Climate change

[brandon No.6592240]

Watched an episode of climate change last night. I had no clue how serious it was, and my eyes are now OPEN. If any of you care about the earth, changes will happen in YOUR lifetime. I recommend you take time out of your day to watch this, it'll be the most important thing you do. http://www.cosmosontv.com/watch/270803523723

[brandon No.6592246]

Watched an episode of cosmos** Sorry

[Anonymous No.6592249]

>>>/pol/

[brandon No.6592260]

I disagree. It is not political, it is factual and everyone needs to be better informed

[Anonymous No.6592333]

>>6592240
We have instrumental records that say CO2 is increasing.

We don't have anything that says this will cause catastrophic climate change.

It's a politically motivated alarmism movement and you'd know this if you actually sit down and read instead of just consume stupid popsci.

[Anonymous No.6592354]

>>6592333
>It's a politically motivated alarmism movement and you'd know this if you actually sit down and read instead of just consume stupid popsci.

This is the kind of shit people say who never read Nature, Science, or other serious journals.

>inb4 back to /pol/...

[Anonymous No.6592393]

>>6592240

i think the best possible scenario that could happen is that oil production hits the top of the bell curve in productivity, and simply becomes too expensive to produce and acquire before we damage to the point of no return

[Anonymous No.6592402]

http://xkcd.com/1379/

[Anonymous No.6592405]

>>6592333

>We don't have anything that says this will cause catastrophic climate change.

Define catastrophic

[Anonymous No.6592411]

>>6592240
To be fair, there are a lot of non-scientists and scientists outside of their field of expertise who exaggerate the damage that climate change will cause. Whenever these exaggerations are pointed out to have flaws, the entire climate change problem is dismissed -- which is ridiculous.

There is plenty of scientific literature that explains the situation and problems, which is the scientific end. However, the solutions seem entirely political since they conflict with a lot of interests. In particular, republicans and libertarians do not like placing the burden of staunching the problem on businesses. The politically charged environment leads people to dismiss or exaggerate science to justify their political stance.

[Anonymous No.6592417]

>>6592405
Let the pros define it
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2014/05/18/rift-widening-between-energy-and-insurance-industries-over-climate-change/

[Anonymous No.6592420]

>>6592260
Everyone already knows this
You are literally making a thread about your realization that 1+1 is indeed 2
It only acts as a troll bait for /pol/ posters, which frankly you too most likely are.
Hence
>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.6592433]

>>6592240
what many people don't seem to get is that only a strong economy can afford taking natre into account.
If countries go full greentard after a few decades of depression people will vote another government and start shoving coal into their ovens.
btw due to fusion clean energy probably wont be a problem

[Anonymous No.6592437]

>>6592393
>is that oil production hits the top of the bell curve in productivity
Lol nope. We have fossil fuels for centuries to come. Unconventional Oil and gas, from tar sands, fracking and all that jazz have already massively increased reserves and we always had coal for a hundred years at least. And it's only getting worse. China's and India's economic rise will just increase output of CO2 even more.
For each country, their CO2 output will not be catastrophic, but reducing it will stunt growth and be especially costly if only they do it. It's a global tragedy of the commons, a prisoners dilemma everyone is playing and everyone's defecting all the time.
"buisness as usual"-models say about ~5° C until 2100 and they probably underestimate future growth. That'll be hotter than it was in the last 15 million years, back then, both poles were completely ice-free during their respective sommers. And it's certainly not stopping at that.
Temperature swings that took a hundred thousand years in the past will take a hundred instead.
You better fucking hope geoengeenering works as advertised

[Anonymous No.6592449]

>>6592411
Bless this post. This is all true.

[Anonymous No.6592455]

>>6592405
There is nothing to say we can cause "catastrophic" climate change, true. There IS however a very real possibility that we will fuck ourselves over by changing the weather patterns of our planet - the weather patterns that our entire infrastructure is built around.

We aren't gonna wipe out life on earth by any stretch but we absolutely can / will fuck the planets biodiversity and cause massive problems to ourselves with raised sea levels and ruined farmland.

[Anonymous No.6592590]

>>6592455
You aren't helping.

