/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.9399625]

So what's the verdict? Is climate change a hoax or what?

[Anonymous No.9399636]

>>9399625
>Is climate change a hoax or what?
Obviously

[Anonymous No.9399637]

No, but our impact (and collective ability to stop or slow it down) is overstated by environmentalists who have their own agenda.

[Anonymous No.9399639]

>>9399625
Climate change/AGW is currently the best theory that fits the observed data.

[Anonymous No.9399640]

No.

[Anonymous No.9399643]

>>9399625
Climate change is a hoax and sad!

[Anonymous No.9399644]

>>9399625

Yes, it's still a hoax. Every generation has their own climate catastrophe hoax. In a decade you'll be laughing at kids lecturing you about "insert buzzword climate scare term here". For our generation it was global cooling and "TERRIBLE ACIDS RAINS IN GERMANY KILLING ALL FORESTS" to a lesser extent.

It's just leftists trying to appeal to emotion to secure their votes and tax bux.

[Anonymous No.9399646]

Of course.
So are vaccines.

[Anonymous No.9399653]

>>9399644
>implying the ozone layer isn't going to be the death of us all

[Anonymous No.9399654]

>>9399644
Hey buddy I think you got the wrong door. /pol/ is 2 boards down

[Anonymous No.9399655]

>>9399654
>another poster spooked by the /pol/ bogeyman

[Anonymous No.9399657]

>>9399654
mfw it actually is

[Anonymous No.9399658]

Why did I vote for this guy

Everyday I realize Trump was actually just retarded

[Anonymous No.9399660]

>>9399625
lmao, /sci/ collectively BTFO.

[Anonymous No.9399662]

>>9399655
>come from /pol/
>say dumb /pol/ shit
>get told to go back to /pol/
>LE BOOGEYMAN!!

Post origami in /po/. Post movies in /tv/. Post retard /pol/ shit in /pol/. Is it that hard?

[Anonymous No.9399663]

>>9399658
Nice concern trolling, ShariaBlue shill

[Anonymous No.9399664]

>>9399658
you're just incapable of understanding the many levels at which his brain works, brainlet

[Anonymous No.9399665]

>>9399639
>Climate change
Can someone explain why it went from "global warming" to "climate change?"
That seems like a really fucking weaselly thing to do. Like now you get to be correct whether the temperature goes up or down.

[Anonymous No.9399666]

>>9399658
Perhaps the real lesson here is for you to realize that you're also retarded.

[Anonymous No.9399667]

>>9399658

Despite some of his twitter dumbassery, the guy has remarkably stuck to his campaign promises, even through media hellfire

I'm very pleased with my vote a year later

[Anonymous No.9399668]

>>9399663
I wish anon. Also stop samefagging.

[Anonymous No.9399671]

>>9399654

Screw you

[Anonymous No.9399673]

>>9399665
>Can someone explain why it went from "global warming" to "climate change?"
It didn't, that's just some canard that thrown out there to make the subject look shiftier. You can go to scholar and see for your self that the both climate change and global warming have been in use for decades. AFAIK climate change is caused by global warming.

[Anonymous No.9399674]

>>9399655
spook is now what redpill used to be
great job

[Anonymous No.9399676]

>>9399667
>literally only voted for him for illegal immigration and taxes
>both of those things lackluster
>last few months have been spent on fucking football politics and retarded twitter shit
>net neutrality repeal absolutely unfucking necessary

yeah no fucking thank you.

[Anonymous No.9399677]

>science and match board
>doesn't accept climate change and supports a billionaire republican

/pol/'s really done a number on this place.

[Anonymous No.9399678]

>>9399676
>>last few months have been spent on fucking football politics and retarded twitter shit
At least he hasn't destroyed our country like Hillary would have done by now

[Anonymous No.9399680]

>>9399665

It was harder to (((shut it down))) due to the internet so they had to do go that way instead to not lose all credibility.

[Anonymous No.9399682]

>>9399673
>It didn't
No, fuck you, I didn't imagine all those years of "global warming" growing up only to hear everyone start calling it "climate change" later on. It was always "global warming" during the 80s and 90s, I don't care if you find some random paper where someone mentioned the words "climate change" once a few decades ago, anyone who was alive back then knows "global warming" were the buzzwords thrown at you.

[Anonymous No.9399684]

>>9399677
Indeed

[Anonymous No.9399686]

>>9399644
>Every generation has their own climate catastrophe hoax
But every generation did have their own environmental catastrophe.
>yfw leftists say lead in the air is bad.

[Anonymous No.9399687]

>>9399625
Why does the left react so emotionally when people are skeptical about climate change/global warming? No one cares at all when flat earthers or moon landing skeptics speak up

[Anonymous No.9399688]

>>9399676

You're wrong. ICE has been as aggressive as ever. He got rid of DACA so that the Republican dominant Congress would have to revisit immigration and make an actual reformative bill.

Passed an "America First" executive order which is currently attacking H1-B at the core, which is major for American tech workers. Still trying to get prototypes of the wall and a bill in the works, although this one will get more pushback in Congress.

He also did pass comprehensive tax reform which will result in a cut for 95% of Americans (I will get a $2,000 cut making $61k a year) and more importantly, cut taxes for businesses who can use that to pay workers more and accelerate growth (rather than keeping that money in fat, inefficient, useless bureaucracy like it has).

Net Neutrality was always a needless regulation and a foot in the door for the federal government to control the internet, which is inherently decentralized. Do you remember any crazy problems 3 years ago?

So yes, still really happy. Keep trying though my good MSNBC hillbot.

[Anonymous No.9399690]

>>9399677

Weak bait, only gave you a (you) because I liked the pic.

[Anonymous No.9399691]

>>9399682
>What is semantic shift?

[Anonymous No.9399692]

>>9399682
Did you look at scholar? I know you didn't other wise you would have seen that the incidence of the two are about the same. If you want to complain about the MSM then fuck off to somewhere else, it's not my fault you listen to those retards.

[Anonymous No.9399693]

>>9399687
Because flath earthers are harmless. Climate change denialists could result in a mass scale catastrophe.

[Anonymous No.9399694]

>>9399690
It's not bait. You are genuinely dumb if you do either of the forementioned things.

[Anonymous No.9399701]

>>9399687

If anyone feels like they have to get furiously emotional when making a "point", it's usually because they are sitting on a foundation of sand and don't want to get picked apart by logic and reason.

That isn't a partisan trend btw, Repubs do it plenty with Muslims and the "War on Christianity"

[Anonymous No.9399704]

>>9399688
>cut taxes for businesses who can use that to pay workers
Why would they do that? labor price is dependent on demand and supply. Not on the profit of the businesses.

[Anonymous No.9399715]

>>9399686

>yfw leftists say lead in the air is bad.

>Ask for proof
>They deliver clear convincing evidence instead of squirming around fabricating data and spreading hysteria
>We solve the problem together in a matter of years

Cheers, you leftist cunts can be okay every now and then. Just don't expect me to fall for your lies because I trusted you when you spoke the truth.

[Anonymous No.9399719]

>>9399704
>Why would they do that? labor price is dependent on demand and supply. Not on the profit of the businesses.

They already have. The news has been full of stories of major corporations immediately announcing bonuses and raises.

>demand and supply

Supply, anon. They have more money. They can compete more for high value workers (especially internationally, since our corporate rate is now on par with other developed countries), pay good workers more to retain them, and greenlight more projects that may have been on the backburner due to less available capital.

A business wants to grow. It only grows with its means. They now have more means. We're a service economy, they don't all sell toys. That is silly logic.

[Anonymous No.9399720]

>>9399694

Now you're just being desperate. Here's one last pity (you).

[Anonymous No.9399722]

>another /pol/ thread
why are those allowed here, it's not like you have /tv/ or /his/ threads here

[Anonymous No.9399726]

>>9399682
It was global warming until we froze our asses off a few years ago and the media was like "global warming? really? in this weather?" and even people were saying "global warming???" so a few guys upstairs said "call it climate change because it's not specifically warming!" or whatever to stop everyone from killing the EPA... which happened anyway so whatever. It's not like it matters when China and India and elsewhere are grabbing their ankles and shitting/farting skyward collectively regardless of whether it's called "global warming" "climate change" or not called anything at all. If people wanted to stop global warming they'd go to the worst offenders... USA is bad but we're not as bad as China India Russia... for China just look at their major cities and rivers

[Anonymous No.9399730]

>>9399722

This. /sci/ is supposed to be a leftist echo-chamber, just like the academia is today. /sci/ has no place for alternative view points. This has to stop. Mods, do something.

[Anonymous No.9399732]

>>9399730
I also get my scientific insight from a politician.

[Anonymous No.9399733]

>>9399715
Except you have been delivered clear convincing evidence of climate change too. If anything the research is much more rigorous and convincing.
Instead you decided to believe in a twitting faggot.

[Anonymous No.9399734]

>>9399732

Rude. Stop using strawmen

[Anonymous No.9399735]

>>9399726
who the fuck is even talking about China? Why is the answer of most of you guys to deflect blame? Both of your countries need to stop emissions.

