure, not one of them was said this way, but it's what midwits thought they read or heard.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 11:57:48 2022 No.14695403 >>14695394 >Yep, if sciencists stop lying people might start trusting them When have climate scientists lied?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 12:13:19 2022 No.14695424 File: 65 KB, 831x947, b98.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14695403 >When have climate scientists lied? W-when haven't they? Huh? Checkmate

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 12:16:45 2022 No.14695428 >>14695424 Don't laugh, that probably would have been his answer.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 13:18:00 2022 No.14695544 >>14693231 seems like you didn't even make it past the acknowledgements lol

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 14:56:38 2022 No.14695750 File: 603 KB, 500x772, 1608560721256.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14695403

Anonymous Sun Jul 24 15:15:00 2022 No.14695780
File: 47 KB, 811x464, 2022-07-24 17_11_40-Glacier National Park is replacing signs that predicted its glaciers would be go.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14695750
>Updating predictions as more data comes in
outragous, we all know that science is about docmatically believing outdated predictions.

The global glacier mass is shrinking, although there are some growing glaciers, maybe your image points to one of them, maybe it's just a case of publicity intern gone wild

Also, since you have surely read the article, and not just posted a headline with a quirky image that has no relation to the content, you must have read the text about the glaciers in the park shrinking, just not quite as predicted.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 15:18:23 2022 No.14695784 >>14695388 >then why should I trust him? Why the hell would you "trust" a cartoonist? What's wrong with you?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 15:22:50 2022 No.14695792 >>14695780 >we all know that science is about docmatically believing outdated predictions. Outdated is a very weird way to say wrong. Why are you incapable of admitting your deities were wrong?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 15:31:26 2022 No.14695809 >>14695780 didn't read, you climate alarmists have been saying the world's gonna end in 5 years for the past few decades

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 15:35:39 2022 No.14695818 >>14695809 Who specifically?

Anonymous Sun Jul 24 15:35:54 2022 No.14695820

>>14695792
There is no deity
It was wrong, of course
And it was replaced with something that is less wrong and fits the data better, that's how this stuff works.

If you could prove that climate change is not (to a large extent) caused by human activity, that would become the new model, the new state of science.

You simply can't expect people to get everything right the first time, errors are always made.

But by now climate change and the reasons behind it have had enormous amounts of research put into it, and we are very sure that is caused by humans to a large degree (even people that have monetary incentives to lie like oil companies agree with climate change)

Some numbers may still be up for debate, but the big picture is well backed by facts and studies.

Realtalk: I think you're not arguing against the factual basis of climatechange, but rather against media stories about saving the planet by banning plastic straws, or emotional hitpieces about polar bears running out of ice.

These stories are stupid.
But that doesn't change the facts

>>14695809
Some media has been saying that because they like dramatic stories.
Media coverage != science
(retard)

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 15:42:25 2022 No.14695830 >>14695820 Predictions aren't facts, especially when their track record of predictions is laughably poor.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 15:43:58 2022 No.14695831 >>14690040 The specific amount doesn't matter. Tax emissions at the cost of the externalities they impose and the market will determine the optimal amount and type of emissions to eliminate.

Anonymous Sun Jul 24 15:51:02 2022 No.14695844

>>14695820
>not arguing against the factual basis of climatechange, but rather against media
Not him, but yes, I doubt anyone cares that climate scientists do climate science and write climate science papers. Simply doing climate science has no impact on anyone's life. What does have an impact on people's lives are useless political scams pushed on to the public by our state media, who aren't using climate science but rather a histrionic strawman or caricature of climate science.

Anonymous Sun Jul 24 16:00:40 2022 No.14695862

>>14695750
>Signs at Glacier National Park
Oh wow. Some signs in a national park surely are firm scientific publications.
>>14695830
>Predictions aren't facts
Not in themselves, but you can report on the fact that your models make a certain prediction.
>>14695844
>state media
Are you in North Korea? Where the hell do you have state media?

Anonymous Sun Jul 24 16:02:44 2022 No.14695869
File: 22 KB, 768x554, LGBT_100%_betas.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14695862
>you can report on the fact that your models make a certain prediction.
Great, then I can report on the fact that my model predicts 100% of generation beta will be fags. If we don't act NOW, then there will be no generation gamma, and humanity will all be dead by the year 2150.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 16:03:54 2022 No.14695872 >>14695869 Sure. Write up a few pages on how you built your model and maybe add in a test or two, then you can send it to a journal and wait for feedback.

Anonymous Sun Jul 24 16:04:17 2022 No.14695873

>>14695830
https://theconversation.com/20-years-on-climate-change-projections-have-come-true-11245
Here you an article about comparing predictions with the facts.
The real increase in temperature was +0.4 degree, the prediction was +0.55.

So there was an error of about 0.15° (it was WRONG by about 0.15 degrees if that's what you want to hear)
Probably because the UdSSR collapsed, hard to take that into account

So climate change is real, just not quite as bad as decade old (by now WRONG/outdated) models predicted.

>>14695844
Of course there are people acting in bad faith and using climate science to push their own goals.

My point is that we should come to an agreement that climate change is
a) real
b) should be fought against

Point b) will have an impact on your daily life, no talking around it.

There are many ways to fight against climate change, like pushing back against globalization, keeping industries in western countries where they can be held to emission standards and the like, using nuclear power instead of coal and more.

I hate the fact that climate change has been made a politcal issue of left vs right, instead of something like hurricanes or floods.
No one will start talking about trannies or fags when you send aid to, say a US state that has been hit by a hurricane.
So why do we start talking about politics when it comes to climate change?