[Anonymous No.6592603]

>>6592437

yeah its not a matter of "how much" oil but a matter of costs. Offshore drilling and tar sands are harder to get, harder to refine, and transport etc. This paired with ever increasing market demand from places like china causes prices to rise and rise untill its not economically viable any more. we have tons of oil left but not tons of cheap easy oil.

[Anonymous No.6593026]

>>6592411

>Climate model prediction works => Climate Change is True!
>Climate model prediction fails => Model needs to be tweaked but Climate Change is True!

Them there's some great science there. The models failed miserably yet we're supposed to believe that scientists understand things enough for us to believe "The Sky Is Falling! Give Government Your Carbon Tax Money!"

Whatever.

Yes
>>6592420
I know, facts like the failed models don't belong in /sci/, they belong in
>>>/pol/
because muh feels.

Warning: This graph was made by a former NASA scientist and co-inventor of satellite temperature measurement techniques. However, he's an Evil Denier, so by definition, everything he says is false.

Doesn't change the fact that the "science" is filled with failed models. Yet we're supposed to believe that CO2 will be the death of us all unless we submit to the United Nations

[Anonymous No.6593034]

>>6593026
>models don't work
nope, you are completely wrong.

[Anonymous No.6593036]

>>6593026
that's how basic science works, numbnuts.

we don't toss out all of evolutionary theory in biology because we can't explain very well why and how colonial insect species evolved, we refine evolutionary theory.

[Anonymous No.6593042]

>>6593036
>basic science works by always believing our theory is true even when it gets proven wrong
top jej

[Anonymous No.6593044]

>>6593026

[Anonymous No.6593049]

>>6593042
it's not proven wrong. the models DO work

[Anonymous No.6593052]

>>6593034

This is "after the fact" crap. Big Deal. I can predict last Friday's stock market with perfect accuracy. How about some before the fact correct predictions?

[Anonymous No.6593053]

>>6593042
basic science works by trusting the theory until evidence which refutes the theory arises

failures of the models are not refutations of the basic theoretical underpinnings of climate science, they're refutations of the theory's application

[Anonymous No.6593057]

>>6593049
not that guy but
the earth has been much hotter in the past and had much more co2 and life still thrived

>>6593053
>basic science works by trusting the theory until evidence which refutes the theory arises
Exactly, the opposite of what you said.

>failures of the models are not refutations of the basic theoretical underpinnings of climate science
Except for the fact they prove them wrong.

[Anonymous No.6593068]

>>6593044

This is completely bogus, after-the-fact straight line drawing by a blogger. Here's the actual predictions from UN IPCC AR4 with updated temperatures. The failed models were so embarrassing that they decided at the last moment to not put it into UN IPCC AR5 !

Why don't you put the data on the actual prediction graph instead of just drawing an after-the-fact rewrite to get the "truth." This is almost fraudulent "science."

[Anonymous No.6593069]

>>6593026
Carbon tax = fixed price of carbon
Cap and trade = fixed amount of carbon
carbon tax is not used to get money, it's used to keep the price stable which is better for businesses

>>6593052
Did you even read the caption? the models used the period in the yellow as a "reference period", everything before and after is a prediction.

the models DO work

[Anonymous No.6593077]

>>6593068
You don't understand the background. Because of natural temperature variations, 1990 was a much warmer year than the overall trend. This image was based on 1990 being an average year, which it wasn't. This is why the observed temperatures immediately fell after that year.

[Anonymous No.6593078]

>>6593049

Except "scenario C" was defined as a vast cutback in CO2 output which didn't happen. The fitting scenario is A which failed. See original graph for full accuracy in the attached file.

[Anonymous No.6593083]

>>6593057
>Exactly, the opposite of what you said.
now you're not even reading my posts

try reading the whole thing and not picking bits out of context

[Anonymous No.6593087]

>>6593083
You said that it's okay if the theory is wrong and we still continue to believe it.

[Anonymous No.6593089]

>>6593087
nope, that's not what i said at all.

you're a shitty troll

[Anonymous No.6593090]

>>6593069

This was done AFTER THE FACT. The data fitting might have been in "yellow period," but the models were altered after the fact to get the "right answer." These were not the original models.

POST MODELS FROM AN EARLIER TIME SO THINGS CAN'T BE FAKED! Like:
>>6593068

Can't do it, can you?

