/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.15014507]

Is "renewable" energy a children's fairy tail?

https://youtu.be/Zk11vI-7czE

[Anonymous No.15014527]

>>15014507
No.

https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2020/05/michael-moores-planet-of-the-humans-documentary-peddles-dangerous-climate-denial/

[Anonymous No.15014533]

>>15014507
Yes
Go nuclear or bust

[Anonymous No.15014535]

>>15014527
>thinking we need to pay more tax money to lower earth's temperature
Global warming is a psyops for the sole purpose of profit and control. Climate change is a natural process. We should tackle global pollution in the same way we are attempting to handle "global warming" minus the WEF globohomo agenda.

[Anonymous No.15014540]

>>15014527
>Yale Climate Connections
>Ctrl+F "Rockefeller" no results

[Anonymous No.15014544]

>>15014533
>Go nuclear
How does that get growth under control?

[Anonymous No.15014554]

>>15014544
Feed the waste to Africa.

[Anonymous No.15014557]

>>15014527
How many of these Yale alumni that fund them work at Goldman Sachs?

[Anonymous No.15014559]

>>15014544
Don't give welfare or aid to useless people.
There is no "growth problem"
Faggot

[Anonymous No.15014564]

>>15014507
Why did people get mad at Moore for this? He was criticising fake green initiatives that lied to people and just caused more environmental damage, but he was painted as a pro-fossil fuel shill.

[Anonymous No.15014581]

>>15014564
Because the whole green industry is a giant pyramid scheme and he's pulling at a dangerous thread.

[Anonymous No.15014662]

>>15014564
>Why did people get mad at Moore for this?
They were promised a career in the green elite and this takes the kibble out if their French bulldogs mouth.

[Anonymous No.15014677]

>>15014507
oil is a renewable

>>15014544
>stop growing
Stop hating life, era of abundance ender.

>>15014564
>Why did people get mad at Moore for this?
I think he's discovered some secret formula for the democrat voters attention span. Micheal Moore has the uncanny ability to predict the future agendas Democrat shitters end up supporting despite the fact they hate him for rallying them in the present. In 10 years you will see CNN, ABC and all these other nutcase organizations finally talk about the green bullshit that he and republicans did 10 years ago when Obama first started this shit.
If only they would have consulted one simple electrical engineer on one of their shows, then the whole nightmare could have been prevented from the start.

[Anonymous No.15014683]

>>15014677
Free fusion energy could enable the terraforming of Earth's surface into Hong Kong. Imagine the profits!

[Anonymous No.15014684]

>>15014677
>If only they would have consulted one simple electrical engineer on one of their shows, then the whole nightmare could have been prevented from the start.
When are you going to realize it's not ignorance but intentional. It's all for profit and control. Every single time it's the same people doing the same shit for the same reasons.

[Anonymous No.15014694]

>>15014684
But I was told it would be different this time.

[Anonymous No.15014697]

>>15014694
Don't worry, I get you. We simply voted for the wrong team. We thought blue would fix things when it's clearly the color red which will. So we just got to make the right decision next time. Surely this matters.

[Anonymous No.15014709]

>>15014677
>oil is a renewable
Takes too long to renew so as to be practically non-renewable. Like soil.

[Anonymous No.15014710]

>>15014709
>Takes too long to renew so as to be practically non-renewable. Like soil.
Oil wells which aren't fracked refill at a constant and measured rate.

[Anonymous No.15014711]

>>15014683
>Free fusion energy

How many more years? 20? 30? On top of the how many? Just quit already.

>>15014684
>When are you going to realize it's not ignorance but intentional.
That's the joke the example makes. They will listen to hundreds of green energy experts but not one fucking electrical engineer lol. I wish I could say it was intentional though, I really do. It's just that there are too many actually people out there who believe in it for it to be intentional and too many people who don't even know hoe electricity works.
It's worked it's way from being a meme in the 90's to just "settled science" in the course of 30 years and all it took was posting a meme graph that never actually correlated an inert gas with temperature. The plastic companies didn't help when they spent billions lobbying people to recycle the indestructible products they were making so that they could resell them over and over again to consumer tards. These same consumer retards now feel good when they throw their plastic in a seperate bin, like they're doing their part in helping dump trucks spread garbage everywhere instead of locally.

>It's all for profit and control. Every single time it's the same people doing the same shit for the same reasons.
Exactly.

[Anonymous No.15014715]

>>15014711
>It's worked it's way from being a meme in the 90's to just "settled science" in the course of 30 years and all it took was posting a meme graph that never actually correlated an inert gas with temperature. The plastic companies didn't help when they spent billions lobbying people to recycle the indestructible products they were making so that they could resell them over and over again to consumer tards. These same consumer retards now feel good when they throw their plastic in a seperate bin, like they're doing their part in helping dump trucks spread garbage everywhere instead of locally.
The fact that normoids still think plastic is "recycled" is hilarious to me. They take those blue bins straight to the landfill because it's not profitable to recycle their indestructible waste.