If I see two guys burning tires I don't simply stop one no matter the circumstances, I try to stop both.

[Anonymous No.9399746]

>>9399719
>Supply, anon. They have more money
That's not how supply works. A more profitable company doesn't pay more to their employees just because they can. They still pay only the market price.
>The news has been full of stories of major corporations immediately announcing bonuses and raises.
lel. How many corporations are there in US? how many announced raises? Is it so surprising some trump supporting corporations will announce raise?
Its funny the only major law Trump passed in his first year directly profits him. And he failed to fulfill any promises that doesn't affect him (helthcare, wall)

[Anonymous No.9399764]

>>9399688
if it's not gonna do anything what the fuck is the repeal for? you can't be this fucking naive. ISPs used to regulate themselves, overstepped their boundaries, then the government stepped in.

Can you tell me any problems CAUSED by NN?

[Anonymous No.9399766]

>>9399625
Why are brainlets in denial of the human activities that accelerate climate change? Is it a survival instinct? The first phase of grief perhaps? Or are they christcucks who think that a dead kike on a stick will come back and fix everything?

Most of the people I've met who deny climate change are also skeptical of evolution, vaccines, hell I'd bet a big chunk of them are flat earthers as well.

[Anonymous No.9399773]

>>9399746

>That's not how supply works. A more profitable company doesn't pay more to their employees just because they can. They still pay only the market price.

Corporations have different budgets depending on their goals and industries. The services (the backbone of the American economy) are growth-oriented, and are constantly conducting R&D, and have growth and speculative projects filling up backlogs that they address when time or money allows them to. That is how a corporation grows, not twiddling their fingers and waiting for more customers to be born. They are trying to develop a business and product that continues to grow and bring in real revenue.

The "market price" isn't simply within the context of the United States. They have other countries and corporations abroad to contend with. More money means more purchasing power with regards to international competitors. Intranationally, they can afford to pay their value workers more to retain them and attract more. That would mean wages for workers would increase across the board since companies now have significantly more money to compete with one another. They only pay the market price, and the market price has just been bolstered significantly.

[Anonymous No.9399777]

>>9399746
>>9399773

cont.


>lel. How many corporations are there in US? how many announced raises? Is it so surprising some trump supporting corporations will announce raise?
Its funny the only major law Trump passed in his first year directly profits him. And he failed to fulfill any promises that doesn't affect him (helthcare, wall)

I was just pointing out notable examples, and companies that publicly did so. It's going to benefit all of us across the board, as I mentioned earlier. "Trump supporting corporations"? Businesses are in the business of growing and making money, they don't have time for your petty reddit politics. Nothing about this presidential bid has been a profit for Trump, his net worth has estimated to have taken a hit of nearly $1B thanks to the negative publicity and money spent campaigning, this is just a pride thing for him. It's funnily enough why I trusted him to stick to his guns, he may say moronic shit and be uncouth but he has lost a lot to get this position, and he's getting old so he's doing it out of pride and sheer ambition.

Most politicians (Bush/Obama/etc) are in the business of politics, which means they are much more prone to money. They exited office with a net worth much higher than when they entered.

[Anonymous No.9399780]

>>9399693
The only mass scale catastrophe is African and Middle Eastern immigration to Europe and the United States.

[Anonymous No.9399781]

>>9399764

>what the fuck is the repeal for

Republicans are expressly anti-regulation and this is a presumably needless regulation. And since it was passed through a simple commission it is easy as fuck to get rid of. That's it.

Blame Obama for not trying to get this actually hammered out into law through Congress. Then it could have been debated on its merits and whether it was necessary or a regulatory overstep by a power hungry government.

[Anonymous No.9399785]

>>9399625
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjxJsltLDrw

[Anonymous No.9399794]

>>9399625
>He's actually trying to argue climate change is not real at this point
Wew lad.

[Anonymous No.9399801]

>>9399667
I see no wall.

[Anonymous No.9399805]

>>9399801

It has been in the works and he has not shied away from it. Congress has had a busy year with the attack on ACA and then the big Tax Bill.

Honestly, I don't think a big wall is as important or effective as actually ENFORCING our laws and boosting up ICE and border patrol, but won't be that upset if he gets it into the budget, which will be tough.

[Anonymous No.9399807]

>>9399667
>stuck to his campaign promises
and those are?

[Anonymous No.9399811]

>>9399805
That was his main campaign promise. He has no wall. I will like him when he builds the wall, but he won't, because he's a crypto-jew.

[Anonymous No.9399817]

>>9399807

repealing ACA, boosting immigration enforcement/going after H1B, cutting taxes, stopping Muslims

he hasn't "won" all of these battles, and that's just our political dynamic in action, which is fine, but he has gone after them in earnest, and under constant screaming from the media

The guy isn't in it to be popular and that is important. When your dad makes tough but important decisions for his kids and family it is rarely popular but oftentimes critical.

Trump's a populist axe man and that's exactly what we've needed after a streak of globalist neocons.

[Anonymous No.9399818]

>>9399777
>Businesses are in the business of growing and making money, they don't have time for your petty reddit politics.
I can point out that your entire post is groundless speculation, but this line here just shows how fucking naive you are.
>Nothing about this presidential bid has been a profit for Trump,
He doesn't even make his tax public like he PROMISED he would and you still keep believing everything he says.
I don't know if he is doing it for personal profits or if he genuinely thinks tax cut is better for the country, But throughout the campaign, he obviously cared about tax cut more than he cared about any other issues, including the wall.
And I doubt he would ever pass any law that hurts himself or his family, He would consider that a cuck move.

[Anonymous No.9399824]

>>9399805
Also the campaign promise was Mexico will pay for the wall. He still hasn't said how mexico will pay for it.
Also he deported less people than Obama in first year.

[Anonymous No.9399829]

>>9399817
>cutting taxes
leading to long-term budget deficits and probably another economic crash
>stopping Muslims
by banning Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egyp- oh wait, he didn't even ban those countries. He banned warzones that already had limited immigration to the U.S. to appease low information voters. Looks like it worked :^)

[Anonymous No.9399843]

>>9399722
To be fair, /tv/ and /his/ also have a lot of /pol/ threads. Same with almost every other board in this site.

[Anonymous No.9399845]

>>9399817
>repealing ACA
failed at that so hard they had to do it through a tax reform. it will most likely be repealed in the future, but not yet. there is also a record number of people signing up for ACA.
>stopping Muslims
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_New_York_City_truck_attack
>cutting taxes
to the wealthy yeah but over time it will increase for several middle class people

>but he has gone after them in earnest
literally giving him an A for effort.

[Anonymous No.9399848]

>>9399818
>I can point out that your entire post is groundless speculation, but this line here just shows how fucking naive you are.

It isn't groundless speculation. I'll reiterate, not only doesn't it logically follow, but there are plenty of companies who have already publicly pledged to do so. The idea that we live in some kind of box, where the only economic growth comes from how many people are buying how many toys, and how many jobs we can directly derive from that supply chain, is the groundless naive, childlike speculation. I work at a software company, in software and tech the impetus is to develop and constantly innovate and there are limitless projects on the backlog to do so. More money means more resources to pursue that, with new positions or more to offer valuable assets who can help you do it.

>He doesn't even make his tax public like he PROMISED he would and you still keep believing everything he says.
I don't know if he is doing it for personal profits or if he genuinely thinks tax cut is better for the country, But throughout the campaign, he obviously cared about tax cut more than he cared about any other issues, including the wall.
And I doubt he would ever pass any law that hurts himself or his family, He would consider that a cuck move.

You're ranting now and it isn't really worth discussing anymore, you believe what you believe.

>>9399824

>Also the campaign promise was Mexico will pay for the wall. He still hasn't said how mexico will pay for it.

Guess we'll find out how much he'll stick to that. Already said he may use some of their federal aid to finance it.

> Also he deported less people than Obama in first year.

Common misconception, Obama redefined "deportation" to include people turned away at the border and those caught and sent back at the border. Not just those caught within and operating in the U.S. That's why it "rose". It was a clever way of hiding the fact that he was going to pursue a pro-illegal immigrant agenda.

[Anonymous No.9399851]

>>9399817
>repealing ACA,
He did nothing to repeal ACA. he approved every bill the senate or the house proposed. He doesn't have any clue about how health care works and he doesn't care.
>boosting immigration enforcement/going after H1B,
I wish he would reform H1B visa. But he has done nothing.
>cutting taxes,
I will give you that.
>stopping Muslims.
It was a like throwing a bone to his base. banning 5 muslim countries isn't going to do shit and he has no plan of expanding that.

[Anonymous No.9399859]

>>9399829

>leading to long-term budget deficits and probably another economic crash

Our GDP has been growing at a really slow rate anyway, you can look at the quarterly numbers compared to their historic rates during "growth periods". Hopefully this can boost that. If the economy grows enough to offset the inevitable correction (and there is always a correction), then it is still a good bet.