[Anonymous No.6593092]

>>6593078
Why are the graphs overlaid like that?
Why didn't the author just plug the data in and make a graph, like a normal person.
Need I point out that the axes don't even line up?

Scenario B fits best anyways

[Anonymous No.6593095]

>>6593078
>climate science is wrong because a 30 year old paper from the start of the field wasn't very accurate
lel

[Anonymous No.6593099]

>>6593090
>but the models were altered after the fact to get the "right answer."

Do you not understand how mathematical modelling works? Every model has a set of unknown parameters, which have to be determined numerically and experimentally. If you call this "faking the models", then you obviously have no idea how science works.

>MODELS FROM AN EARLIER TIME SO THINGS CAN'T BE FAKED
That's a later time, not an earlier time. It wouldn't prove your point anyways, because of what I mentioned:
>>6593077

[Anonymous No.6593100]

>>6593069
>Carbon tax = fixed price of carbon
>Cap and trade = fixed amount of carbon
>carbon tax is not used to get money, it's used to keep the price stable which is better for businesses

That's incredibly naive. Believing that an abstract definition will be what is actually enacted by government. Government see $$$ opportunity, government takes $$$ opportunity.

[Anonymous No.6593101]

>>6593099
>Do you not understand how mathematical modelling works?
if they did they wouldn't be arguing this point, now would they

[Anonymous No.6593102]

>>6593100
I do not deny that a carbon tax could be misused.
I seriously hope it doesn't.

[Anonymous No.6593106]

>>6593099

Christ you're naive. Models are not fixed mathematical equations. They use some equations, but there's a lot of tweaking to be done.

Did you know that climate "forcings" are NOT instatiated from a bottom-up physical way? Nope, they're assumed.

How convenient. Want cooling, add aerosols! Want warming, add sun influence etc. Its to a large degree ad hoc.

[Anonymous No.6593108]

So it's been the coldest in fucking forever, it's the middle of june and I still wear a sweater outside.

Where is this "climate change"?

[Anonymous No.6593113]

>>6593106
>Models are not fixed mathematical equations
Well, technically they're programs to be run on a computer, but I don't understand the objection.

Why don't you actually read about some models, you seem a bit confused:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_climate_model

[Anonymous No.6593115]

>>6593108
troll/10

[Anonymous No.6593116]

>>6593115
not fucking trolling bro

I was pissed off this entire winter

[Anonymous No.6593121]

>>6593116
heat wave is suppose to hit the midwest this week.

[Anonymous No.6593131]

>>6593121
I'll believe it when I see it.

[Anonymous No.6593144]

>>6593131
There were midwest heat waves in the summers of 2011, 2012, and 2013, according to a quick google search.

There's a heat wave in Cali right now.

[Anonymous No.6593162]

>>6593113

I'm not confused. And I stand by what I said. And Wikipedia is Shill-pedia when it comes to Climate Change. Naive me. I thought that they actually objectively discuss all the flaws and failing of climate change "science." Nope the ignore it. But then I read that NASA had a full time guy controlling the articles. And some guy (same one?) was locking them all down. Don't know if those guys are still involved, but I know that you can't get a single skeptical comment in except as a point of ridicule.

The pretense of what the models do, and the reality are very different.

[Anonymous No.6593168]

>>6593026
Without fail, a tin-foiler will always post this graph from the well-known creationist and plagiarist, despite the VERY same journal that it was published in denouncing it. This is not to mention the the scientific rebuttals published.

This confirms how easily science is dismissed/accepted according to your political agenda.

[Anonymous No.6593172]

>>6593162
Try reading the scientific journals, then, instead of politically charged blogs.

[Anonymous No.6593178]

>>6593162
>I stand by what I said

that's fine, I didn't argue with you to convince you.
I argued with you so that uncertain people who read this thread won't be convinced by your conspiracy bullshit :)

bye!

[Anonymous No.6593179]

>>6593095

Don't be stupid, I was providing the original reference for the graph shown here:
>>6593049

It gives context not mentioned. Scenario C is the scenario where there is a MASSIVE cutback in anthropogenic CO2. Didn't happen, thus falsifying the comment:

>it's not proven wrong. the models DO work

[Anonymous No.6593184]

>>6593099

I repeat, Post Climate Model Predictions that were made Before the temp data. I couldn't care less about a model published after the fact which claims to be based on "before the fact," parametrization even though tweaking certain parameters at another time doesn't mean that other parameters weren't tweaked for later times. In fact, that's exactly what they've done! Added aerosol forcings etc. to account for the non-warming of the past 15 years. BFD.