People pushing climate change to help their politics aren't a sign that climate change is fake, it's simply a problem that needs to be fixed.
Imagine saying that we should tell people hit by natural disasters to fuck off, simply because some retarded politican made it into a left-right issue.

tldr climate change is real, fuck politicians making it a left-right issue

Anonymous Sun Jul 24 16:05:26 2022 No.14695876

>>14695872
What test? It's a model. I could easily publish this, but then I'd dox myself. And before you call bullshit (because you're obviously not a scientist who's ever published anything), joke studies exist on pre-print servers all the time, especially on April Fool's day. And yes, they get cited.

Anonymous Sun Jul 24 16:06:43 2022 No.14695880

>>14695873
>some of its predictions were true, therefore you should forget about all of its wrong predictions
fuck off. if i predict literally every possible climatological event, then i'll always be right if i convinced you to ignore all the times i was wrong.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 16:07:36 2022 No.14695886 >>14695862 I'm in the US. We have Fox, CNN, MSNBC (this one is mocked by both the left and the right for hiring literal "ex" CIA agents and defense lobbyists), NPR, etc.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 16:09:29 2022 No.14695889 >>14695876 >What test? It's a model. Models have to be evaluated, dummy. Here, read this: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4-wg1-chapter8-1.pdf >>14695880 Not how it works, angry little man.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 16:10:48 2022 No.14695897 >>14695886 None of them are state media. Maybe English is not your native language, but state media implies that they are controlled by the government.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 16:11:02 2022 No.14695898 >>14695889 >IPCC that's politics, not science. weren't you just spending some posts talking about how you hate the politicization of climate? you're braindead.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 16:11:39 2022 No.14695900 >>14695880 It wasn't every possible event, it was just one (heating) If a mechanic told you that your car would break down if you drove 60 miles without gettting an issue fixed, and in reality it lasted 90, would say your car was fine?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 16:14:17 2022 No.14695912 >>14695900 you don't understand what i'm talking about, and i'm not going to bother explaining it again.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 16:18:41 2022 No.14695924 >>14695897 They most certainly are controlled by the government. NPR explicitly so.

Anonymous Sun Jul 24 16:21:09 2022 No.14695928

>>14695912
>Disagrees with >90% of people that study the issue, still can't point out the error other than "well the trend might just reverse for no reason" even though the opposite has been observed
>calls an international science cooperation panel politics (which party is it affiliated with niggerbrain?)
>Calling every possiblity == making one (1[一]) prediction for one numerical value and that being of by 30%

Anonymous Sun Jul 24 16:23:14 2022 No.14695930

>>14695898
So even politicians do better science if they can evaluate their model and you can't?
>weren't you just spending some posts talking about how you hate the politicization of climate? you're braindead.
In all seriousness: Calling the IPCC politics is literally the politicization that I was talking about. You're exactly the cancer that we mean.

Anonymous Sun Jul 24 16:25:23 2022 No.14695936

>>14695928
there isn't just one issue, nimrod.
>calls an international science cooperation panel politics (which party is it affiliated with niggerbrain?)
for fuck's sake. if you're going to cite the IPCC in every thread like a mindless drone, the least you can understand is which political groups establish, endorse, and run it. if you really must know, it's the UN. e.g.
> the bureau selects experts nominated by governments and observer organisations to prepare IPCC reports.
furthermore, if you're really going to try to tell me the UN isn't reflective of a political party, then you're even more braindead than i though. i could cite several offical UN documents which are riddled with woke, PC bullshit.

Anonymous Sun Jul 24 16:26:46 2022 No.14695939

>>14695928
>for one numerical value and that being of by 30%
Also, it doesn't matter at all, because we've already passed 1°C. Who cares about 0.15° 10 years ago? The temperatures only know one direction and if your prediction is 1-2 years wrong, it doesn't matter. We're getting there eventually. Refusing to act because it's 0.1° warmer or cooler than predicted is just malicious.

Anonymous Sun Jul 24 16:30:50 2022 No.14695945

I have a degree in Earth science and I work in the field. Let me tell you the honest truth.

The climate is changing and it's mostly human's fault. We put more CO2 into the atmosphere than has been seen since the Eocene thermal maximum and we've put more CO2 in the atmosphere in 100 years than the Eocene thermal maximum did in 10,000 years when the polar ice caps melted, sea level was 200 feet higher and the tropics were an unlivable dead zone.

Stop listening to the politicians and start listening to the science. Here's where to start.
https://www.ipcc.ch/

Good day to you all and fuck off.

Anonymous Sun Jul 24 16:32:12 2022 No.14695947
File: 118 KB, 800x450, Punching_Pepe_Banner.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14695936
>if you're going to cite the IPCC in every thread like a mindless drone
They are the best we have. There is no better group of climatologists. When you mention football you will also often circle around Fifa. When you mention global public health, for sure the name WHO will drop.
>it's the UN. e.g.
Oh no, the evil UN.
>i could cite several offical UN documents which are riddled with woke, PC bullshit.
Let me guess, everything short of racism, sexism and ableism is woke PC bullshit?
>promote, protect and ensure the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by all persons with disabilities, and to promote respect for their inherent dignity
Wow, such PC, so woke

Anonymous Sun Jul 24 16:32:13 2022 No.14695949

>>14695945
>we've put more CO2 in the atmosphere in 100 years than the Eocene thermal maximum did in 10,000 years when the polar ice caps melted, sea level was 200 feet higher and the tropics were an unlivable dead zone
guess the CO2 doesn't matter then, huh

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 16:32:13 2022 No.14695948 >>14695945 >stop listening to politicians >start with a politicized source in the IPCC you can't make this stuff up.