> by banning Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egyp- oh wait, he didn't even ban those countries. He banned warzones that already had limited immigration to the U.S. to appease low information voters. Looks like it worked :^)

He issued an executive order to stop immigration from high danger zones with low amounts of vetting. These countries have no infrastructure and no way for us to vet arrivals. Not all Muslims, but still some of them, and about as much as he could do without seriously hurting our business here, since the others are big countries with ties. Admittedly he couldn't pursue a total ban, that was unrealistic anyway.

>>9399845

>failed at that so hard they had to do it through a tax reform. it will most likely be repealed in the future, but not yet. there is also a record number of people signing up for ACA.

It failed because Republicans aren't a bunch of cucks who tow the party line, a few dissented. That's fine, checks and balances are good. He still stuck to his word, that is all I claimed he was doing. Still has to get through Congress.

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_New_York_City_truck_attack
When did I ever mention totally stopping any and all terrorist attacks across this enormous country?

>to the wealthy yeah but over time it will increase for several middle class people

All net taxpayers will see a cut. If you pay more in taxes you see a bigger cut. That is simple math.

>literally giving him an A for effort.

The start of this post chain was simply me saying he has put in the effort. Durr

[Anonymous No.9399862]

>>9399773
You don't know shit about economics. Increasing income does not increase market price, only quantity demanded. For comparison, lowering the market price would have the same effect. And companies are already raking in record setting profits and have been throughout the recession so giving them slightly more money isn't going to provoke them to buy more labor they aren't buying currently.

[Anonymous No.9399866]

>>9399851
>He did nothing to repeal ACA. he approved every bill the senate or the house proposed. He doesn't have any clue about how health care works and he doesn't care.

How can you say "nothing". He obviously did, since he approved every bill and publicized his stance. Congress didn't agree. That's it. No flip flopping or dropping the issue, he went down with that ship. Soft ass Presidents don't do that.

>I wish he would reform H1B visa. But he has done nothing.

Wrong my friend.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/10/25/technology/business/h1b-visa-renewal-uscis/index.html

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-06/trump-s-h-1b-reform-is-to-make-life-hell-for-immigrants-and-companies

He's going to the mattresses on it. I fucking love it as a software engineer.

>It was a like throwing a bone to his base. banning 5 muslim countries isn't going to do shit and he has no plan of expanding that.

I think that's always been a give a dog a bone issue. I'm aware that plenty of his stances were fairly lowest common denominator but that's politics, his leftist counterpart was offering "free college" and magic money for everyone, which is equally inane. You aren't going to stop violence through rhetoric and bans. He still passed the executive order.

[Anonymous No.9399869]

>>9399848
>ut there are plenty of companies who have already publicly pledged to do so
What percentage of companies promised that?
>You're ranting now and it isn't really worth discussing anymore, you believe what you believe.
What did I say wrong? He did promise he will release his tax. He hasn't, still you keep believeing him.

[Anonymous No.9399871]

>>9399682
Because you grew up not reading scientific papers. 'Climate change' goes back clear into the 1950s

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1956.tb01206.x/abstract

[Anonymous No.9399879]

>>9399682
We've also had a journal called 'Climatic Change' ever since 1977
https://link.springer.com/journal/10584

[Anonymous No.9399880]

>>9399862

It's an international market you dumb fuck. We have the highest corporate taxes in the Western world.

[Anonymous No.9399888]

>>9399880
Irrelevant. Cutting taxes does nothing to raise the international market price for labor. You could argue that it will increase employment because companies now have the money to buy more labor, but they will still predominantly hire the cheapest workers on the international market.

[Anonymous No.9399892]

>>9399866
>http://money.cnn.com/2017/10/25/technology/business/h1b-visa-renewal-uscis/index.html
>https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-06/trump-s-h-1b-reform-is-to-make-life-hell-for-immigrants-and-companies
Thats not a reform. He is just making the process less transparent.
>He's going to the mattresses on it.
He has only 11 more months to do anything.
>as a software engineer.
Ah. This explains why you are a low IQ faggot.

[Anonymous No.9399894]

>>9399880
>It's an international market you dumb fuck
Yes. Corporates were hiring the cheapest labor from the international market and they will keep doing that.

[Anonymous No.9399920]

>>9399859
>When did I ever mention totally stopping any and all terrorist attacks across this enormous country?
you said stopped muslims. either you meant he has stopped some attacks of which there is no way of knowing so only a brainlet would think this, or you meant no muslim attacks have occured which is what the uninformed would claim.

the rest of your post is literally, "b-b-buht trump is t-t-trying."

[Anonymous No.9399924]

>>9399888
>>9399894

>all corporations only look for bottom feeder international trash workers to ruin their companies

Sounds like you guys have a ton of industry experience. Surely highly valuable skilled workers do not exist or add exponentially more value to their company.

[Anonymous No.9399928]

>>9399866
>as a software engineer.
will there ever be an engineer that doesn't fit the faggot stereotype?

[Anonymous No.9399930]

>>9399892
>Thats not a reform. He is just making the process less transparent.

He has significantly raised the requirements, which culls out 50-70% of the people manipulating the system who are qualitatively trash

>Ah. This explains why you are a low IQ faggot.

/sci/ memes aside it explains why I value the H1-B issue so highly and can see the tangible effects of this ramped up enforcement.

[Anonymous No.9399931]

>>9399892
brainlets are content with reform meaning a tiny change

[Anonymous No.9399937]

Why do I of all people live in the land where math doesn't exist? It's not my way to be other than professionally mathematical. Therefore, CHECK OUT MY NEW BOOK:

The General Relevance of the Modified Cosmological Model
http://vixra.org/abs/1712.0598

[Anonymous No.9399944]

>>9399924
>Surely highly valuable skilled workers do not exist or add exponentially more value to their company.
Companies will pay more to hire a more skilled labor, However they will not pay more than the market price for that skilled labor. The profit margin of a company has absolutely shit to do with this.
You are right about companies expanding due to corporate tax cut. You are absolutely wrong about companies giving pay rise to employees due to tax cut.

[Anonymous No.9399947]

>>9399930
>which culls out 50-70% of the people manipulating the system
I see no mention of ths 50-70% in any of the two links you posted. Did you pull this out of your ass. Tell me what requirements he changed.

[Anonymous No.9399948]

>>9399924
Again they're already getting skilled workers at a bargain in other countries. You obviously have no idea how businesses work.

[Anonymous No.9399952]

>>9399948
>turd world
>skilled

[Anonymous No.9399953]

>>9399766
They just desperately try to flinch from their responsibilities to change something.
Its a lot easier to just deny the reality than to actually change your life style

[Anonymous No.9399954]

>>9399944
>You are absolutely wrong about companies giving pay rise to employees due to tax cut.

If other companies have more money to lure those workers with, why would the original company in question not raise wages in order to retain their best talent.

Corporations can spend (or save) the money as they wish, and if some decide to commit to personnel it will give them a competitive leg up over those who decide to save or use it for other things.

At the end of the day, we depend on business in order to live and get income, and anything that is good for business is good for us, to some degree. Big government proponents are going to cry about a tax revenue rollback but it has plenty of merits.

[Anonymous No.9399957]

>>9399625
/Sci/ gets flood by these trumptard bait posts...

[Anonymous No.9399959]

>>9399766
>>9399953
Resources exist to be consumed. And consumed they will be, if not by this generation then by some future. By what right does this forgotten future seek to deny us our birthright?
Let us take what is ours, chew and eat our fill.

[Anonymous No.9399963]

>>9399766
Its a combination of lack of trust of authority (as a result of the 2008 housing crash and subsequent fixes to the problem), combined with rationalizing their need to consume excess amounts of resources (which is fun, really) and not allowing their competitors to win.

For the latter, they kind of need to do this in order to win the game without losing their sanity. They dont really have a choice if you think about it. They need to toss out a few morals in order to win.

[Anonymous No.9399965]

>>9399944
>You are right about companies expanding due to corporate tax cut.
He's not even necessarily right about that. If companies were hard up for cash then that'd be one thing, but because interest rates have been so low for so long these companies could easily borrow funds to expand if they thought they'd increase their profit margin by doing so. Instead they've been using that free money to buy outstanding stock and finance overseas expansion and automation programs. Which is almost certainly where most of these tax savings are going to end up.

[Anonymous No.9399970]

>>9399766
It's sad, because the day will come when people will wish their ancestors had heeded the warnings, and wonder why in the face of all the evidence, they chose to laugh at scientists and carry on as if everything was fine.

[Anonymous No.9399980]

>>9399954
>If other companies have more money to lure those workers with, why would the original company in question not raise wages in order to retain their best talent.
You are being told this a thousand times and you still don't get it. This is because the supply of skilled worker has not gone up. As long as the supply and the demand of the skilled worker stays the same the pay will remain the same.
You can argue that due to expansion of the companies companies will hire more and that will increase demand and that will drive a pay rise. But this is not the argument you presented and at this point it is too difficult to say if this will happen or not.
>Big government proponents are going to cry about a tax revenue rollback but it has plenty of merits.
It is nice when you can simplify an argument into big government vs small government because that's easy to process in your simple mind but that's not really the argument here. Instead you are arguing that the current corporate tax rate(~20) is the best possible tax rate. Not 15% and not 25%. Lower taxes has merits, but it has drawbacks too.