Post Successful Predictions that Were Published Before The Fact!

Can't do it, can you?

They predictions FAIL, yet we're supposed to believe that the "Sky Is Falling, Pay your carbon tax!"

[Anonymous No.6593186]

>>6593144
You should probably just kill yourself.

[Anonymous No.6593189]

Hey climatefags, what if I don't want to have to pay a carbon tax and reduce my living standards?

[Anonymous No.6593195]

>>6593189
Then vote against carbon taxes.

[Anonymous No.6593196]

>>6593172

>read politicized journals where editors mostly refuse to publish skeptics.

You really don't get it. You take the concept of science and assume that something labeled "science" is scientific. Doesn't make it so. Humans are incredibly subjective an fallible. And even "objective" science has been wrong many times. Earth-centered solar system. Light without a particle aspect. Deterministic mechanics etc.

But the worst is politicized science. Happened before. Don't be naive and think it can't happen again.

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

[Anonymous No.6593197]

Guys, I saw the Day After Tomorrow and that made me realize how disastrous climate change could be too!

[Anonymous No.6593198]

>>6593195
Like that's going to do anything.

[Anonymous No.6593209]

[Anonymous No.6593212]

>>6593178

>conspiracy bullshit :)

The inevitable and pathetic resort to ad hominem. Can't argue that facts, so resort to insults. You're the one who probably believes in a vast evil conspiracy by the Oil Companies and the evil Koch brothers.

Let me guess, so every scientific belief that was accepted by authorities and yet turned out to be wrong was a conspiracy, huh?

So the ether theory of light was a big conspiracy?

So the continuous theory of matter (pre-atomic) was a big conspiracy, huh?

Pre-relativistic mechanics, which all the institutions believed in, they were all in on a conspiracy, huh?

Your "reasoning" is painfully specious. Science gets things wrong all the time. And people who make a living off it want to maintain the status quo. That's human nature. THERE IS NO CONSPIRACY. Just people acting on their mutual self-interest.

'It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.' - Upton Sinclair

[Anonymous No.6593219]

>>6593209
Please stop posting graphs from the same creationist.

[Anonymous No.6593224]

>>6593209

[Anonymous No.6593226]

>>6593212
>Upton Sinclair
Boy that really helps your credibility you massive fucking retard.

You people honestly believe whatever you're told by the media and government schools.

Holy fucking shit what a waste of flesh.

[Anonymous No.6593228]

>>6593219
Which changes nothing.

Also creationists try to create a fact(global warming is real!) based on their belief(global warming is real!). If they were interested in actual science there would be models that predict temperature decline too instead of whole-heartedly buying that a single digit gas concentration is the main thermostat for global climate.

[Anonymous No.6593231]

>>6593092

The red line is the temperature data which was recorded after the prediction is made. The closes scenario is scenario C, massive CO2 output decrease. It goes without saying that this scenario didn't happen.

[Anonymous No.6593236]

>>6593226
>You people honestly believe whatever you're told by the media and government schools.

You're not even coherent. The government schools all teach Climate Change as accepted fact.

[Anonymous No.6593237]

>>6592240
"The Dinosaurs never saw that asteroid coming. What's our excuse?"
-Neil DeGrasse Tyson

[Anonymous No.6593240]

>>6593219

The inevitable and pathetic resort to ad hominem. What do you expect for someone with a deep faith in a central authority.

[Anonymous No.6593241]

>>6593226
>You have a different opinion than mine (which is based on nothing but shit i found on the internet)
>You are literally a waste of life because of it

Why don't you just end it already, anon? Nobody's stopping you.

[Anonymous No.6593245]

>>6593224
Why is nobody quoting this graph?

[Anonymous No.6593249]

>>6593224

Wow! A warmist blogger claimed that Spencer lied. Give the original reference to the data which shows this purported change.

How come Spencer's graph looks a lot like the UN IPCC AR4's graph?

>>6593068

I suppose the UN IPCC is a bunch of evil deniers?

IF this ain't the working definition of unfalsifiable, I don't know what is...