[Anonymous No.15014724]

>>15014677
Abundance is what the nearsighted call accelerated depletion.

[Anonymous No.15014727]

Biofuel is bigger than wind and solar. Burning stuff.

[Anonymous No.15014730]

>>15014709
>Takes too long to renew so as to be practically non-renewable.
I've heard this meme too much about this completely unknown substance we extract miles out of the crust. As far as you know it's the exponentially more biolife under the crust turning whatever settled back into kerogen/bitumens etc.. It's still there, making oil. Even peat burns, and they take it out of the surface hills in ireland.

>>15014715
>They take those blue bins straight to the landfill because it's not profitable to recycle their indestructible waste.
Some do some don't. Depends on where it comes from and what the plastic is actually made out of, as indicated by these icons that are totally not related or lobbied to resemble or be related to the recycling logo.

>>15014724
No it's what you get when you're prudent enough to plan and then reap what you sow. But of course when you plan for declining, dysgenics and dysfunction you're going to get just that. Call it what you want, it's still a part of the plan and the plan doesn't care if you suffer for the consequences of others.

[Anonymous No.15014736]

archive ph/gg166
Don't we have some like urban youth STEM chess champions that can solve this?

[Anonymous No.15014747]

>>15014544
>How does that get growth under control?
why not just say become poorer?

[Anonymous No.15014749]

>>15014747
Stability

[Anonymous No.15014763]

>>15014736
If you only knew just how much more you they used to burn. People don't comprehend just how "green" humans have gotten just because the free market came up with a better solution. They used to burn entire forests...just for the fucking ash. Hence "Potash" the fertilizer that was used to feed the industrial revolution. Thank god for Germany when it used fossil fuels to mine it from the earth instead, and eventually nitrogen fertilizer.

[Anonymous No.15014767]

>>15014535
I didn't say anything about taxes , it's this part of your script?

>Climate change is a natural process.
Except when it's not, like now.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2020GL091585

[Anonymous No.15014777]

>>15014767
Yawn. More lies.

[Anonymous No.15014793]

>>15014777
>YAWWWWWNnnnn
>if I don't like it, I don't have to believe in it!

[Anonymous No.15014798]

>>15014767
There hasn't been a singular study or verifiable outline on how CO2 increases global temperature. There are vague theories at best. And the last time co2 was rich in the atmosphere we had the largest fauna and flora to date. One day you will realize it's all a scam, but we should stop polluting the planet regardless of their lies for greed.

[Anonymous No.15014799]

>>15014793
I agree. That's exactly what warmists say when you provide them proof that their graphs are misleading. I can unhide the decline for them as much as I want, but they'll never accept the evidence. Their faith in that death cult demands blind obedience.

[Anonymous No.15014808]

>>15014799
>things that never happened

[Anonymous No.15014923]

>>15014527
>To expand on the earlier analogy, the filmmakers seem to believe we should improve nutrition not by eating healthier foods like strawberries, but rather by eating a bit less cheesecake.
Is that supposed to be wrong?

[Anonymous No.15014937]

>>15014777
Not an argument, try again.

[Anonymous No.15014956]

>>15014798
>There hasn't been a singular study or verifiable outline on how CO2 increases global temperature.
Why are you lying? There are many many many studies on the greenhouse effect, including one in the post you're replying to which gives observational evidence for CO2 being the cause of warming.

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

Only someone completely ignorant of climate science could make such a claim honestly.

>There are vague theories at best.
No, there are very specific models based on over a hundred years of studying the climate. We can directly observe via spectroscopy the heat being radiated by CO2 in the atmosphere.

>And the last time co2 was rich in the atmosphere we had the largest fauna and flora to date.
The issue is not simply the level of CO2, it's the rate of change. We are releasing CO2 that took millions of years to accumulate in only a few hundred years. Such rapid changes are associated with mass extinctions in the past, not flourishing. Species that flourished in high CO2 environments had millions of years to evolve for that climate. We are not evolved for that climate.

[Anonymous No.15014962]

>>15014923
It's wrong in that they think strawberries are as unhealthy as cheesecake.

[Anonymous No.15014971]

>>15014923
I think a "positive" approach to dieting is good. You can practically eat as many strawberries as you want and not get fat, if you can afford them. Focus on eating strawberries, rather than not eating cheesecake. Sitting around being hungry and trying not to eat shit is hard.

[Anonymous No.15014985]

>>15014767
>I didn't say anything about taxes
how do you expect to get people to discontinue profitable operations without taxes?

just have the government forcibly shut them down?

much less oppressive lol.