Anonymous Sun Jul 24 16:35:47 2022 No.14695955

>>14695936
This isn't even Ad Hominem because the IPCC actually employs experts. It's the old adage
>"If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts; if you have the law on your side, pound the law; if you have neither the facts nor the law, pound the table."

You are pounding on the table

Anonymous Sun Jul 24 16:35:55 2022 No.14695956

>>14695948
Do you think, only politicians work at CERN? Do you think, politicians with suits and briefcases float around in the ISS?
Just because politics has created a platform for scientists doesn't mean that
a) The scientists on that platform are political.
b) The creators of that platform get to determine (forge) the results.

Or do you think that Jean-Claude Juncker ordered CERN to "find" the Higgs Boson?

Anonymous Sun Jul 24 16:36:40 2022 No.14695957

>>14695936
I see, so you can prove their research is wrong and was not executed to satisfacory standards because of political motivation?
Splendid, I'd recommend sending a copy of your documents to Exxon or Shell, whichever you prefer.
Have a good time on your Yacht and enjoy the hookers and coke, the time of your life has come.
>>14695945
This desu, these retards (except for the one dude who didn't seem dissmissive of everthing for no reason) will never accept anything unless you stuff them in a time machine or something.
>>14695949
>Why doesn't a large scale change just happen overnight
Man, I just don't know, you really got me beat there

Bye tards, better people will understand

Anonymous Sun Jul 24 16:37:22 2022 No.14695958

>>14695947
>There is no better group of climatologists.
Once again, you reveal you're an ignorant eurotard. are you familiar with the Nobel Prize in physics and who it was rewarded to in 2022? It wasn't awarded to the IPCC, or any member of the IPCC --- it was awarded to actual scientists whose jobs were to model the climate (and not to disseminate politicized information).

since i can tell i hit a nerve, i accept this invite. here's a document from the UN.. surely you don't think it's politics.

https://web.archive.org/web/20220306081531/http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/hdr2016_technical_notes_0.pdf

archive because (surprise surprise, it's now sanitized from the web). this is one of the ways in which the UN manipulate data to promulgate their woke bullshit (particularly the GII). you're a smart fellow, maybe you can see what's wrong with it without me holding your hand. after all, you've read through the entire IPCC report... what a champ. surely you wouldn't cite something you didn't actually read in its entirety, right?

Anonymous Sun Jul 24 16:37:36 2022 No.14695959

>>14695949
English not your first language? Read it again. >We put more CO2 into the atmosphere than has been seen since the Eocene thermal maximum
Notice the word 'since'? We haven't had this much CO2 in the atmosphere SINCE the ETM and we're adding it to the atmosphere at a much higher rate.

Not my fault you can't read.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 16:38:35 2022 No.14695963 >>14695956 CERN works nothing like the IPCC. the "scientists" who are commissions to write the IPCC report are nominated by politicians in the UN. is that how the PDG book is written? don't play stupid.

Anonymous Sun Jul 24 16:38:51 2022 No.14695965

>>14695947
>promote, protect and ensure the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by all persons with disabilities, and to promote respect for their inherent dignity
Not him, but reciting generic saccharine platitudes that have nothing to do with climate science and which do nothing to help anyone or anything other than the egos of the people reciting them is exactly what most critics of "woke PC" are criticizing.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 16:40:16 2022 No.14695968 >>14695958 >are you familiar with the Nobel Prize in physics and who it was rewarded to in 2022? Actually, no. Tell me. Who was rewarded the Nobel Prize in physics in 2022? Actually, you can earn a lot of money in bets if you know this already.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 16:42:38 2022 No.14695970 Notice how the climate deniers have to invent further and further and further conspiracies to maintain their illusion? The IPCC is in on it, the UN is in on it, everyone is in on it but me! My god, it's like watching pure delusion.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 16:43:32 2022 No.14695973 >>14695968 yes, you spotted a typo. want a cookie? obviously i meant to type 2021. if you don't believe it's a typo, i invite you re-read my post which has other typos in it

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 16:48:59 2022 No.14695980 >>14695970 in on what? the only conspiracy i've seen here is that "oil shills" are shilling against climate science even though big oil actually makes more profit by scarcity driving higher oil prices.

Anonymous Sun Jul 24 16:51:51 2022 No.14695987

>>14695958
>>14695968
But ok, I'm biting. The IPCC won one in 2007, you gaping asshole. Should they win a Nobel Prize every year to stay relevant or what?
But ok, let's look at the 2021 laureates:
Klaus Hasselmann contributed to the first three IPCC reports.
Manabe, the second laureate said:
>We kind of dominated the IPCC, first IPCC report because of that. And we found many, many interesting phenomenon.
https://www.aip.org/history-programs/niels-bohr-library/oral-histories/32158-2

The third guy, Parisi is quoted with
>"I think the award is important not only for me but also for the other two because climate change is a huge threat to humanity and it is extremely important that governments act resolutely as quickly as possible," Parisi told a press conference at the Lincean Academy in Rome.

Anonymous Sun Jul 24 16:56:26 2022 No.14695993

>>14695973
Let's look at the first assessment report of the IPCC:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf
I find the name Hasselmann 22 times and the name Manabe 87 times.
So, did you just BTFO yourself? You said we should listen to the Nobel Prize laureates? Well, they wrote the fucking reports AND did the underlying studies.