[Anonymous No.6593255]

>>6593249
We've already been over this.
This graph:
>>6593068
uses 1990 as a baseline temperature when in reality 1990 was an abnormally warm year.

[Anonymous No.6593273]

>>6593255
>1990 was an abnormally warm year.
>Lame excuse

That's the year the IPCC picked, knowing full well what it's temp was compared to the previous years... unless they don't care about climate science.

I get so sick of your lame after-the-fact excuses for failed predictions. Who came up with that one? SkS treehouse boyz?

And look at the RSS satellite data here (red line):
>>6593078

OMFG! Its 0.1 degrees warmer! Of course a few years later its back to the same level, so how is this abnormally warm?

More unfalsifiability.

[Anonymous No.6593280]

>>6593241
>why don't you believe whatever public schools taught you
>why aren't you as indoctrinated as me

Why do you seriously hate yourself this much?
Swallow poison.

>>6593236
>The government schools all teach Climate Change as accepted fact.
Yes, I know, which was my point.
Retard.

[Anonymous No.6593297]

>You will never be able to discuss climate change without some morons who never took high school chemistry staunching defending their position simply because it is in line with their politics.

[Anonymous No.6593309]

>>6593249
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc_lt_5.6.txt
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/download.html

There are the data sources.

>The inevitable and pathetic resort to ad hominem.

Not believing in evolution and thinking the world is 6,000 years old is not ad hominem; this demonstrates his inability to assess evidence. Furthermore, his academic record of plagiarizing and purposefully fudging data demonstrates his ill-intent.

And all of this information is simply dealing with models. Greenhouse gasses, the potency of CO2 as a CO2 gas, and the wavelengths of light/heat it captures and emits is easily testable and predictable, so is the increases in CO2 in the atmosphere.

[Anonymous No.6593327]

>>6593209
Furthermore, here is a scientific rebuttal to the paper (and graph): http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/216/Dessler2011.pdf

[Anonymous No.6593339]

So even if global warming is happening.
Is it really that bad of a thing?

It's not like permanent damage would occur, the ozone layer repairs itself pretty rapidly.

We're going to transition from fossil fuels anyway in the next 40 years.

Why do we need to reduce our living standards and industry(and also ironically capacity to develop renewable energy technology) just because of the environment?

[Anonymous No.6593353]

>>6593339
For starters, read the Stern report.
Global warming will cause economic damage, so we need to balance the two.
This is theoretically what a carbon tax will do.
You set the price of carbon at the exact external cost that carbon pollution causes, and the market finds the optimal amount of carbon that will balance the external costs.
This has the problem that the exact price of carbon is hard to pin down.
A carbon tax is an example of a Pigovian tax:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax
An alternative method is to find an emissions pathway that will minimize harm to the economy, both from global warming and emissions reductions.
Then you use a cap and trade system to stay on that pathway.
The problem with cap and trade is that the price of carbon can fluctuate too much, which is bad for businesses.
There are some proposals for a mix between cap and trade and carbon tax.

Another problem is that most of the effects of global warming will only become acute several generations from now. So we need to balance our own luxuries with future generations.

So I'd say that none of these actually reduce your living standards, because your living standards might be worse with global warming (of course it varies regionally. Global warming will be good for people in Greenland, but absolutely terrible for Sub-Saharan Africa).

[Anonymous No.6593368]

>>6593353
>So I'd say that none of these actually reduce your living standards
How fucking retarded are you?

Less capital goods/consumer goods produced in an economy DOES lower my living standards and forces me to work HARDER to have the same living standard I had before, you retarded neo-luddite.

Why are economic illiterates allowed to breathe?

> will only become acute several generations from now
Wouldn't the ozone layer repair itself by then? We would be off most fossil fuels by then.

[Anonymous No.6593382]

>>6592333
We know that CO2 has a greenhouse effect and how strong the effect is, which gives us a way to predict how much the planet will warm with X parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere. We know of a number of very bad things that will happen at various levels of global warming, like sea ice melting and raising the global sea level or the oceans acidifying.

[Anonymous No.6593385]

>>6593368
No, I understand that you're living standards will decrease over what they are now, but I'm saying that they're actually better than what they would be if no action were taken at all, and we allowed pollution to go on as normal.