[Anonymous No.15015129]

>>15014985
>how do you expect to get people to discontinue profitable operations without taxes?
You convinced me, carbon taxes are completely justified.

[Anonymous No.15015660]

>>15014749
it's just elite cope, they think they can have economic collapse and keep their global empire, but a global empire takes a lot of energy and wealth to run, power will go back to local warlords when we all "degrowth" (aka. become massively poorer)

[Anonymous No.15016047]

>>15014507
That's kinda depressing. What kind of societal changes would there need to be to help the environment?

[Anonymous No.15016080]

>>15016047
It's fake, see >>15014527

[Anonymous No.15016088]

>>15014956
Rapid climate change has occurred in earth's history. You are right about everything else though. Also 99% of species thay have existed have gone extinct and mass extinction events are common. Even if we removed humans from the equation these things would happen. It is pure hubris of man to believe we can control nature and the climate.

[Anonymous No.15016092]

>>15016080
>construction, the lifetime carbon footprints of solar, wind, and nuclear power are about one-twentieth of those of coal and natural gas
Wasn't one of the issues brought up by the documentary that biomass and solar energy are assisted by natural gas?
> it’s true that natural gas has picked up about two-thirds of that slack (670 billion kWh). But growth in renewables has accounted for the other one-third (370 billion kWh).* As a result, power sector carbon emissions in the U.S. have fallen by one-third since 2008
That's kinda pathetic
>Daggett is located in the Mojave Desert. Sand is the natural landscape. Solar farms don’t create dead zones; in fact, some plants thrive under the shade provided by solar panels.
How the fuck do you grow tomatoes in the desert?

[Anonymous No.15016094]

>>15014956
>there's proof of my accurate description!
Only a useful idiot takes action against a description.The description never explains why they're actually taking action.

>The issue is not simply the level of CO2, it's the rate of change.
Are you sure this time? Have you finally nailed down the cause or do you need another billion dollars and 20 years of study to change your mind again?

>Species that flourished in high CO2 environments had millions of years to evolve for that climate. We are not evolved for that climate.
>evolution
Can we please talk about one unproven claim at a time? Lets stay on topic and correlate that inert insulation gas to a cause instead.

[Anonymous No.15016097]

>>15016094
damn... you are truly retarded...

[Anonymous No.15016100]

>>15014683
If you think there's too many people why don't you help everyone out and kill yourself

[Anonymous No.15016113]

>>15016092
>Deserts are dead.

[Anonymous No.15016116]

>>15014527
>Like Fox News and other propaganda vehicles, the film presents one biased perspective via carefully chosen voices, virtually all of whom are comfortable white men.
Why do we need to involve race into this? If Moore was black or the people he was interviewing were black would it make it better and more credible?

[Anonymous No.15016119]

>>15016113
https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/09/crops-under-solar-panels-can-be-a-win-win/
Even in the article he links to there is no mention of deserts

[Anonymous No.15016263]

>>15014507
No, we get our energy from the sun. biofuels, wind and fossil fuels are just indirect solar storage. the only non solar sources of energy we use are geothermal and nuclear

[Anonymous No.15016285]

>>15016263
are you 16 and high on marijuana?

[Anonymous No.15016292]

>>15016285
I am neither of those things,and if you are convinced otherwise, you are in need of a tard wrangler

[Anonymous No.15016309]

>>15016263
>fossil fuels are just indirect solar storage
ok wtf are you talking about?

[Anonymous No.15016324]

Devolution shills have brain autism. We can control chemical propertes which means a human can outwit any effect of nature through a second medium.

[Anonymous No.15016343]

>>15016309
He's one of those idiots who thinks hydrocarbons come from dead dinosaurs.

[Anonymous No.15016352]

>wind turbines
uncontrollable, need massive amount of material to build, no one wants them near, can't be recycled

>pv
uncontrollable, low power, works like a radiator for the local area

>nuclear
controllable, no one wants them near, highest energy density

>hydro
not sure if it's controllable or not, limited to specific areas

[Anonymous No.15016386]

>>15016352
oh shid
what if moskals intentionally sploded chernobyl to sow fear of the atom and make world more dependent on fossil fuels, including theirs? ukrainians were probably deemed a positive sacrifice as well, they hate their guts.