[Anonymous No.9399984]

>>9399954
>If other companies have more money to lure those workers with, why would the original company in question not raise wages in order to retain their best talent.
Because economics simply doesn't work that way. Increased income does not increase market price. Period. Take an econ class and maybe you won't get swindled next time.

[Anonymous No.9399987]

>>9399959
You sound obese.

[Anonymous No.9399988]

>>9399954
>Big government proponents are going to cry about a tax revenue rollback but it has plenty of merits.
Yeah, and when that boarder wall can't get financing, Trumptards will be crying too.

[Anonymous No.9399998]

>>9399988
mexico's paying for that, though

[Anonymous No.9400003]

>>9399998
(You)

[Anonymous No.9400004]

>>9399984

Increased competition does increase the price. Your premise is predicated on the notion that no one will be using some of the extra money to try to lure better talent. In response companies will have to pay more to retain talent. It's simply more free capital among corporations and the reaction can only be positive.

Already, some companies have announced that they will be raising their minimum wage. Workers are on a pay hierarchy, so those with pay grades above them are going to want more compensation, or be automatically moved up, since their work is more valuable.

Why do you keep lording your stupid econ degree? I have taken econ classes, they are rudimentary and don't teach you to examine the world critically, just to apply basic concepts. How could you believe that there is a fixed market value for positions in the event of a flood of free capital into said market. They are going to use that money to be at each other's necks for valuable workers, moreso than they did before, because now they have more means to work with.

[Anonymous No.9400016]

>>9399625

[Anonymous No.9400020]

>>9399625
He is the president of the United States, he has thousands of advisors including various scientific organizations that give him the most recent information and explain it to him in the terms that a non-scientific intellectual can understand.

If he says climate change is fake, then it is fake. Who are any of you to contradict that? Do you have thousands of scientists under you? Do you get daily reports and briefings on the current state of the world? No, you fucking don't.

[Anonymous No.9400022]

>if America is cold the entire world is cold

[Anonymous No.9400023]

>>9399663
How much is the kremlin paying you, Ivan?

[Anonymous No.9400028]

>>9399625
>Is climate change a hoax or what?

[Anonymous No.9400029]

>>9400022
The Arctic Sea is lookin real good right now...

[Anonymous No.9400031]

>>9400022
US is a blessed place. Who cares if the rest of the world boils?

[Anonymous No.9400040]

>>9400004
>Your premise is predicated on the notion that no one will be using some of the extra money to try to lure better talent
Alright this is the last time I am going to try to explain this.
If luring better talent meant better profit margin then companies would already do that. lack of capital is not a problem. If it meant increased profit companies can always borrow money. If they are not borrowing money to hire more talented labor that means the profit increase due to that talent is less than the interest, which is very low to begin with. This will not change due to tax cut.
This is another way of saying the DEMAND for skilled labor does not increase with the profit of a company, which is what everyone in this thread keep repeating to you.

>Already, some companies have announced that they will be raising their minimum wage
This is a painfully stupid argument. A few companies announcing something means nothing. This is a publicity stunt and you fell for it.

[Anonymous No.9400050]

>>9400040
>If luring better talent meant better profit margin then companies would already do that. lack of capital is not a problem

That is incorrect. There is never "enough" capital in a growing economy. There is only cost vs. benefit and budget prioritization. If a company gets more money to allot towards talent acquisition (that did not exist before) they will do it, because they do not have to take it away from another part of their budget.

>If it meant increased profit companies can always borrow money. If they are not borrowing money to hire more talented labor that means the profit increase due to that talent is less than the interest, which is very low to begin with. This will not change due to tax cut.
This is another way of saying the DEMAND for skilled labor does not increase with the profit of a company, which is what everyone in this thread keep repeating to you.

There are plenty of corporations geared towards growth. Amazon, for example, reinvests most of their profits into growth ventures. This is true for many companies. If they have more money they are going to pursue more projects, and need more people. They are going to need to get those people from somewhere, and engineers and managers do not grow on trees.

Even if "the interest" is low, there is still interest, and if there is money to match the interest they will use it.

Not to mention, with a lower corporate rate, more international corporations are going to want to relocate (or stay) here. That means more demand for American workers. That means more expenditure on American workers.

Obviously the economy at large is incredibly complex and there are infinite competing factors. However I don't understand why you think the United States and its industry is this fixed box where demand for talent has reached its saturation and companies are operating off of optimal profit margins with no room for R&D or growth ventures.

[Anonymous No.9400057]

>>9400004
I don't have an econ degree, idiot, I'm an EE major but I've taken introductory econ classes. This is basic shit. Market price of a good, like labor, is determined by supply and demand, nothing else. If the grad student tax had gone through and we saw a crash in the number of people with masters degrees in the workforce, then you might see a pay increase in the next decade.
>Increased competition does increase the price.
No, it doesn't. It's funny, because you're right about econ being a bunch of simple, basic concepts, but you can't even grasp them.
>Your premise is predicated on the notion that no one will be using some of the extra money to try to lure better talent. In response companies will have to pay more to retain talent. It's simply more free capital among corporations and the reaction can only be positive.
Your entire argument is the baseless assumption that companies will increase wages. If companies wanted to get into a costly talent war, they could easily borrow the capital necessary because interest rates are currently so low, or they could tap some of the record setting profits they've been making. But they don't, because talent isn't exactly scarce and getting into a talent war isn't a Nash equilibrium strategy.

[Anonymous No.9400065]

>>9400057
>Your entire argument is the baseless assumption that companies will increase wages. If companies wanted to get into a costly talent war, they could easily borrow the capital necessary because interest rates are currently so low, or they could tap some of the record setting profits they've been making. But they don't, because talent isn't exactly scarce and getting into a talent war isn't a Nash equilibrium strategy.

It isn't an assumption, it is already in the process of happening. You assume they aren't already locked into costly talent wars. That is how wages are determined. They borrow as much as they can risk, but there is a limit to that. You think it's infinite? Child. And everyone is making record setting profits? Child. And everyone who makes crazy profits doesn't aggressively reinvest that into growth ventures? Kid.

>because talent isn't exactly scarce

Good talent absolutely is. If you were part of the good talent crowd you would realize that. But you're a stupid fucking college kid with no industry experience thinking his introductory econ class taught by a dogmatic old asshole has any bearing on reality.

[Anonymous No.9400068]

>>9400022
>Implying the US is part of the rest of the world

[Anonymous No.9400072]

>>9400022
>9399625
>Moscow getting fucking baked

At least I can appreciate the irony.

[Anonymous No.9400075]

>>9400065
sure kid

[Anonymous No.9400078]

>>9400050
If you think money is an issue for amazon than you are truly retarded.

[Anonymous No.9400087]

It's real but the effect humans have on it is debatable. So no I'm not buying your shitty solar panels

[Anonymous No.9400091]

>>9400020

[Anonymous No.9400094]

>>9400091
If you disagree then please, send your army of scientists to the Whitehouse to debate Trump's scientist. I mean, I am not above believing that maybe every single scientist working for the US government is wrong (though you must accept the odds are really low) but if they are wrong then the only thing that can fix it is an honest debate.

If you can contradict the government of the united states I suppose you at least have as much scientific power as them so please use it to debate the president and his cabinet.

[Anonymous No.9400098]

>>9400094
I'm not so sure they have the scientific power you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.9400101]

>>9400050
If you earn double do you pay double to your maid? to you handyman? to the car wash shop? Why would corporations act differently?

[Anonymous No.9400103]

>>9400094
I'm 90% sure you're trolling m8. Prove you aren't.

[Anonymous No.9400104]

>>9400098
>country with the most scientific output
>government contracts and grants for research from all fronts. From NSF, to the military, to the EPA. etc.
>Thousands (if not more) of independent scientists working directly for the government. Whose job is to give briefings to the president on the most recent scientific events.

Yeah, they have no scientific power at all. Keep being delusional.

[Anonymous No.9400106]

>>9400103
>Prove you aren't.
Everything I've said is 100% true. Except for the comment of "climate change is fake". That is my opinion. But my opinion is informed by what the president and his thousands upon thousands of scientists say. That means that my opinion is the most scientifically valid.

If you find me a scientific body more robust than the United States' government then please share so that I may re-assess my position.

[Anonymous No.9400108]

>>9400091
>no argument

[Anonymous No.9400110]

>>9400106
So when Obama said climate change is real you believed him? Because he had the same number of scientist "under" him

[Anonymous No.9400119]

>>9400065
>It isn't an assumption, it is already in the process of happening. You assume they aren't already locked into costly talent wars.
No, I assume they're not going to escalate because there is no reason to.
>They borrow as much as they can risk
Absolutely, and we can determine a businesses priorities looking at how they spend those borrowed funds. Link related is how they choose to spend their money:
https://nypost.com/2017/08/19/us-companies-spent-4t-buying-back-their-own-stock/
>And everyone is making record setting profits?
Yes. Try watching the news sometime.
>And everyone who makes crazy profits doesn't aggressively reinvest that into growth ventures?
See above link for how business are actually interested in growth.
>Good talent absolutely is. If you were part of the good talent crowd you would realize that. But you're a stupid fucking college kid with no industry experience thinking his introductory econ class taught by a dogmatic old asshole has any bearing on reality.
I'm starting to think you aren't actually an engineer. In fact, I'd be willing to bet you're not even out of high school yet. Engineers typically develop basic reasoning skills before the end of their freshmen year, and someone actually in the industry would have some grasp of how companies make decisions. The fact that you don't know how well corporations are doing right now, especially those in tech, is telling, but at least you didn't try to make yourself out to be anything more than a code monkey.