Do I need to draw a picture?

[Anonymous No.6593386]

No one ever seems to bring up the looming political danger. Because average temperatures have risen in Russia, there has been more mining and agriculture. They would continue to benefit from this for many years.

CO2 fertilize the plants all over the world. When there is more, plants grow larger. They will also keep their stomata open less and that will result in less water loss (so even if their is less rain, it might be less of an issue), and growing seasons will be longer in areas where there is the most agriculture (mid-Northern Hemisphere). As far as Russia's interests are concerned, they should not comply with UN emission treaties pertaining to climate change.

[Anonymous No.6593389]

>>6593382
>like sea ice melting and raising the global sea level
This is bad why?
It won't raise by that much.

>or the oceans acidifying.
Who cares?

Also another result of increased co2 is MASSIVE plant growth, resulting in less co2.

Never thought of that did you?

[Anonymous No.6593391]

>>6593368
>didn't read the entire sentence
>gets indignant uses caps
lel

[Anonymous No.6593392]

>>6593385
>No, I understand that you're living standards will decrease over what they are now
Yes, which is why we need to fight you people.

So glad your bullshit is dying.

>but I'm saying that they're actually better than what they would be if no action were taken at all, and we allowed pollution to go on as normal.
Bullshit, I don't give a fuck if it's two degrees hotter outside, I really don't.

I do care however if I have to work super hard to pay for food and my mortgage.

>Do I need to draw a picture?
Ah yes the economic illiterate tries projecting condescendingly. Hilarious.

[Anonymous No.6593396]

>>6593389
>It won't raise by that much.
What is your standard for "that much"? It takes a very small measurement in feet of sea level change for hundreds of millions of people to be displaced from their coastal homes.

>Who cares
The life forms in the ocean that can't survive an acidic environment, or us, who depend on the algae that produces most of the oxygen in the atmosphere, which can't live in an acidic environment.

>MASSIVE plant growth
Most CO2 consumption happens in the ocean with algae. See the above point. CO2 also does not encourage plant growth. Plant growth is not currently bound by the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

[Anonymous No.6593397]

>>6593391
>doesn't read my post whatsoever
>still thinks if we consume less resources we will have the same living standards

lol liberals

[Anonymous No.6593398]

>>6593385
>>6593392
I drew a picture
>not sure if trolling

[Anonymous No.6593402]

>>6593396
>It takes a very small measurement in feet of sea level change for hundreds of millions of people to be displaced from their coastal homes.
Like what?

2 inches?

> CO2 also does not encourage plant growth.
Uh, yes it does. It's what they use for energy you fucking idiot.

[Anonymous No.6593406]

>>6593398
Totally ebin, you sure told him.

Who needs resources like food and water anyway? Why does africa even need to develop their industry and become 1st world nations?
So glad the government will step in to stop CATASTROFIC!11 CLIMATE CHANGE!!11 and prevent people from getting food and water.

[Anonymous No.6593407]

>>6593339
The last time shit like this happened it killed off ~70% of terrestrial mammals

[Anonymous No.6593408]

>>6593386
>>6593389
>Massive plant growth

Time to interrupt your program with actual science: ftp://128.171.151.230/engels/Stanley/Textbook_update/Science_298/Shaw-02.pdf

[Anonymous No.6593409]

>>6593402
Plant growth caused by CO2 increase will be dwarfed by the reduction of yields caused by heat waves and drought.

Have you thought this through?

[Anonymous No.6593411]

>>6593397
>I'm not liberal
you are so buttblasted that it's cute.

I made a clickable link to bring you to where you belong, internet friend:
>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.6593412]

>>6593409
>Plant growth caused by CO2 increase will be dwarfed by the reduction of yields caused by heat waves and drought.

Yeah if you're delusional enough to think that would happen.

Even if it did "warm" the "warming" part comes way later after the increased co2, meanwhile plants are booming and converting that co2 to oxygen.

[Anonymous No.6593414]

>>6593411
>I'm not liberal
>I support carbon taxes

[Anonymous No.6593415]

>>6593406
Africa does need to develop, this is why all serious emissions reductions schemes put the vast majority of reductions on 1st world countries.

Alternatively, there's the so-called clean development mechanism, however, this has mostly been used in China and has overall not been very successful.