[Anonymous No.15016389]

>>15016352
>nuclear
>no one wants them near
I cry every time I hear this

[Anonymous No.15016390]

>>15016386
chernobyl plant was just a retarded design waiting for a disaster
but big oil has funded a lot of anti nuclear groups and media the last couple of decades

[Anonymous No.15016421]

>>15016390
yes, retarded design and, if we believe the show, the knowledge was present and suppressed
this is way more believable than jet steel fuel beams

[Anonymous No.15016444]

>>15016352
>>wind turbines
>>pv
don't intermittent re-newables also make the electrical grid massively more complex, fragile, and basically unusable for having reliable constant power unless you use them alongside gas or diesel thermal plants that are able to cover the valleys by being turned on very fast?

seems like pv and wind if they are good at all they should be used for intermittent usages, like if you need to pump water or something you pump it when the wind is blowing and the sun is strong

[Anonymous No.15016458]

>>15016444
uncontrollable power sources do need a battery as a buffer if you want to be hooked up to the grid and not fucking it up
but adding massive batteries to every wind and pv installation is just more resources

and nice trips

[Anonymous No.15016465]

>>15016458
>but adding massive batteries to every wind and pv installation is just more resources
but at some point more resources means you are spending more energy than what you get back, maybe we are still very far from that point, but i don't know

[Anonymous No.15016468]

recycling doesn’t work
in my place of employment, even my conservative employers stress recycling
recycling doesn’t work

[Anonymous No.15016476]

>>15016468
i think for glass it may work, for paper maybe, for plastic even ecologists seem to agree by this point that it's mostly useless

[Anonymous No.15016482]

>>15016476
With glass companies used to just collect and wash out the bottles and reuse them. You don't even need to recycle glass, it's basically permanent if it's made right.

[Anonymous No.15016486]

>>15016482
getting the bottles delivered at home and the company picking them back up was kino, not sure why this stopped

[Anonymous No.15016493]

>>15016486
Because we moved to a consumer culture instead of a producer culture. Our entire system of values changed from one where systems are self-sustaining to one where they extract wealth from the population for the purpose of impoverishing them.

[Anonymous No.15016494]

>>15016100
If you don't think there's too many people, do you advocate for open borders and legalizing all immigrants?

[Anonymous No.15016498]

>>15016494
Why would that necessarily follow? If you like the amount of people that you currently have, shipping in more to replace you is a stupid idea. On the other hand, if you hate the amount of people in the world, reducing the number logically follows.

[Anonymous No.15016506]

>>15016498
>If you like the amount of people that you currently have
If you think there aren't too many people, you necessarily believe that there are not enough people, or at least there would be no problem with an increase in population.
> reducing the number logically follows.
Why does this necessitate suicide? How about just stop sending all aid to Africa besides condom shipments. How about stopping all foreign aid to the middle east. Every other country is naturally decreasing in population.

[Anonymous No.15016510]

>modern civilization collapses
>4 billion people die within 2 years
>small packets around the world will still have electricity
>majority returns to ancient and medieval times
this is all like a bad game of civ that i just want to restart now that i know the consequences of my actions and decisions

[Anonymous No.15016514]

>>15016506
>or at least there would be no problem with an increase in population.
only if you believe people are copy-pastable from a country to another

[Anonymous No.15016520]

>>15016510
more likely than massive deaths will be that most people will have to work in food production, a few % points higher death rate, a few % points lower birth rate. that will still reduce the population by 90% in 100 years but it won't be very spectacular to see in real time

[Anonymous No.15016532]

>>15016514
So you believe that masses of people from developing nations are of a lower quality, but you insist on telling an internet user capable of civil discussion to kill themselves. If you had your wish granted, you'd live in your worst nightmare, surrounded by poor immigrants who didn't commit suicide.

[Anonymous No.15016536]

>>15016532
why are you schizoposting at me? i didn't say any of those things

[Anonymous No.15016538]

how come bankers and fossil fuel companies ignore nuclear?
they're trying to move into biofuel, but why?
is it because you can regrow trees and make more biogas, but uranium is limited?

>>15016520
farmer life for me, sounds comfy

[Anonymous No.15016539]

>>15016536
If you weren't telling other people to kill themselves then I don't have any problem with you. I just assumed you were since you replied.

[Anonymous No.15016548]

>>15016538
even with energy collapse, computers are not going away, just need a cheap way to charge them locally

[Anonymous No.15016569]

>>15016548
computers without internet sounds fun

[Anonymous No.15016574]

>>15016569
i think there's low-power radios, if you network them you could reach far enough, or you can probably send a USB with a mule to your friends

[Anonymous No.15016584]

>>15016574
limited internet would be a good thing
a lot of people need to socialize more

[Anonymous No.15016619]

>>15014507
I watched the movie and I must say it has potential. But there was some dumb shit said here and there, that made me cringe hard.

>PVs take more power to produce than they generate.
They generate that energy back in 1-2years in decent conditions

>High temperature solar plants need gas to operate.
The amount of gas energy used to kickstart the salt in heat exchanger is very small when compared to the solar energy it receives.

>Wind turbines need maintainance.
No shit! All power generating equipment need it.