[Anonymous No.9400123]

>>9400094
Most government scientists say anthropogenic climate change is real, though. It's leaders in the fossil fuel industry who say otherwise.

[Anonymous No.9400130]

>>9400104
You realize that Trump replaced scientists because he didn't like what the real scientists were saying right?

For example. Scott Pruitt who Trump chose to lead the EPA is a lawyer with degrees in political science and communications and a doctorate in Law

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

Rather the scientists who work for the US government almost wholeheartedly endorse climate change as man made.

[Anonymous No.9400132]

>>9400110
Yeah, obviously. But Obama was the past. It seems the science has been updated.
>>9400123
>the president doesn't listen to his underlings
Then why even have them lol? Are you implying there is a bunch of useless people on the payroll who the president doesn't even listen to? Wew lad, that is a huge claim. I hope you have some sources to back that huge fucking claim.

[Anonymous No.9400137]

>>9400130
>Trump replaced scientists because he didn't like what the real scientists were saying right
> the scientists who work for the US government almost wholeheartedly endorse climate change as man made

Hmm... so what were the real scientists saying?

[Anonymous No.9400139]

How can money fix climate change?

[Anonymous No.9400141]

Truth is.... there are people who are telling trump what to say. Shocking I know.

We have reached the POINT OF NO RETURN IN CLIMATE CHANGE IN THE 90S

Thats why he withdrew from the meme paris accord earlier this year. We have to spend money on PEOPLE not on preventing climate change, its too late now, better use the tax dollars on health and taxes

[Anonymous No.9400142]

>>9400106
Can you show me a single climatologist advising Trump it's fake? No, you can't, because you're pretending to be retarded.

[Anonymous No.9400143]

>>9400137
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming#.WkXLCYtzKM8

[Anonymous No.9400144]

>>9399667
literally what did he do you dumb faggot
no wall, no muslim ban, no swamp drained. worthless.

[Anonymous No.9400145]

>>9400139
Carbon credits, renewable energy, remediation efforts etc

[Anonymous No.9400150]

>>9400141
>Government scientists have suddenly switched positions and are telling Trump climate change is a hoax, something he was saying for years before being elected
It's a good parody of a Trumptard, but such extreme stupidity is not realistic.

[Anonymous No.9400152]

>>9400142
No, but Trump has advisors. I don't know their exact names. But I know that every day Trump gets briefings. His tweets are simply the results from these breefings.

>>9400143
You are a walking contradiction. I don't even understand what your point is.

[Anonymous No.9400155]

>>9400150
>but such extreme stupidity is not realistic.
It is realistic. It really is. In fact such stupidity is commonplace. Go visit /pol/ sometime if you want to know the depth of human stupidity.

[Anonymous No.9400160]

>>9400152
>No, but Trump has advisors. I don't know their exact names. But I know that every day Trump gets briefings.
>But my opinion is informed by what the president and his thousands upon thousands of scientists say.
>If you disagree then please, send your army of scientists to the Whitehouse to debate Trump's scientist.
>He is the president of the United States, he has thousands of advisors including various scientific organizations that give him the most recent information and explain it to him in the terms that a non-scientific intellectual can understand.
So no scientists then...

>His tweets are simply the results from these breefings.
So which government scientists were advising him 2 years ago when he made the same dumb tweet?

[Anonymous No.9400161]

>>9399654
https://youtu.be/qPJvGMYxDPs

[Anonymous No.9400162]

>>9400152
>No, but Trump has advisors. I don't know their exact names. But I know that every day Trump gets briefings. His tweets are simply the results from these breefings.
So you don't know if he has actual scientist advisers, you just assume he does.

[Anonymous No.9400163]

>>9400162
Just stop he's trolling.

[Anonymous No.9400165]

>>9400160
>So no scientists then...
Yeah. Exactly 0 scientists work for the US government. You have it 100% right.

>So which government scientists were advising him 2 years ago when he made the same dumb tweet?

Obviously none. But think about it. There are two positions: Climate change is real, or it isn't. Everyone has a 50/50 chance of getting it right. It just so happened that after Trump became president and talked to the government's scientists it turned out he was right all along. It is not surprising in any way, really. Anyone could get a 50/50 right.

>>9400162
>So you don't know if he has actual scientist advisers, you just assume he does.
I know he has. Because there are government posts specifically for scientists whose job it is to conduct research on behalf of the president and other branches of government. Please forgive me for the deadly sin of not knowing the exact name of government officials. I am such a shitty person!

[Anonymous No.9400168]

argument
from
authority
XD

[Anonymous No.9400174]

There is a third position
The fact that liberals have overly politicized "climate" anything, and that saying climate change isn't happening is not a statement on the merits of the science, but a statement against the marxist anti-industrial anti-civilization cartel who control the global warming narrative.

[Anonymous No.9400181]

>>9400174
>Saying the Earth is flat is not a statement on the merits of the science, but rather a statement against globalism, book-smart elitist libruls, atheists and puppy-kickers.

[Anonymous No.9400183]

>>9400181
Sorry I haven't heard any media telling us that the Earth being round is the reason why we need to do whatever nonsensical corrupt bullshit the Liberals wanted

Meanwhile the whole "green" scam is making these people billions

[Anonymous No.9400184]

>>9400174
>politicized
I love this meme. Deny scientific facts because they threaten your political ideology, and then blame the OTHER side for politicizing the science. Beautiful, Orwell is crying tears of joy.

[Anonymous No.9400187]

>>9400183
Denying scientific facts because of political reasons is politicizing. Supporting your political opinions with scientific facts is not.

[Anonymous No.9400195]

>>9400183
That's because the Illuminati has already indoctrinated you and everyone else with the round Earth lie in order to take control by undermining faith in God. They are politicizing the Earth's shape!

[Anonymous No.9400198]

>>9399636
east coast =/= global

[Anonymous No.9400204]

>>9399665
It didn't "went" anything.

protip: climate change doesn't have the word "Global" in it

[Anonymous No.9400206]

>>9400183
>Meanwhile the whole "green" scam is making these people billions
>He doesn't know about all the cash airlines are making with the round earth scam.
You are just a bluepilled faggot.

[Anonymous No.9400207]

>>9400187
Saying empty words to oppose a harmful political agenda is not politicizing

[Anonymous No.9400209]

>hurr dey changed da name
Global warming is a type of climate change, current climate change is global warming. Fuck off retards.

[Anonymous No.9400213]

>>9400207
Saying empty words (aka lying about climate science) for political reasons is THE ESSENCE of politicization. But thank you for admitting your climate change denial is nothing but empty words, you can now be safely ignored without any right to complain.

[Anonymous No.9400228]

>>9400213
Saying "climate change is happening" is also empty words
Every climate scientist is a liberal activist getting paid by the government or big "green" industries

The point of the marxist agenda of "Global Warming" is to de-industrialize the west, to hand global leadership over to the savages, and to eventually destroy the way of life of everyone who isn't a rich city liberal.

[Anonymous No.9400250]

>>9399637
>who have their own agenda
Saving the world?

[Anonymous No.9400254]

>>9400094
>Trump's scientist
bet he's as good as Trump's doctor

[Anonymous No.9400263]

>>9400254
>Doctor so good he is the chosen to be the personal doctor for the billionaire is not actually good

Yeah, as we know the medical profession is one in which it is really easy to just fake it.

[Anonymous No.9400270]

>>9400263
that's actually true though

[Anonymous No.9400274]

>>9400263
we know he was bribed

[Anonymous No.9400275]

>>9399730
>2+2=5 is an alternate viewpoint, guys, c'mon just think about it, maybe it's also right

[Anonymous No.9400292]

[Anonymous No.9400295]

[Anonymous No.9400297]

>>9399637
>agenda
ooh, that scary word again

[Anonymous No.9400298]

[Anonymous No.9400299]

[Anonymous No.9400302]

[Anonymous No.9400313]

>>9400292
yes long eons of carbon scarcity, now we have gone past that, leading to a renaissance in plant growth

[Anonymous No.9400314]

>>9400295

#74

https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

[Anonymous No.9400317]

>>9400313
All important plants photosynthesize using either C3 or C4.
The first doesn't gain anything with increasing CO2,
the second does, but the increased heat stress then destroys that advantage.

https://skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food-advanced.htm

https://youtu.be/Mc_4Z1oiXhY?t=23m10s

[Anonymous No.9400321]

Well it's Trump so he's always right.