A worldwide cap and trade system (which would basically be equivalent to having infinitesimal property rights over the Earth's temperature) would result in funds going to Africa which would be much larger than current US foreign aid.

[Anonymous No.6593416]

>>6593414
I don't support carbon taxes. Nice try.

[Anonymous No.6593419]

The fearmongering over the "disastrous" affects of increased co2 are extremely overblown.

We would be off fossil fuels by the time any of this shit happened, and the ozone layer would repair itself.

Humans are naive to think they can affect the earth this much.

[Anonymous No.6593420]

>>6593412
>did not read the science
>>6593408

[Anonymous No.6593421]

>>6593416
Then what are we arguing about?

You faggot

>>6593415
>Africa does need to develop, this is why all serious emissions reductions schemes put the vast majority of reductions on 1st world countries.
Preventing our economic growth also inhibits their economic growth as well. Also there shouldn't be any carbon taxes on africa.

>A worldwide cap and trade system
Anyone who honestly supports this should be shot in the brain.

[Anonymous No.6593422]

>>6593419
What about the fearmongering over the giant climate science conspiracy that's out to impose taxes that will infringe upon your freedoms etc. etc.?

Do you not see the parallels?

[Anonymous No.6593423]

>>6593419

[Anonymous No.6593426]

>>6593421
I'm laughing at how all of your claims are having peer reviewed, scientific literature posted that rebuke it, and you literally have nothing else other than swearing, caps, and calling people liberals. You are literally the most BTFO person I have seen on /sci/, and it makes me happy.

[Anonymous No.6593427]

>>6593421
>Anyone who honestly supports this should be shot in the brain

I'm 190 8% bf, squat 450 dead 500 bench 250
come at me faggot

[Anonymous No.6593430]

>>6593420
>posts an ftp link instead of actually having an argument

[Anonymous No.6593432]

>>6593430
>not understanding how scientific discourse works

[Anonymous No.6593433]

>>6593427
>I'm 190 8% bf, squat 450 dead 500 bench 250
>come at me faggot
Wait you think I'm joking or something?

There are billions of people that would kill people like you that want to set up a world government with global carbon taxes.

Not saying I would do anything, I would probably just sit back and do nothing, just that most of everyone else would, the militia movement in the united states shows that.

[Anonymous No.6593436]

>>6593422
>What about the fearmongering over the giant climate science conspiracy that's out to impose taxes that will infringe upon your freedoms etc. etc.?
Except that's not fearmongering. That's literally what they say they are going to do.

You people are coming up with hypotheticals and saying we should all become poor to defend against these what if scenarios.

[Anonymous No.6593443]

>>6593432
>posts an ftp link instead of actually having an argument

>>6593426
I'm laughing
Lul
Yeah I'm sure you are bro.

>and you literally have nothing else other than swearing, caps
Where is this happening. I was discussing the economics of carbon taxes.

>and calling people liberals
Protip: You are a liberal.

[Anonymous No.6593448]

>>6593433
>There are billions of people that would kill people like you
No there aren't. No there fucking aren't. The vast majority of humans are averse to violence.

>Not saying I would do anything, I would probably just sit back and do nothing,
Coward.

>just that most of everyone else would, the militia movement in the united states shows that.
The militia movement shows that people are easy to spook and when spooked will acquire resources to try and protect themselves. It shows nothing about initiating violence. The people who do that don't even make up a minority, they're outliers. See: Christopher Dorner.

[Anonymous No.6593452]

>>6593443
> Protip: You are a liberal.
We have a containment board for your crap.
http://www.4chan.org/rules#global3
fuck off back to >>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.6593456]

Wow, I feel sorry for the billions of Africans who will be severely harmed by climate change and for whom a global cap and trade system would greatly improve their quality of life.

I also feel bad for the thousands of poor Americans, especially poor farmers, who will be disproportionately affected by climate change and for whom a national cap and trade system would be hugely beneficial.

I wish these brainwashed conspiracy theorists would actually read the Stern report, or any publication about the economics of climate change, because so far, they have proved that they know absolutely fucking nothing.

[Anonymous No.6593457]

>>6593443
>receives a link to peer reviewed scientific literature
>thinks scientific research isn't an argument
I do not think /sci/ is the board for you.