>Biomass is dumb
Kinda agree, but in certain conditions its pretty good.

But the message about the sponsors and virtue signalers of the green initiatives was spot on.

[Anonymous No.15016629]

>>15016506
>If you think there aren't too many people, you necessarily believe that there are not enough people
You could also believe that the current amount is just fine where you live.
>Why does this necessitate suicide?
Because people who advocate for malthusianism are always only concerned about killing off Whites, so they might as well just hang themselves.

[Anonymous No.15016630]

>>15016629
I'm not white and I don't advocate for the killing of whites. Assuming makes an ass out of you.

[Anonymous No.15016646]

>>15016630
Well good for you. You still have to leave though.

[Anonymous No.15016654]

>>15016646
I'm a naturalized citizen so good luck trying to make me leave.

[Anonymous No.15016656]

>>15016654
Luck isn't the thing that makes people leave a country, anon. You're a foreigner in a foreign land and always will be.

[Anonymous No.15016679]

>>15016656
Bet you say the same about black people too, but they've been staying for decades to centuries depending on the western country. Nobody has ever been able to get them to go back to Africa in significant numbers. I'll stop replying and leave you to seethe on that fact.

[Anonymous No.15016688]

>>15016679
Nobody has ever put in the effort to do it, because their labor was considered worth their social ills. I don't see how failing to try represents an impossibility, now that the calculus has changed and their social ills far outstrip their value.

[Anonymous No.15016760]

>>15016088
>Rapid climate change has occurred in earth's history.
Yeah, that's what I said.
>Such rapid changes are associated with mass extinctions in the past, not flourishing.

>Also 99% of species thay have existed have gone extinct and mass extinction events are common.
Extinction is common, mass extinction is not (5-20 of them in the last half billion years). But what is your point? We should obviously try to avoid causing mass extinction regardless.

>Even if we removed humans from the equation these things would happen.
So?

>It is pure hubris of man to believe we can control nature and the climate.
Nope, it's just a fact.

[Anonymous No.15016761]

>>15016760
>Nope, it's just a fact.
Hubris depicted here.

[Anonymous No.15016762]

>>15016761
If man can't control nature how then has man controlled nature?

[Anonymous No.15016768]

>>15016092
>Wasn't one of the issues brought up by the documentary that biomass and solar energy are assisted by natural gas?
How does that respond to what you're quoting? If it uses 1/20 the amount of natural gas to get the same amount of energy, that doesn't make solar as bad as natural gas.

>That's kinda pathetic
So you think more renewables are needed?

>How the fuck do you grow tomatoes in the desert?
Irrigation and soil. Solar panels mimic the hothouse environment tomatoes thrive in.

[Anonymous No.15016779]

>>15016094
>Only a useful idiot takes action against a description.The description never explains why they're actually taking action.
I have no idea what you're trying to refer to. Can you translate this from schizo to English? The person I responded to claimed there is no study on the greenhouse effect. This is a ridiculous lie that anyone can disprove by doing a basic search of the literature.

>Are you sure this time? Have you finally nailed down the cause or do you need another billion dollars and 20 years of study to change your mind again?
What other time are you talking about? When do you think I changed my mind? Are you having delusions?

>Can we please talk about one unproven claim at a time?
We're not talking about unproven claims.

>Lets stay on topic and correlate that inert insulation gas to a cause instead.
Read the article on the greenhouse effect and get back to me on what you think isn't proven.

[Anonymous No.15016788]

The Pleiadian High Council - You Have Not Been Able To Use These Until NOW

https://youtu.be/Lc43vDHX2W8

[Anonymous No.15016794]

>>15016119
Nice reading comprehension.

>Prof. Barron-Gafford et al. focused on dry areas like the American Southwest, where water for crops is limiting and things are projected to get drier.

And the paper itself:

"We established the Biosphere 2 Agrivoltaics Learning Lab in August 2016. The site is operated
338 by the University of Arizona, and is situated on the ground of the Biosphere 2 research center
339 north of Tucson, Arizona, USA (32.578989°N, 110.851103°W; elevation: 1381 m ASL). The
340 climate in Tucson is a hot desert (Koppen Bwh) that experiences a mean annual temperature of
341 21.6°C and is characterized as having bimodal precipitation with a summer monsoon and winter
342 rains. Average precipitation is limited to less than 30 cm, but the magnitude and timing of storms
has increasingly varied in recent decades80 343 ."

>Barron-Gafford found that not only do solar panels cool the air during the day, but they also warm the air at night — a benefit for tomatoes and other crops in desert climates like Central California and Arizona where temperatures can plummet after dark.

https://energynews.us/2022/10/25/cool-tomatoes-agrivoltaics-could-help-california-crop-if-the-economics-pan-out/

[Anonymous No.15016799]

>>15016760
Civilizations collapse and mass extinction happen regardless of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. That is my point.