Anonymous Sun Jul 24 16:57:03 2022 No.14695995

>>14695987
>The IPCC won one in 2007
Why are you lying? The 2007 Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to Fert and Grunberg "for the discovery of giant magnetoresistance". If that's what the IPCC is, then fucking lol.
>https://www.aip.org/history-programs/niels-bohr-library/oral-histories/32158-2
once again you have a habit of citing things without reading them entirely. try actually reading the surrounding context, and realize how much you owned yourself. again, i won't hold your hand through this.
>Parisi quote
he didn't win due to any contributions to climate modeling, and is not a climate expert.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 16:58:49 2022 No.14695998 Imagine simping so hard for Boomers that you pretend they didn't ruin the planet

Anonymous Sun Jul 24 16:58:56 2022 No.14695999

>>14695995
>>The IPCC won one in 2007
>Why are you lying?
I didn't say physics, faggot. It won the Nobel Peace Prize. So, tell me, since no one can get the same award twice, how much time should there be between the prizes? I'm sure they could get the physics prize next year, then chemistry and medicine, right? What about a fields medal? I'm sure, their mathematical models qualify. If they don't meet those expectations, they probably suck ass.

Anonymous Sun Jul 24 17:00:48 2022 No.14696002

>>14695958
>are you familiar with the Nobel Prize in physics
>>14695987
>The IPCC won one in 2007, you gaping asshole.
>>14695999
>I didn't say physics, faggot
So you can't read. I guess that explains why you have a habit of citing things you haven't read. Makes sense.
>Nobel Peace Prize
Oh, that. The same prize Al Gore won. Congratulations, you just admitted the IPCC is a political organization, since the Nobel Peace Prize is awarded for political ideologies...

Anonymous Sun Jul 24 17:03:01 2022 No.14696006

> Since March 1901, [the Nobel Peace Prize] has been awarded annually (with some exceptions) to those who have "done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses".
>IPCC wins Nobel Peace Prize in 2007
climate alarmist owns himself. lol.

Anonymous Sun Jul 24 17:03:12 2022 No.14696007

>>14695958
>>14696002
So, can we summarize? I want to cook dinner at some point.
You said that the physics nobel prize 2021
>was awarded to actual scientists whose jobs were to model the climate (and not to disseminate politicized information).

These actual scientists made significant contributions to the first couple IPCC reports, both directly with the IPCC and indirectly with publications quoted by the IPCC.

The only logical consequence I can draw is that the IPCC has actual scientists whose jobs were to model the climate (and not to disseminate politicized information).

Any objections?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 17:05:21 2022 No.14696012 >>14696007 >consequence *conclusion Don't listen to podcasts and write comments in two different languages lol

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 17:06:57 2022 No.14696015 >>14696007 Will he reply? Will he deflect again? Will he move the goalpost? Or will he bring up an actual argument attacking the facts and methods leading to the scientific belief in climate change? (no) Go eat anon, this is a waste of time.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 17:08:26 2022 No.14696019 >>14696006 Will he reply? Will he deflect again? Will he move the goalpost? Or will he bring up an actual argument attacking the facts and methods leading to the political promulgation of climate change? (no)

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 17:11:10 2022 No.14696023 >>14696019 >>14696015 Doublepost retard style

Anonymous Sun Jul 24 17:12:27 2022 No.14696027

>>14696015
I don't think he'll reply. Too bad. I wanted to dump the list of authors on him and dare him to google any of the names. So far I only found professors or people in leading positions at research institutes. All obviously in fields related to climatology. You don't get one of these positions without any actual research. They are basically the goal of any fool who pursues the academic career.

>>14696023
Oh hey he did reply. He didn't even manage to deflect or move goalposts. Hello moron, and bye.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 17:31:17 2022 No.14696060 >>14696015 Do you think, he realized that the IPCC does actually consist of actual scientists?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 17:33:39 2022 No.14696064 enough until white people are dead

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 19:31:59 2022 No.14696456 >>14695784 >Why the hell would you "trust" a cartoonist? That's what I'm asking, moron.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 20:11:59 2022 No.14696549 >>14696456 No shit, I'm pointing out how moronic it is for you to even ask that question.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 20:13:53 2022 No.14696559 >>14696549 It's not, because the person I'm replying to claimed it's a fair portrayal.

Anonymous Sun Jul 24 20:15:15 2022 No.14696563

>>14690040
>how much of these emissions do we need to eliminate?
Enough where greenhouse gas sinks can reasonably do their job... Anyone who says a concrete number is probably retarded.

>and where should we eliminate them from for a sustainable future?
Not included in the waste portion since whoever created this model has a portion of their brain missing but residential buildings are also quite inefficient. Many are badly designed and leak or absorb heat, causing people to use heating/cooling more often (which I would say is straight up waste as simply different windows or better caulking could save hundreds of dollars in electricity bills a year).

Anonymous Sun Jul 24 20:50:09 2022 No.14696662

>>14696559
You're talking about that "spin the antonym wheel" cartoon, right? That's absolutely a fair portrayal of how the media abuses all weather conditions as an excuse to report their own self-serving propaganda that only tangentially describes what climate science actual says.