[Anonymous No.9400332]

>>9399677
sadly true

[Anonymous No.9400342]

>>9400228
The sun gives off radiative energy. That radiative energy mostly passes through the Earth's atmosphere. It heats up the Earth which then emits long wave radiation back into space. Some of that long wave radiation is absorbed by CO2 which causes Earth to warm. More CO2 means more warming.

Simple.

[Anonymous No.9400361]

>>9399625
How come certain people have no problem with abortion as there isn't actually a human but want to change everyone lifestyle to save "future" people that don't even exist?
How detached from reality are they?

[Anonymous No.9400362]

>>9400342
CO2 itself does basically nothing
There is a magic assumed multiplier effect from the presumed increased H2O
The Sun emits lots of long wave radiation too

[Anonymous No.9400366]

>>9400361
It's just politics, liberals are gullible delusional credulous idiots, they believe the liberal agendas taught to them by the media, they rarely understand someone at the top is profitting from those agendas

Noone is actually sincere, just look at the whole global warming thing, all these people want to do is ban industrial activity in the west, they don't want nuclear power, and they support all the other insane anti-science liberal agendas.

[Anonymous No.9400378]

>>9399688
Yeah Comcast and Verizon throttling. Both had lawsuits

[Anonymous No.9400380]

>>9400366

[Anonymous No.9400382]

>>9400206
AL gore made his billions on climate change. You can't deny its a multiple billion dollar industry

[Anonymous No.9400384]

yeah what happened to global warming

[Anonymous No.9400386]

>>9400382
yes you can
most enviro shit isn't about climate change and the entire industry is the size of one or two oil companies
so the good guys are major underdogs here

[Anonymous No.9400388]

>>9400382

[Anonymous No.9400389]

>>9400386
http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/current-issues/climate-policy/climate-perspectives/our-position

[Anonymous No.9400391]

>>9399730
Problem is, /pol posters make /sci look dumb. That, and they're fucking tedious. Any half decent mod would delete these threads on sight - they lower the value of /sci for its users.

[Anonymous No.9400393]

>>9400362
Please explain this post better. What do you mean CO2 itself does basically nothing?
What do you mean there's an assumed multiplier effect from the presumed increased H2O
Please explain why the sun emits lots of long wave radiation means anything.

[Anonymous No.9400394]

>>9400393
I mean the CO2 absorption spectrum is already saturated

[Anonymous No.9400399]

>>9400394
Explain Venus please.

[Anonymous No.9400400]

>>9400389
I'm aware
not my point

[Anonymous No.9400401]

>>9400394
then why was it warmer in the Cretaceous? Why is it warmer on Venus right now?

[Anonymous No.9400423]

>>9399987
Not an argument

[Anonymous No.9400433]

>>9399730
>This. /sci/ is supposed to be a leftist echo-chamber, just like the academia is today. /sci/ has no place for alternative view points. This has to stop. Mods, do something.
Sorry, science isn't a matter of personal opinion and conspiracy "theories"

[Anonymous No.9400443]

>>9400401
>>9400399
Denser atmosphere makes for warmer temperature

[Anonymous No.9400679]

>>9399625
The day will come when the results of the global warming are so obvious and so destructive that there will be no doubt about its existence.
Unfortunately when we reach this time it will be too late to change anything and we can only regret our deeds.

Maybe this generation won't be impact heavily by the climate change maybe even the next generation will survive it.
But what about the generations afterwards?
The day will come when we have to justify our ignorance to the following generation if we don't change our climate policies.
We owe them to bequeath the world as undamaged as possible.

[Anonymous No.9400683]

>>9399677

/pol/ is ruining this place..

[Anonymous No.9400685]

>>9400679
They're already obvious you just live in the lucky part of the world for the moment

[Anonymous No.9400708]

>>9400685
Problem is most of the rightiest trumptards with their alternative facts live in industrial nation too.
Which is why they cant see the destructive impact of the climate change at first hand.
They would never read a book about desertification in africa or the higher frequency of monsoons in India,Bangladesh,etc and they couldn't care less about small islands in the pacific that dissappear from the map.
And why should they care for coral reefs dying out because of the ocean acidification which is caused by the high carbon pollution in our air.

Sadly those people who deny the climate change only believe things they see first hand and theyre capable of understanding so they will just claim that those things won't happen and it's all a conspiracy by the Chinese(according to donald trump).

Although the frequency of hurricanes greatly increased trump and his supporter still desperately look for some unscientific explanation's this shows how indoctrinated they're by their own conspiracy.

[Anonymous No.9400715]

>>9400388
There will always be corrupt "scientiests" but the majority of them are decent which is why only so few scientiests deny the climate change

[http://i.4cdn.org/sci/15143175(...) No.9400716]

>>9400715

Most scientists are rightfully silent because they don't know. Learn from their example.

[Anonymous No.9400741]

>>9400394
bs, that's bitefart propaganda

https://skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect-advanced.htm

[Anonymous No.9400763]

>>9400016
Brainwashing works.
Water is wet.
More on this story at 11.

[Anonymous No.9400784]

>>9400028

>97% of scientists agree
>Is the first point

kek.

[Anonymous No.9400790]

>>9399657
Top kek

[Anonymous No.9400792]

>Coldest its ever been in my state
>Might even get colder in the coming days depending on wind chill

B-b-but global warmin' real 'n shit

[Anonymous No.9400795]

>>9400388

>Be a climate scientist
>funded by the state
>political party advocating for (((green))) values promises to increase your funds if you cook up some results that (((convince))) the public to vote for them

Wow, thank god scientists are above incentives! They'd never do anything like that! Oh wait...

[Anonymous No.9400796]

>>9400792
>US = the world

[Anonymous No.9400799]

>>9400795
Wow, thank big oil is above incentives!

[Anonymous No.9400801]

>I'll take the word of a retard over the scientific consensus from people that spent their entire life studying the subject because of politics
>realz over feelz guyz xdddd
/pol/tards are the lowest form of life

[Anonymous No.9400803]

>>9400799

Which one do you believe has more influence on your beloved scientists?

Depending your answer, you're either a dumbass or not.

[Anonymous No.9400804]

>>9400792
>california on fire

east coast =/= global

[Anonymous No.9400807]

>>9400803
boot licker

[Anonymous No.9400809]

>>9400795
>every climate scientist is funded by the state
>every climate scientist is in a conspiracy
You're choosing to believe what you want to believe and rationalizing that belief post hoc.

[Anonymous No.9400814]

>>9400809

Mate, you just posted a strawman. Not very scientific of you.

[Anonymous No.9400821]

>>9399625
the climate is changing, that is why the east is having the coldest eve on record, Donald Trump is mentally ill or what? He can't understand a simple concept.

[Anonymous No.9400822]

>>9400814
You said climate scientists agree with climate change because they are funded by the state and paid to cook up results. Yes, that implies what I said. And yes, those are absolutely retarded claims by someone that chooses to believe retarded shit for political reasons.

[Anonymous No.9400828]

>>9400250
You can't deny there is a massive anti capitalism message tied to all this, that's why it's so big among the political activist demographics

[Anonymous No.9400833]

>>9400361

back to /pol/

[Anonymous No.9400835]

>>9400388
There is lobby in both sides, don't play stupid

[Anonymous No.9400838]

>>9399665
As weather is a function of many variables, chaos theory, blah blah, the global trend is for the earth's temperature to go up, now the local trend is difficult to foresee. Europe was having extreme cold a few years ago (2014). Point is still, we are causing it.

[Anonymous No.9400841]

>I-It was always called "climate change"
>Al Gore literally made a movie about GLOBAL WARMING and predicted polar bears would go extinct and the arctic will completely melt by 2014
>Arctic ice still here
>More polar bears today than 40 years ago
>Check script
>https://www.springfieldspringfield.co.uk/movie_script.php?movie=an-inconvenient-truth
>CTRL+F climate change
>0 found
>CTRL+F global warming
>27 found
This is why nobody believes the propagandists who go around crying about "scientific consensus" anymore.

[Anonymous No.9400842]

>>9400715
How do you measure corrupt and how do you measure decent?
If the majority of scientists are not corrupt that would make science the only field in the world with such high standards and frankly I don't see it, funding has to come from somewhere so even if as a scientist you are unwilling to compromise that would only make you replaceable since being flexible is a more employable quality than being honest

[Anonymous No.9400847]

>>9400841
It's literally the same thing. Temperature goes up globally causing local climates to change.

[Anonymous No.9400851]

>>9400841
>science isn't expressed by peer reviewed papers on the latest evidence made and assessed by scientists that studied the subject their entire life, it is expressed and can be dismissed by the what words a politician used in a movie
Mind of a brainlet.

[Anonymous No.9400857]

As a brainlet with no clue whatsoever I find the topic interesting as an expression of personal epistemology. It's relatively rare for people to refer to rigid science (I'm not saying that a climate skeptic should disprove climate change through some infallible formalism), instead we talk about the nature of scientific consensus, trustworthy media outlets, spokemen's """agendas""" etc. It really makes me think.