[Anonymous No.6593461]

>>6593448
>No there aren't. No there fucking aren't.
HAHAHAHA
Yes there is you fucking idiot.
You actually think all of the countries of the world would destroy their national sovereignty to join some USSR-esque totalitarian system?
Sorry you were beaten as a child and have this strange desire to control other people, but it's not going to happen.

In fact countless right wing parties winning in europe over the past 6 months proves you dead wrong.

>The vast majority of humans are averse to violence.
Which is why people will defend themselves against people using violence against them.

>Coward.
lol okay say what you want, at least I would still be alive

>are easy to spook
Yes, when there are legitimate threats you gigantic sycophantic retard.

>See: Christopher Dorner.
See: 1989-1990 in the USSR.

>>6593452
>you can call people conservative but you can't call them liberal
okay liberal

[Anonymous No.6593463]

>>6593456
>poor Americans, especially poor farmers
Dude, fuck American farmers. Fuck them in every orifice. Them and their lobbying have had a massive role in making Americans fat and unhealthy.

[Anonymous No.6593464]

>>6593457
>expects everyone to read an entire peer reviewed study instead of explaining what the study contains

You're really terrible at this aren't you?

[Anonymous No.6593465]

>>6593464
Yes, I expect you to read and understand science to hold an argument in /sci/.

[Anonymous No.6593466]

>>6593456
>Wow, I feel sorry for the billions of Africans who will be severely harmed by climate change and for whom a global cap and trade system would greatly improve their quality of life.

>there are people who ACTUALLY believe preventing economic growth in africa will help africans
>they ACTUALLY believe up is down and black is white

[Anonymous No.6593467]

>>6593465
>too stupid to read and understand an article he found on huffingtonpost
>expects everyone in this thread to drop fucking everything and read and understand every single word with a fine tooth comb

You're really terrible at this aren't you?

[Anonymous No.6593468]

>>6593461
>Ctrl+F: conservative
Look at all of them faggots calling people conservative.

[Anonymous No.6593469]

>>6593456
>Wow, I feel sorry for the billions of Africans who will be severely harmed by climate change
WE DIDN'T LISTEN

CLIMATE CHANGE

IT'S HAPPENING

WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE

WHY WON'T YOU PEOPLE LISTEN TO ME?

[Anonymous No.6593471]

>>6593461
>You actually think all of the countries of the world would destroy their national sovereignty to join some USSR-esque totalitarian system?
Yeah, that totally happened with the EU. Oh wait. No. It didn't. I was beaten as a child, but it doesn't stop me from being able to use logic. It's also got no bearing on the conversation here.

>defend themselves
You're not talking about defense, you're talking about starting shit.

>legitimate threats
In what way exactly? When did taxes become violent threats?

>Comparing shit like cap'n trade to the USSR
Wow you've jumped into the fucking deep end of the retard pool.

>Complaining about taxing people
>using liberal as an insult
Careful, mong. Don't wanna get irony poisoning.

[Anonymous No.6593472]

>>6593468
>bawww go back to /pol/ after every single post
This happens on every board.

[Anonymous No.6593474]

>>6593472
Does someone else remember that quote about some people calling you crazy vs. all people calling you crazy?

[Anonymous No.6593476]

>>6593472
if you act like a /pol/tard you're gonna get labeled a /pol/tard.
http://www.4chan.org/rules#global3

[Anonymous No.6593480]

>>6593471
>Yeah, that totally happened with the EU.
Which is collapsing as we speak.

>I was beaten as a child
Well that certainly explains a lot. Well I'm sorry that your sadistic system will not be implemented in any way. It's just not possible.

>but it doesn't stop me from being able to use logic.
Apparently it does.

>You're not talking about defense, you're talking about starting shit.
What the fucking shit, you're threatening people and using violence against them for "polluting too much CO2"?
We are by fucking definition defending ourselves.
You're the aggressor you retard.

>When did taxes become violent threats?
W-what?
Are you trolling me right now?
How do you think taxes work? Do you think they are voluntary? What happens if you don't pay your taxes, eventually you go to jail.

>Comparing shit like cap'n trade to the USSR
That's exactly what it is.

[Anonymous No.6593484]

>>6593476
>you can call people /pol/tards but you cannot call them liberals
Liberal pls go