Anonymous Sun Jul 24 21:48:55 2022 No.14696818
File: 11 KB, 226x250, 1648663627639.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14690187
> interchangeable parts
Interchangeable parts save energy and cut down on waste you twit.
Or is the mechanic going to have to park a forge and anvil next door every time a machine breaks down?
Spending hours, with the forge shop running, to try and get that one part down to its exact snowflake specification?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 22:03:15 2022 No.14696846 >>14696662 >That's absolutely a fair portrayal of how the media abuses all weather conditions as an excuse to report their own self-serving propaganda Source that isn't a moronic cartoon?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 22:24:40 2022 No.14696897 >>14696846 >Source ? The media is the source

Anonymous Sun Jul 24 22:26:05 2022 No.14696901

>>14696662
>That's absolutely a fair portrayal of how the media abuses all weather conditions
Here it's more a clear indicator that a /pol/tard gives up and either legitimately doesn't understand things anymore or is out of phony arguments. Was it you who posted that a couple days ago when we discussed sea ice area? How it can be explained with salinity and density of water masses why the area of sea ice grows paradoxically due to warming?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 22:31:22 2022 No.14696912 >>14696901 No, but if you have a problem with what I wrote then spit it out.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 22:31:52 2022 No.14696915 >>14696897 So no source then. Thanks for confirming you believe a cartoon for no reason.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 22:33:36 2022 No.14696923 >>14696915 Thanks for confirming you can't read English.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 22:34:17 2022 No.14696924 >>14696923 Still waiting for that source. Let me know when you have it. Wrdt0

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 22:35:55 2022 No.14696928 >>14696924 >Wrdt0 Thanks for confirming you're a bot.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 22:37:37 2022 No.14696932 >>14696928 See >>14696924

Anonymous Sun Jul 24 22:40:01 2022 No.14696940

>>14696928
>>Wrdt0
>Thanks for confirming you're a bot.
Because only bots accidentally type the captcha into the comment field instead of the captcha field, right?
Post your source or kys
>>14696912
My problem is that you retards post this when things are not 100% obvious but require thinking for 5seconds.

Anonymous Sun Jul 24 22:40:57 2022 No.14696944

>>14696928
he's not a bot. he's just a drunk european esl retard who is an ignorant npc. i mean. functionally, he's no different from a bot. he should really reflect on why he's spending his sunday evening here drunk, instead of with friends. oh, wait...

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 22:43:51 2022 No.14696951 >>14696944 I'm American, and yes I'm drunk. Let me know when you have that source.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 22:49:57 2022 No.14696968 >>14696951 >i'm american in your dreams. maybe if you weren't a piece of shit you'd convince some cute american to give you a green card.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 22:52:43 2022 No.14696975 >>14696968 See >>14696932

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 22:54:54 2022 No.14696981 >>14696932 >>14696932

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 22:56:59 2022 No.14696986 >>14693407 It’s waaaaay worse now. Those Numbers are waaaay too pozitive

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 22:57:25 2022 No.14696987 >>14696912 What retards? Post what? So you're just an asshole who can't read, I guess.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 22:57:44 2022 No.14696988 >>14696986 >i'm american sure you are.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 23:09:44 2022 No.14697004 >>14696981 See >>14696975

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 23:17:26 2022 No.14697021 File: 178 KB, 2080x1346, climate_pollution_2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] op here, new graph. climate alarmists, which countries should curtail emissions the most?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 23:20:47 2022 No.14697028 File: 366 KB, 768x640, Cumulative-CO2-treemap-768x640.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14697021 The ones with the largest cumulative emissions

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 23:23:11 2022 No.14697032 >>14697028 will you change your tune in 10 years when china doubles its emissions while the west reduces them?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 23:23:57 2022 No.14697034 File: 480 KB, 1200x1863, 24306 (1).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14697021 The ones with the highest emissions per capita.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 23:24:32 2022 No.14697036 >>14697004 >>14697004

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 23:24:43 2022 No.14697037 >>14697028 >cumulative lmao why would anyone use this metric?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 23:25:34 2022 No.14697038 >>14697034 True, but only because the question was as dumb as the answer.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 23:25:47 2022 No.14697039 >>14697034 >t. chang

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 23:27:32 2022 No.14697044 >>14697036 See >>14697004

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 23:28:23 2022 No.14697045 >>14697044 >>14697044

Anonymous Sun Jul 24 23:29:02 2022 No.14697046

>>14697034
another stupid metric... climate doesn't care where the co2 comes from. china is responsible for about half the emissions, and you're some kind of chink apologist saying they have the lowest per capita emissions. by your assertion, china can double its co2 outputs to contribute over 2/3 the global emissions, and you'd still tell usa to tone it done because of per capita.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 23:42:25 2022 No.14697059 >>14697045 See >>14697044

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 23:43:27 2022 No.14697060 >>14697059 >>14697059

Anonymous Sun Jul 24 23:48:11 2022 No.14697066

>>14697046
>another stupid metric... climate doesn't care where the co2 comes from
OK? Humans do.

>china is responsible for about half the emissions
Over what time frame? And you just contradicted yourself. First you said it doesn't matter where the CO2 comes from, then you said half comes from China.

>and you're some kind of chink apologist saying they have the lowest per capita emissions
No, actually if you read my image it says China is one of the highest pee capita emitters.