[Anonymous No.9400861]

>>9400847
If it were the same thing, temperatures could go down significantly and that would also count as "global warming."
Clearly not the same thing because "climate change" doesn't even bother to pick a direction, if it gets much hotter, it's climate change, if it gets much colder, it's climate change.
Temperature in the future will either go up or go down. What a great "prediction."
>>9400851
Nobody cares about your paper from 30 years ago that used the phrase "climate change." The point is "global warming" was pushed on us for years and then remarketed as "climate change" when the retarded predictions like no polar ice left by 2014 didn't pan out.

[Anonymous No.9400863]

>>9400841
Ever notice how documentaries about global warming/climate change have dried up? (Much like the oceans they claim will dry up)

Feels like if they make films about the subject, you'll see how quickly the science changes

[Anonymous No.9400864]

>>9400861
>The point is "global warming" was pushed on us for years and then remarketed as "climate change" when the retarded predictions like no polar ice left by 2014 didn't pan out.
The point is that what a politician said or the words that are in use are irrelevant to the assessment of the scientific evidence for climate change, and you focus on the former instead of the latter because you're a politically motivated brainlet.

[Anonymous No.9400866]

>>9400861
It's nice that you completely ignored the part where I said global temperature is going up. Time to stop trolling.

[Anonymous No.9400868]

>>9400864
>Al Gore using scare tactics is okay as long as MY agenda is pushed through

This is you

This is you right now

[Anonymous No.9400869]

>>9400828
it's anti big-oil you stupid fuck. But you fucks don't give a fuck about the world, you just want to watch it burn while you comfortably run around.

[Anonymous No.9400871]

>>9400857
Because there's no way to deny it using scientific evidence. So deniers resort to a postmodern view of science.

[Anonymous No.9400873]

>>9400863
Probably since everyone is online making up some bullshit predicting some end of the world scenario and calling it science just doesn't cut it anymore because someone will prove you wrong in 15 minutes infront of the whole world
There is also less people going to church

[Anonymous No.9400874]

>>9400864
So why did Al Gore make that movie exactly if there was no scientific basis for any of it?
Are you saying he just made up all the evidence he cited?
Not sure I follow what you're trying to argue here.

[Anonymous No.9400876]

>>9400313
lmao, so you think CO2 increase is good because you think plants grow better with more CO2? Glad to see that climate change deniers are fucking retarded

If you didn't know, there's a fixed ammount of CO2 that plants can process and anything higher than that will lead to additional problems that will kill the plants.

[Anonymous No.9400877]

>>9400868
No, it isn't me. You seem to be quoting imaginary people, actually. I don't give the singlest fuck about what al gore does or says.

[Anonymous No.9400878]

>New Jersey
>literally 9 degrees
>liberals still want me to believe in “global warming”

[Anonymous No.9400882]

>>9399644
meanwhile in NZ you cant go outside with exposed skin or you burn in 5 minutes because there is a giant fucking hole in the ozone we caused

[Anonymous No.9400883]

>>9399639
>put temperature sensors on the edge of cities
>city grows around temperature sensor
>urban heat island
oops

>put satellite in orbit
>raw data shows no trend
>modify data to add trend
oops

>ice core data
>shows historically warmer past that affected preindustrial humanity
oops

[Anonymous No.9400887]

>>9400883
yeah dude, I'm sure all the arctic fauna evolved for million of years in a warm climate

fucking dumbass

[Anonymous No.9400888]

>>9400874
>So why did Al Gore make that movie exactly
Why would that be relevant in assessing evidence for climate change? Are you discussing climate change or political science?

[Anonymous No.9400889]

>>9399678
citation needed, oh wait you cant cite supposition
stop posting brainlet

[Anonymous No.9400890]

>>9400876
>If you didn't know, there's a fixed ammount of CO2 that plants can process and anything higher than that will lead to additional problems that will kill the plants.
I agree, let's ban organic farming.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274264434_Does_certified_organic_farming_reduce_greenhouse_gas_emissions_from_agricultural_production
>My analysis finds that the rise of certified organic production in the United States is not correlated with declines in greenhouse gas emissions derived specifically from agricultural production, and on the contrary is associated positively overall agricultural greenhouse gas emissions.

[Anonymous No.9400892]

>>9399780
And famine causes mass exodus and immigration. What causes famine? Climate change. I know this is reallllly hard for you to grasp.

[Anonymous No.9400895]

>>9400887
fauna/flora evolve rapidly, evolution is not a slow process.

[Anonymous No.9400897]

It's time for everyone to stop posting. The thread is just trolls from /pol/, don't bother, let it die.

[Anonymous No.9400900]

>>9400888
These are the people screaming at us about the "scientific consensus" we must accept, and now you're saying they just made a bunch of evidence up and never had any scientific backing to begin with.
Which is it? Because if this doesn't count then no one should listen to anyone else claiming "scientific consensus" going forward.
The fact Al Gore is a politician is irrelevant, he clearly cited scientific evidence, the movie wouldn't make any sense if it were just his non-scientific opinions. The whole point of it was to beat us over the head with what scientists all "agree" on and what we must accept as true.

[Anonymous No.9400901]

>>9400874
Let's start with the fact that Al gore is a politician and a lawyer, not a scientist so whatever he said relied on other people's understanding of other people's research he was basically repeating
Then most of that documentary was about predicting the future not presenting facts and there isn't a single wrong way to predict the future, even if I state that the world will end in 2020 you won't be able to prove me wrong until 2020 and then I can just claim that I interpreted the facts wrong and it's actually 2026 that the world will end in
That's why you don't listen to the people predicting the future because predicting the future isn't science, it's magic

[Anonymous No.9400903]

>>9400897
>trolls
You overestimate /pol/tards.

[Anonymous No.9400904]

>>9399859
Xenophobia, economic illiteracy, and no conception of government or political theory the post.

[Anonymous No.9400905]

>>9400901
>there isn't a single wrong way to predict the future
>Statisticians don't exist
>All predictions are equally conservative
... What?

[Anonymous No.9400906]

>>9400890
yeah, dude, cherrypick what you want from the fucking abstract

>As a result I argue that the recent USDA certification of organic farming has generated a bifurcated organic market, where one form of organic farming works as a sustainable counterforce to conventional agriculture and the other works to increase the economic accessibility of organic farming through weakening practice standards most conducive to reducing agricultural greenhouse gas output. Additionally, I construct my own theoretical framework known as the displacement paradox to further interpret my findings.


I'm sure his conclusions about reducing agricultural greenhouse output are just baseless. I'm sure that he's not asking for more sustainable agriculture. You fucking dumbass.

>>9400895
adaptation of an entire fucking ecosystem is a long process you idiot. For something as big as a bear species it takes millions of years. The speciation of a fly took about 100 years.

[Anonymous No.9400911]

>>9400905
Statistics can say wathever you want them to say that's why they also don't hold any scientific value

[Anonymous No.9400912]

>>9400906
It's not cherrypicking you idiot, it's the whole point of his paper, which you could've figured out by reading the fucking title.

[Anonymous No.9400913]

>>9399959
Can you take a fucking biology class in your life before saying dumb fucking shit please. If a species consumes all its available resource and doesnt adapt to a substitute it dies without a lineage ergo your point is moot.

[Anonymous No.9400914]

>>9400911
>Statistics can say wathever you want them to say
What a retarded opinion.
If statistics were just whatever bullshit you feel like making up why would anyone even hire statisticians and data scientists in the first place?

[Anonymous No.9400916]

>>9400906
You're so fucking dumb.

[Anonymous No.9400919]

>>9400912
you're cherrypicking because you're arguing that higher CO2 levels increase plant productivity when the fucking point of the article is that organic agriculture EMISSIONS are similar to traditional agriculture and the author is arguing for alternatives to decrease the CO2 emissions. He's not concluding that plants grow better under higher CO2 levels.

>>9400916
you're a fucking dumbass if you seriously think that the climate change we're currently undergoing is not under influence of man. As expected of a Trumpfag

[Anonymous No.9400920]

>>9400094
>>9400020
And now I realize why america is such a shithole.

[Anonymous No.9400921]

>>9400914
To lie in their behalf

[Anonymous No.9400924]

>>9400822

You know why people don't take climate science seriously? People like (you) are the reason. Just like your posts, climate science is based on fabricated evidence, manipulation and ignoring opposing evidence. Anyone who can see through basic logical fallacies will naturally suspect the validity of climate science.

[Anonymous No.9400925]

>>9400900
You aren't even listening to what other posters are saying. This is why people on other boards hate /pol/.
Al Gore is not actually an expert on climate science. Like all politicians, he saw a cause, saw the base that cared about it, and tried to provide the illusion that he gave a shit to get publicity and votes. He exaggerated shit for his movie.
People who aren't retarded would base their beliefs on published, peer-reviewed papers in reputable journals about climate science instead of movies. All of these point to anthropogenic climate change leading to increased temperature.

[Anonymous No.9400929]

>>9400925
>People who aren't retarded would base their beliefs on published, peer-reviewed
>Peer-reviewed
>Not retarded
Oh anon, you where so close

[Anonymous No.9400932]

>>9400925
>All of these point to anthropogenic climate change leading to increased temperature.