[Anonymous No.15016801]

>>15016619
>But the message about the sponsors and virtue signalers of the green initiatives was spot on.
Those thieves or to be lies too.

[Anonymous No.15016805]

>>15016761
>observe X
>X can't be true because that would make humans responsible for something! Hubris!
You really need to stop posting.

[Anonymous No.15016809]

>>15016799
>Civilizations collapse and mass extinction happen regardless of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

And sometimes, because of. Do you think cause and effect is made up or something? Do mass extinctions occur randomly as acts of God?

[Anonymous No.15016817]

>>15016762
Man doesn't control Nature.

[Anonymous No.15016823]

>>15016805
>>X can't be true because that would make humans responsible for something! Hubris!
X is probably not true because X happens without Humans. Assuming X now is caused by Humans just because Humans exist now is hubris.
You really need to neck before society tires of your kind any further.

[Anonymous No.15016824]

>>15016817
Man controls nature all the time. What the fuck do you think a chihuahua is?

Also stop typing like you're some 1st century philosopher, retarded platitude spewing gook shill

[Anonymous No.15016832]

>>15016823
>X is probably not true because X happens without Humans.

lol
lmao even

>man leaves footprints in sand
>but animal leaves footprint in sand also
>therefore man has no footprints

loopy cunt

[Anonymous No.15016834]

>>15016832
>>man leaves footprints in sand
>>but animal leaves footprint in sand also
>>therefore man has no footprints
This is your brain on television.

[Anonymous No.15016838]

>>15016834
No it's me following YOUR logic

[Anonymous No.15016840]

>>15016824
>What the fuck do you think a chihuahua is?
So we've gone from the powers of Nature to eugenics. How far did you move that goalpost? 20 kilometers? 30?

[Anonymous No.15016843]

>>15016840
>we
No, you.

What is eugenics if not power over nature?

[Anonymous No.15016844]

>>15016838
You missed my point entirely because you're either too stupid to understand it or too committed to your shilling to argue in good faith. This kind of climate change has happened before without any Humans around. To assume this time it's different because we have to kill White people now for politics is just cope.

[Anonymous No.15016847]

>>15016843
Do you think HAARP causes hurricanes, schizo?

[Anonymous No.15016849]

>>15016844
>You missed my point entirely because
No I followed your point to the letter. Next time just make a better argument.

> This kind of climate change has happened before without any Humans around.
Yes, and the causes of which are many. Humans are just another cause added to the list. Stop worshipping "nature" like it's some deity that controls everything that happens on earth. It's just cause and effect you pseudo-religious shill.

[Anonymous No.15016852]

>>15016849
>Yes, and the causes of which are many. Humans are just another cause added to the list. Stop worshipping "nature" like it's some deity that controls everything that happens on earth. It's just cause and effect you pseudo-religious shill.
kek! So this time it's different because... IT JUST IS OK?!?!?!?!!
And you death cultists call us religious.

[Anonymous No.15016854]

>>15016847
>How far did you move that goalpost? 20 kilometers? 30?

Hypocrite

[Anonymous No.15016855]

>>15016852
>So this time it's different because... IT JUST IS OK?!?!?!?!!
Because of all the evidence you ignore so you can shill your petrochemical products

[Anonymous No.15016856]

>>15016854
I was just trying to meet you at your level. Do you understand me now? What measures your belief that humans have an impact on the weather across the entire planet? Is it the part where we still have millions dying in storms and flooding every year despite out best efforts, or the part where drought and famine threaten entire continents regularly due to our inability to control the weather?

[Anonymous No.15016859]

>>15016852
>So this time it's different because
It's not different though, again, it's cause and effect.

[Anonymous No.15016860]

>>15016855
>Because of all the evidence you ignore so you can shill your petrochemical products
Pray tell what evidence is that? The evidence that past warm periods were warmer than today, which you ignore to shill your depopulation agenda? The evidence of major climatic cycles with the same type of warming spikes regularly occurring at steady intervals?

[Anonymous No.15016862]

>>15016856
>I was just trying to meet you at your level.
Making strawmen is not meeting your opponent, it's bad faith arguing. You do this because you're a shill.

[Anonymous No.15016876]

>>15016809
Do you think our civilization will go on fine just as long as we solve climate change? Do you think everything will be OK just as long as we solve climate change? Do you think it's possible to solve climate change? Do you realize in order solve climate change a massive reduction in human freedom is required. Do you like living in fear, frustration and anger and don't like it when people dont share your feelings of fear, frustration and anger? Do you like to have control over people's behaviors or wish authoritarians had control over what people do? The entire climate change narrative comes down to controlling people in order to save the world. It's just another "for the great good lie" We must all suffer for the greater good.