>by your assertion, china can double its co2 outputs to contribute over 2/3 the global emissions, and you'd still tell usa to tone it done because of per capita.
No, I'd tell both to tone it down. Your argument is like saying Chinese people need to go on a diet because they eat more total food than the US. Of course if you have more people you need more food. That doesn't make you obese wasters of food.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 23:49:12 2022 No.14697068 >>14697060 See >>14697059 Where's the source?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 23:50:26 2022 No.14697069 >>14697066 drink moar. your brain is already done for the night.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 23:51:11 2022 No.14697070 >>14697068 The source of what, media bullshit? The source is literally the media

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 00:13:33 2022 No.14697090 >>14690359 >if you’re not a surgeon you shouldn’t try to bandage your wounds >in fact you shouldn’t even acknowledge the wound unless you’re 100% an expert in the area

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 00:14:22 2022 No.14697091 >>14697090 you're drunk. you don't even understand what that post you responded to was saying.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 00:16:11 2022 No.14697095 >>14697066 >Over what time frame? Why should anyone care about that?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 00:31:54 2022 No.14697124 >>14697070 You still haven't provided a single example, or anything saying it's bullshit. You're so gullible you think posting a cartoon is an argument.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 00:33:07 2022 No.14697125 >>14697095 Why should anyone care about whether your claim is true? You tell me.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 00:34:08 2022 No.14697129 >>14697069 Not an argument. Try again. Why should the Chinese go on a diet if Americans are obese?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 00:36:32 2022 No.14697133 >>14697091 >if you don’t have a perfect solution already you’re not allowed to try I hope you stay away from the real world, but then again it would be funny to see you completely paralyzed by the first minor inconvenience

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 00:36:59 2022 No.14697134 >>14697125 Not an argument. Why should anyone care about a "timeframe"

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 00:46:29 2022 No.14697144 >>14697133 you're going to wake up in the morning so embarrassed m8.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 00:46:49 2022 No.14697145 Mandatory agrarian reform and complete ban on any trade between the agrarian communities formed thereby. Every household gets two hectares to produce your own food and that's it

Anonymous Mon Jul 25 00:51:22 2022 No.14697153

Humanity literally needs to adopt Eco-Stalinism in order to nationalize and forcibly de-carbonized entire industry sectors but this is the truth people don't want to hear so they keep jerking off over 'taking the train instead' or 'emission certificates'.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 00:51:35 2022 No.14697154 >>14697145 what happens when some households fuck more than others

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 00:52:09 2022 No.14697156 >>14697134 >Not an argument. Right, it's a question you seem to have trouble answering. >Why should anyone care about a "timeframe" Because it determines whether your claim is true or not.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 00:53:21 2022 No.14697160 >>14693675 Schizo

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 00:54:09 2022 No.14697162 >>14697156 Whose claim or what? Did someone disagree on a claim?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 00:55:15 2022 No.14697166 >>14697160 Not an argument. Try again.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 00:56:23 2022 No.14697169 >>14697162 Why don't you read the thread if you don't even understand the context of the conversation? You know you can click on the green things to go to the posts being responded to, right?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 00:58:13 2022 No.14697172 >>14697169 Not an argument.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 01:03:57 2022 No.14697183 >>14697032 Sure, that's the great thing about using cumulative emissions as a metric. It highlights the largest polluter.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 01:18:24 2022 No.14697207 >>14697183 >past tense highlights the largest present tense pathetic.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 01:34:11 2022 No.14697242 >>14697172 You gave no argument to respond to, you just exhibited your ignorance of what we're talking about.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 01:35:23 2022 No.14697247 >>14697207 >Yeah, I made a huge mess, but that was like two hours ago and I haven't made another mess so why do you expect me to clean it up?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 01:51:22 2022 No.14697271 >>14697154 Some of them starve and the survivors have fewer children.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 04:08:48 2022 No.14697546 >>14690040 >aviation and shipping Extremely sus

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 06:17:30 2022 No.14697723 >>14697546 How? Seems about right to me.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 10:26:38 2022 No.14697973 >>14697247 >you made a mess 2 hours ago that you're in the process of cleaning up, therefore I'm also allowed to make an even bigger mess!

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 11:05:53 2022 No.14698031 >>14697095 Are you ever going to respond to >>14697066?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 12:28:33 2022 No.14698178 >>14698031 You just linked my reply to a post and asked why I didn't reply to the post my reply you linked replied to. Consider logging off?

Anonymous Mon Jul 25 13:16:11 2022 No.14698207 [DELETED]

>>14697028
>"cumulative carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from 1751 to 2017"

Why are going that far back? Afraid of what people will say about emissions from China. Also, For all but the last 70 years of those figures, there were only fossil fuel available for energy when the US and Europe was industrializing. Now that we have nuclear, what's China and India's excuse?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 13:25:41 2022 No.14698226 File: 71 KB, 1347x594, climate_my_personal_emissions.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] seethe and cope, alarmists. reduce your emissions, i don't care. i emit enough for all of us. :-)

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 16:02:50 2022 No.14698285 >>14698178 That's not a reply, it's a deflection.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 16:05:02 2022 No.14698290 >>14698207 >Why are going that far back? Because that's when major emissions began. >Now that we have nuclear, what's China and India's excuse? What's anyone's excuse?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 16:40:18 2022 No.14698350 >>14698285 What isn't a reply? What you've linked to is anachronistic nonsense. What are you even asking?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 16:51:42 2022 No.14698368 >>14698207 >>14698290 What are you two even arguing about? "Cumulative emissions"? Cumulative emissions are literally the dumbest possible measurement anyone could use to predict the future.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 17:09:11 2022 No.14698392 >>14698350 >You just linked my reply >That's not a reply, it's a deflection. >What isn't a reply? Are you pretending to be retarded? >What are you even asking? Are you ever going to respond to >>14697066?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 17:10:11 2022 No.14698394 >>14698368 >Cumulative emissions are literally the dumbest possible measurement anyone could use to predict the future. What future prediction are you talking about?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 17:12:32 2022 No.14698399 File: 243 KB, 2619x1444, cleanest-safest-power.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14698290 >What's anyone's excuse? Okay then, let's go with the nuclear option.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 17:17:49 2022 No.14698403 >>14698394 Emissions. What else is anyone talking about?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 17:20:49 2022 No.14698412 >>14698392 First, I'm not the guy he's replying to; second, I actually DID reply simply because that post >>14697066 repeats the same gibberish about cumulative emissions. You even quoted my reply, you dumb motherfucker

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 17:35:36 2022 No.14698433 >>14690203 but it's already true

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 17:46:33 2022 No.14698456 >>14690359 > metoorologist

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 17:58:51 2022 No.14698483 >>14698399 OK, sounds good.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 17:59:52 2022 No.14698486 >>14698403 No one said anything about predicting future emissions.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 18:01:07 2022 No.14698487 >>14698412 >I actually DID reply simply Where? >repeats the same gibberish about cumulative emissions That post says nothing abut cumulative emissions.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 18:05:13 2022 No.14698495 >>14698487 >Where? You literally quoted my reply in your original nonsense post >>14698031 >That post says nothing abut cumulative emissions. >>14697066 >Over what time frame >pee capita emitters fucking idiot

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 18:06:42 2022 No.14698501 >>14698486 Oh, so you're actually a fucking moron and don't care about future emissions, got it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 18:29:33 2022 No.14698558 >>14697973 You aren't cleaning up shit, in fact you're still making messes. You're just making them slower than you used to and pretending that everyone else is at fault even though your pile is the biggest.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 18:30:33 2022 No.14698560 >>14698501 >Imagine being this retarded

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 18:31:22 2022 No.14698561 >>14698558 Not him, but it sounds like you're repeating the same dumbest possible argument about cumulative emissions. You're an idiot, too.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 18:32:22 2022 No.14698566 >>14698560 >14698560

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 18:34:17 2022 No.14698570 >>14698561 What metric do you prefer and why do you think you aren't accountable for what you did yesterday?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 18:35:47 2022 No.14698576 >>14698495 >You literally quoted my reply That's not a reply, it's a deflection. >>Over what time frame That's a question about your claim. >>per capita emitters That's not cumulative emissions.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 18:36:48 2022 No.14698577 >>14698501 No, I don't care about predicting future emissions, my illiterate friend.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 18:37:11 2022 No.14698578 >>14698570 What kind of stupid question is that? We're talking about how to control future emissions, right?

Anonymous Mon Jul 25 18:39:12 2022 No.14698583 [DELETED]

>>14698576
>That's not a reply, it's a deflection.
A deflection of what?
>That's a question about your claim.
Not my claim.
>That's not cumulative emissions.
No, that's making fun of the second stupidest argument, per capita.
(I notice you corrected "pee" capita. Shame on you)

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 18:39:21 2022 No.14698584 >>14698578 No, we're talking about eliminating emissions and sequestering the carbon we've already emitted.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 18:40:17 2022 No.14698590 >>14698577 Dumb motherfucker lol

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 18:42:18 2022 No.14698596 >>14690430 it's a battle of the jews. the "renewable" jew is trying to outjew the oil jew, and the government jew is playing both sides (as all jews do)

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 18:43:43 2022 No.14698601 >>14698583 >A deflection of what? Responding to what's written in that post. >No, that's making fun of the second stupidest argument, per capita. How does confusing cumulative emissions with per capita emissions make fun of anything but yourself?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 18:43:56 2022 No.14698602 >>14698584 >eliminating emissions That's literally "controlling future emissions" except you're so stupid you think you can control future emissions down to zero. Dumbest post in the thread

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 18:44:44 2022 No.14698606 >>14698590 Said the guy who can't read simple English correctly.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 18:44:57 2022 No.14698607 >>14698601 You're so confused you can't even tell what order the posts go in.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 18:45:58 2022 No.14698608 >>14698606 >14698606

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 18:46:55 2022 No.14698610 >>14698607 How so? The only one who is confused is you, since you confuse cumulative emissions with per capita emissions. And you still can't even respond to >>14697066

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 18:47:37 2022 No.14698612 >>14698602 Actually, we need to reduce emissions to the point that we're sequestering carbon to offset the emissions we've already released. Why do you think you aren't accountable for what you did yesterday?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 18:49:26 2022 No.14698616 >>14698610 Why would I respond to an old retarded post that says nothing of value when there are new retarded posts making the same exact retarded, pointless mistakes?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 18:49:58 2022 No.14698618 >>14698616 >Imagine being this retarded

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 18:51:41 2022 No.14698621 >>14698612 What a dumb fucking post.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 18:52:19 2022 No.14698623 >>14698616 >Why would I respond to an old retarded post that says nothing of value You must be confused again. I asked for your response to >>14697066 Here I'll make it easier for you: Why should the Chinese go on a diet when Americans are obese?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 18:52:27 2022 No.14698625 >>14698621 Why do you think you aren't accountable for what you did yesterday?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 18:52:42 2022 No.14698626 >>14698618 >14698618

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 18:53:23 2022 No.14698628 >>14698625 >Why do you think you aren't accountable for what you did yesterday? Because I will shoot you and your handlers if you try to hold me "accountable" for the imaginary consequences of your corporate dystopia. :^)

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 18:53:43 2022 No.14698630 >>14698625 That's the dumbest part of your post. What do you think I did yesterday and why does it matter? Lol you're just an imbecile.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 18:55:20 2022 No.14698632 >>14698623 Who gives a fuck about random Chinese and American people? You really are stupid.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 18:56:55 2022 No.14698639 >>14698628 >>14698630 The carbon that's already been released needs to be sequestered. Pretending otherwise is moronic at best and intellectually dishonest at worst. Why do you think you aren't accountable for what you did yesterday?