[Anonymous No.15016899]

>>15016876
>Do you think our civilization will go on fine just as long as we solve climate change?
No, but that has nothing to do with what we're arguing about. Stop trying to change the subject.

[Anonymous No.15016914]

>>15014535
The point of taxes is to get people to consoom less without having to resort to violent coercion and physically blocking access to goods.

[Anonymous No.15016944]

>>15016899
The absolute worst periods of history to be alive occurred during periods of global cooling, not warming. Yes global temperatures are rises, yes humanity contributes to this, but predictions of apocalypse or worse solutions to stop the collapse that rely of restriction of freedom, are pure Nostradomus tier conjecture.

[Anonymous No.15016952]

>>15016944
>The absolute worst periods of history to be alive occurred during periods of global cooling, not warming.
So true.
Warm is mo good than cold.

[Anonymous No.15016982]

>>15016862
A shill for what lol? It's the """""green""""" scam that bribes scientists and shills.

[Anonymous No.15017009]

>>15016476
Glass bottles can be turned into fiberglass insulation but not new glass bottles.

[Anonymous No.15017015]

>>15017009
You can melt glass back down and reshape it. That's how glass used to be transported to factories in the first place (in large boules or chunks from a first stage furnace).

[Anonymous No.15017209]

>>15016799
>Civilizations collapse and mass extinction happen regardless of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
No, rapid changes in CO2 are correlated with mass extinctions. We should try to avoid that harm when we can. Do you even disagree?

[Anonymous No.15017236]

>>15016823
>X is probably not true because X happens without Humans.
X is humans causing global warming. So your argument makes no sense. Do you think X is global warming? Because that still makes no sense, side global warming is true.

>Assuming X now is caused by Humans just because Humans exist now is hubris. "Humans existing" is not why I think humans are causing global warming though... so you're just arguing against a straw man.

See >>15014767

[Anonymous No.15017237]

>>15017209
>No, rapid changes in CO2 are correlated with mass extinctions.
Massive reductions in CO2 are correlated with mass extinctions. Times of high CO2 are correlated with huge blooms in biodiversity.

[Anonymous No.15017278]

>>15017237
>Massive reductions in CO2 are correlated with mass extinctions.
OK. That doesn't even contradict what I said.

>Times of high CO2 are correlated with huge blooms in biodiversity.
For species that evolved for that climate.

[Anonymous No.15017287]

>>15017278
>For species that evolved for that climate.
Almost every species on earth currently living evolved for a high CO2 climate. The only ones optimized for a low-CO2 world are some New World plants like maize.

[Anonymous No.15017306]

>>15017237
>Times of high CO2 are correlated with huge blooms in biodiversity.

Sounds like we need MORE CO2, not less, for DIVERSITY!

[Anonymous No.15017341]

>>15017306
Diversity is our strength.

[Anonymous No.15017348]

>>15014559
Yup. Many countries have big dubget problems for all the free stuff they give to the poor. Cut all of that and budgets are fine. Endless growth? Capitalism is really cool in the sense that they is a massive incentive to make things with less stuff. To be more efficient. That's one way to get growth and that's been happening since capitalism has been a thing. How to fix climate change? Build nuclear power plants everywhere. It's cheap. It's 100 percent dependable. Just don't build it in california or other natural disaster prone areas and it's fine.

[Anonymous No.15017351]

>>15014684
I don't know man. Global warming is real. Solar panels won't solve it. But nuclear reactors can. Too bad green weenies don't like it for some fucking reason.

[Anonymous No.15017354]

>>15017351
>Too bad green weenies don't like it for some fucking reason.
Because they want to scam you so they can take your money and replace you with browns. See: German Greens dismantling their energy infrastructure and then this year passing an extremely open naturalization law that lets everyone but White people be German.

[Anonymous No.15017375]

Germany is going to spend 100 billion euros on their military in 2023. How much does a nuclear plant cost?

[Anonymous No.15017420]

>>15017287
So you think almost no species have evolved for the climate in the past 3 million years? You're delusional.

[Anonymous No.15017434]

>>15017420
Just so we're clear, do you believe or disbelieve that hominids evolved in Africa approximately 6 million years ago?

[Anonymous No.15017460]

>>15017434
Of course not, it was about 17 million years ago. Do you think evolution stops when a clade is formed?

To get back to the topic at hand. Rapid changes in CO2 are correlated with mass extinctions. This is something we should avoid. Yes or no?

[Anonymous No.15017462]

>>15017460
>This is something we should avoid.
We can't avoid it, it's part of a natural cycle. Man doesn't control Nature and to interfere is hubris of a high degree.