Anonymous Mon Jul 25 18:57:13 2022 No.14698640 [DELETED]

File: 254 KB, 1079x1360, cringg.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14698612
people who own enough property that they plants and trees, etc, offset their emissions have no carbon footprint, urbanites who endlessly try to justify absconding with others' property in the name of protecting the environment are the only people who have net carbon footprints. its is not the rural man's burden to compensate urbanites for the pollution they inflict upon themselves as they willfully insist on living inside the urban heat bubble where CO2 level are at their highest and same goes for all the other IQ lowering air pollutants

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 18:57:35 2022 No.14698642 >>14698639 What do you think I did yesterday and why does it matter? Lol you're just an imbecile.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 18:57:54 2022 No.14698643 >>14698639 >The carbon that's already been released needs to be sequestered Okay. So when do we start killing you and your corporate overlords to displace it?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 18:59:15 2022 No.14698647 >>14698640 This. AGW alarmism promoting urban bugmen should be first in line to receive the most severe climate punishment.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 18:59:28 2022 No.14698652 >>14698632 People in this thread, apparently. Since any suggestion is met with whining any the Chinese.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 19:01:34 2022 No.14698659 >>14698640 >people who own enough property that they plants and trees, etc, offset their emissions have no carbon footprint Source?

Anonymous Mon Jul 25 19:04:13 2022 No.14698665 [DELETED]

>>14698659
>s-s-source!!
No one cares, faggot. Live in a major urban center? 5 climate points deduced. Educated parents? 10 climate points deduced. Higher education? 15 climate points deduced. Have corporate entertainment subscriptions? 50 climate points deduced. Own unnecessary appliances and items? 100 climate points deduced. Put them all together and you cross the threshold for execution without trial. Time to do away with the bugmen destroying this planet. :^)

Anonymous Mon Jul 25 19:07:58 2022 No.14698676 [DELETED]

>>14698652
The worst (and most unnecessary) part of China's emissions is American companies offshoring their own manufacturing emissions and compounding them by shipping shit halfway back around the world. That's why the arbitrary lines on a map are so useless. The emissions are driven by governments and corporations who live between and above the lines, not by any normal Chinese or American people who live within the lines

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 19:14:17 2022 No.14698690 >>14698665 Why did you lie?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 19:15:30 2022 No.14698696 >>14698690 How many countries were your people expelled from again? I keep forgetting.

Anonymous Mon Jul 25 19:15:32 2022 No.14698697 [DELETED]

>>14698676
>The worst (and most unnecessary) part of China's emissions is American companies offshoring their own manufacturing emissions and compounding them by shipping shit halfway back around the world.
And yet the US still has higher emissions per capita. How can this be if Americans are just innocent bystanders?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 19:16:33 2022 No.14698699 >>14698696 Not an answer, try again.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 19:17:03 2022 No.14698700 >>14698697 Kill yourself you fucking Nazi.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 19:17:34 2022 No.14698704 >>14698700 Not an argument. Try again.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 19:19:28 2022 No.14698711 >>14698699 >Not an answer I don't know if what that anon said is true or not, I just think it's okay for him to lie so long as it undermines the agendas of your people. Climate quotas should be racial. :^)

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 19:20:08 2022 No.14698712 >>14698640 >>14698642 >>14698643 All of this is just cope because you don't want to admit that the US is the largest polluter and you want to blame everything on China. It's childish.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 19:21:00 2022 No.14698715 >>14698704 Your argument is that the government is the people. I summarized that as "Nazi" and told you to kill yourself because that's an absurd argument. The government isn't the people and the people aren't the government.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 19:22:01 2022 No.14698719 >>14698712 >the US is the largest polluter Wrong and irrelevant. You're really mad, though, I can tell lol.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 19:23:56 2022 No.14698723 >>14698712 >>14698719 btw only this post >>14698642 (You) is mine. Do a better job reading.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 19:27:51 2022 No.14698731 >>14698719 >>14698723 See >>14697028 and cope harder

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 19:30:51 2022 No.14698737 >>14698719 Cope and seethe

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 19:45:49 2022 No.14698774 >>14698711 >I don't know if what that anon said is true or not Then your posts will be ignored.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 19:46:50 2022 No.14698779 >>14698715 >Your argument is that the government is the people No, I never said anything like that.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 19:55:48 2022 No.14698795 >>14698731 >>14698737 Here, I found each of you a new retarded friend.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 19:57:07 2022 No.14698799 >>14698774 Urban bugmen will pay for the damage they do to this world, and your tribe will pay the most.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 20:17:01 2022 No.14698856 >>14698779 Imagine being so stupid you don't even understand your own stupidity.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 20:24:10 2022 No.14698874 >>14698856 Says the guy who doesn't understand basic English.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 20:34:16 2022 No.14698892 >>14698874 Yes, exactly lol.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 20:56:16 2022 No.14698946 >>14698795 Not an argument

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 21:04:06 2022 No.14698965 >>14698946 Correct, a friend.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 21:48:05 2022 No.14699067 >>14698892 Thanks for admitting you can't read. lmao

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 21:51:59 2022 No.14699075 >>14698965 So you agree that the US is the largest polluter. It's big of you to admit when you're wrong.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 23:37:24 2022 No.14699298 >>14699075 Thanks for admitting you can't read

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 23:38:29 2022 No.14699300 >>14699067 >>14699298

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 08:33:52 2022 No.14700135 >>14695780 >maybe it's just a case of publicity intern gone wild >maybe Warmerista damage control in action.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 12:39:43 2022 No.14700495 >>14695876 >I could easily publish this, but then I'd dox myself. Publish on Vixra.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math