[Anonymous No.15017483]

>>15017460
>CO2 are correlated with mass extinctions
>CO2 is high
>comet strokes and destroys most life
>millions of years later you tell me that i have to pay more of my wages to my government so that i pay for China's and India's waste
>and that's accomplished by ... something something more immigrants and less nuclear power

[Anonymous No.15017525]

>>15017462
>We can't avoid it, it's part of a natural cycle.
What natural cycle? And no, it isn't. See >>15014767

>Man doesn't control Nature
Repeating this over and over like a religious mantra doesn't make this true. Man releases a massive amount of CO2 into the atmosphere that took millions of years to accumulate and cooled the planet. That CO2 decreases the rate at which heat leaves Earth's atmosphere via the greenhouse effect. Do you have an actual argument?

[Anonymous No.15017526]

>>15017525
>What natural cycle?
The natural ice age cycle, which is clearly shown in ice core samples.

[Anonymous No.15017527]

>>15017483
>>CO2 are correlated with mass extinctions
>>CO2 is high
That's not what I said, you disingenuous fuck. I said rapid changes in CO2.

[Anonymous No.15017531]

>>15017526
>The natural ice age cycle, which is clearly shown in ice core samples.
I don't know what an "ice age cycle" is. At first I thought you must be referring to the cycle of ice ages and hothouse climates, but ice cores don't show that because ice cores only exist during ice ages. So you must be referring to the cycle of glacial and interglacial periods within the current ice age. Well you're wrong, current warming is the exact opposite of that cycle, since interglacial warming ended 10000 years ago. So we should be slowly coming now according to the natural cycle, but instead we are warming about 25 times faster than the last interglacial warming. So please explain why you're making false statements. Do you just have no clue what you're talking about?

[Anonymous No.15017545]

>pv and wind turbines generate their power back over a couple of years
>but they're uncontrollable and you can't build an infrastructure based on that
>b-but muh batteries
>requires even more materials to try and cover whole countries' backup need for power
>electric cars adds another step with loss of fossil fuel power efficiency
>trees for biofuel don't work as all the trees would be gone in a year and then have to wait 50 years or more for new trees
convert the old plants to nuclear now

[Anonymous No.15018761]

>>15017375
>Germany is going to spend 100 billion euros on their military in 2023. How much does a nuclear plant cost?
Bump

[Anonymous No.15018779]

>>15015660
degrowth will occur when EROEI becomes too much

[Anonymous No.15018812]

>>15017531
>Well you're wrong, current warming is the exact opposite of that cycle, since interglacial warming ended 10000 years ago. So we should be slowly coming now according to the natural cycle, but instead we are warming about 25 times faster than the last interglacial warming. So please explain why you're making false statements. Do you just have no clue what you're talking about?
Well the fact that you're using a fraudulent graph explains that you're just a liar. There's no need to entertain your schizophrenic narcissism any further.

[Anonymous No.15018822]

>>15018812
>Well the fact that you're using a fraudulent graph
Please explain how it's "fraudulent." This should be entertaining.

[Anonymous No.15018843]

>>15018822
It misrepresents past temperatures as colder than today to an extreme degree, when that is emphatically not the case.

[Anonymous No.15018853]

>>15018843
>It misrepresents past temperatures as colder than today to an extreme degree, when that is emphatically not the case.
What data tells you this is emphatically not the case? How is all of their data wrong? Why do you never present evidence for your claims?

[Anonymous No.15018864]

>>15018853
>What data tells you this is emphatically not the case?
Ice core records.
>How is all of their data wrong?
It disagrees with empirical observations of trustworthy climate proxies.
>Why do you never present evidence for your claims?
You're too stupid or too ideologically poisoned to accept it. Whenever I have, in the dozens of past climate threads, you and your ilk just deny and shift the goalposts, so I'm not interested in indulging your narcissism with effort.

[Anonymous No.15018922]

>>15018864
>Ice core records.
The graph I posted uses ice core records and other proxy records from around the globe. Please explain how ice core records show global temperature was warmer in the past.

>It disagrees with empirical observations of trustworthy climate proxies.
Which ones? It is created from them?

It's weird how all you do is post vague claims without any evidence. You don't even know what you're arguing against.

>You're too stupid or too ideologically poisoned to accept it.
That's a very convenient excuse.

>Whenever I have, in the dozens of past climate threads, you and your ilk just deny and shift the goalposts
I bet you can't give a single example of this. I bet it will just be you making a fallacious argument.

[Anonymous No.15019011]

>>15018843
Are you denying the natural cycle that says we are in an interglacial phase, preceded by a significantly colder glacial phase? You seem very confused.

[Anonymous No.15020353]

Another denier bites the dust. Too bad he will just do the same song and dance in the next thread without learning anything.

[Anonymous No.15021206]

>>15014544
There is no growth, it's all a meme and perfect artificial inflation scam.