Wrong

[Anonymous No.9400936]

>>9400900
>These are the people screaming at us about the "scientific consensus" we must accept
Why are you equating politicians mentioning science with science? You might as well quote a politician saying dumb things about gravity to prove gravity doesn't exist.
Here, just with a quick google search: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6815470/Copenhagen-climate-summit-Al-Gore-condemned-over-Arctic-ice-melting-prediction.html
> Speaking at the Copenhagen climate change summit, Mr Gore said new computer modelling suggests there is a 75 per cent chance of the entire polar ice cap melting during the summertime by 2014. However, he faced embarrassment last night after Dr Wieslav Maslowski, the climatologist whose work the prediction was based on, refuted his claims. Dr Maslowski, of the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, told The Times: “It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at. “I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.”

>you're saying they just made a bunch of evidence
You're imagining things.

>he clearly cited scientific evidence
Which one? If there is a paper that al gore based his movie on, that turned out to have refuted evidence just post it and we can discuss real science instead of pretending discussing politics is discussing science.
Or please try to disprove any scientific theory by publishing a paper based on movies and what politicians say and tell my how it goes.

[Anonymous No.9400939]

>>9400924
I guess the climate scientist can't see through basic logical fallacies.

[Anonymous No.9400949]

>>9400932
Hahaha, you showed that soyboy. Shadilay fellow pede!

[Anonymous No.9400954]

>make models
>decade+ later the model prediciton doesn't match model
>even modeled CO2 increase is wrong
dumb

>propose anti-human solutions that don't even reduce CO2
even dumber
>but it doesn't matter if the solutions don't solve anything it is important to virtue signal that we think the problem exists and we are willing to try
literally (You)

[Anonymous No.9400957]

>>9400949
Why are the people constantly breaking rule 3 the ones who never get banned for breaking rule 3?

[Anonymous No.9400966]

>>9399817
>repealing ACA
Trump did not repeal ACA. Where did you read that from?
>cutting taxes
Which will blow up the deficit for very little gain.

Also, you honestly have to be pretty delusional to think that Trump doesn't want to be popular. Most of it is for ego reasons, but another part is that if you're not popular, you're going to be obliterated in the midterms. Clinton and Obama had fairly okay approval ratings around 60-50% around the times of their first midterms, but still ended up getting thrashed. Even Bush, who had approvals around 80% during his first term lost seats in congress. approvals around 35-40% will be absolutely terrible for the midterms.

[Anonymous No.9400976]

>>9400966
Read Machiavelli, that's supposed to happen

[Anonymous No.9400981]

>>9400869
>big-oil

Too right. It's time we gave Big Coal and Big Nuclear their due.

I'd say Big Wind and Big Solar, but when you can only fart out a fraction of the energy that oil supplies, it's not like you're seriously in the running...

[Anonymous No.9400990]

>>9400981
who the fuck even antagonized nuclear energy? Solar energy is a meme at the moment but research is due. Plenty of climate change supporters also have realized that sustainable usage of nuclear energy is our best chance to move from oil. The point is that big oil is doing their best to antagonize climate change science in order to not cut their profits.

[Anonymous No.9401001]

>>9400868
I know brainlets and metaphors don't mix but try this. Scientists say water in this region of a state is safe to drink. former state govener says all water in my state is safe to drink.
(you) say
>So you, random citizen are just gonna let the governor publish his propaganda just so you can get your """agenda""" through of telling people the water in this region is clean.
This is (you).
This is (you) right now.

[Anonymous No.9401003]

>>9400792
>warm inside my microwave
>might even get warmer if I don't turn it off
B-b-but climate change is a myth 'n shit

[Anonymous No.9401010]

>>9400966
>increased standard deduction
>people who take the standard or itemize to near standard will benefit
>increased child tax credit
If you make less than 100k you're guaranteed to benefit personally unless you already pay zero taxes.

[Anonymous No.9401012]

>>9400174
In America, it is hugely politicized, but in countries where it isn't, it's widely accepted. That tells me that idealogues like you are the ones that are politicizing it.

[Anonymous No.9401052]

>>9401012
Don't lie

[Anonymous No.9401067]

>>9399677
i already know to expect contrarian bullshit opening any threads related to climate change or any sort of environmental issues here, pretty sad

[Anonymous No.9401100]

>>9400361
The trivial answer is because the worst effects will already be kicking in before the end of their lives

[Anonymous No.9401107]

>>9401012
>but in countries where it isn't, it's widely accepted
thisstatement on its own means nothing
>child rape is widely accepted among child rapists
>murder is widely accepted among murderers

[Anonymous No.9401108]

>>9400795

[Anonymous No.9401114]

>>9399682
Global warming describes an overall GLOBAL trend. Climate change describes the changes we see in different climates as a result of global warming and other forces. If you looked into why it's cold right now you might know that.

[Anonymous No.9401118]

>>9400861
>global temperature increase causes arctic ice to melt
>influx of fresh water disrupts saline water circulation in northern hemisphere
>gulf stream weakens/disappears
>northwestern Europe's temperature fall in line with other regions at the same latitutde
>global temperature has increased resulting in local temperature decrease (until increase catches up and overwhelms this too)

[Anonymous No.9401120]

>>9401114
so when it rains in july thats climate change?

[Anonymous No.9401121]

>>9401120
If increased temperature causes unusually high precipitation in a month that was previously much drier, perhaps by increasing evaporation rates from a nearby body of water thus changing rainfall patterns in the region

Then yes

[Particles don't exist No.9401126]

>>9399625

What is the optimal temperature of earth?

[Anonymous No.9401129]

>>9401126
pre-industrial
but really anything that allows for life
again the problem with global warming is not the actual warming but the rate at which it's happening

[Anonymous No.9401136]

>>9401126
The one that suits our current civilization and population distribution, i.e. the nice stable temperature we already had

[Anonymous No.9401139]

>>9401121
july is the hottest month on a global average so if it rains somewhere hot in july that is climate change
congratulations, there has been climate change as long as there has been climate on earth

[Anonymous No.9401141]

>>9400795
>Oil companies
>Worth trillions of dollars
>could only convince few climatologists to come to their side and fund research for them
>couldn't make a dent on the 90-95% consensus of climatologists all around the world that believe human induced climate change is real

Sorry, but it's not funding, but evidence that points to the conclusion that human induced climate change is real.

[Anonymous No.9401142]

>>9401139
>weather
>climate

[Anonymous No.9401143]

>>9401139
Why are you purposefully trying to make yourself sound as retarded as possible?

[Anonymous No.9401144]

>>9401142
both mean the same thing in my native language, i guess its not the case in english

[Anonymous No.9401145]

>>9400795

[Anonymous No.9401147]

Why is it that the only solution for climate change ever spoken is massive taxes and radical drops in standard of living?
why not innovate and engineer our solutions?
Solar shades in space to block excess infrared from the sun
sponsor commercial fusion research so we don't have to use fossil fuels for energy anymore, since solar/wind are fucking worthless as baseload power
suck the pollutants directly out of the atmosphere/land/sea and process them back into useful products, making the use of that product completely carbon neutral
why not do all these things at once, and create fucktons of jobs and research opportunities, boosting the world economy to levels unseen

I fail to see why we need to shower billions of dollars on street shitters, and lower ourselves to squalor when the alternatives are clear and vastly superior in every way

[Anonymous No.9401148]

[Particles don't exist No.9401149]

>>9401129
so we're fine then

>>9401136
>the nice stable temperature we already had

which was what? When was the earths temperature ever stable?

[Anonymous No.9401151]

[Anonymous No.9401160]

>>9401147
that's the first thing people looked into and most people still think technology will save them but it's not happening so we must proceed
We don't necessarily have to reduce our quality of life to squalor, we just have to do things sustainably.
I mean we could just ignore the signs and stay high and mighty but we'll face a dramatic fall from grace in the future.

[Anonymous No.9401167]

>>9401151
idk if you know this but that's the news
they like to do shit like that
>>9401160
climatologists had nothing to with that

[Anonymous No.9401170]

>>9401149
the temperature is usually stable for a long time and changes slowly

[Anonymous No.9401177]

>>9401012
>global warming is accepted in countries that crimininalize political speech

[Anonymous No.9401187]

>>9401052
>>9401107
There has actually been a study done on this. The results were that they tested both democrats and republicans on how they respond to proposed solutions to AGW and how their believe changed on AGW after the proposed solutions.

Democrat's belief in AGW didn't change at all when given a free-market or government solution to climate change, like funding electric cars or deregulation. Republicans, on the other hand, when given a government solution, belief in AGW dropped drastically, while a free-market solution made it go up.

So belief in AGW for Republicans is directly tied with ideology, rather than actual evidence. Which is why, when there is always /sci/ thread on climate science, there's always a /pol/tard jumping in whining about the government and policy, rather than proposing solutions.

[Anonymous No.9401194]

>>9401187
listen im pretty sure than in nordic countries with very small populations and 0 diversity people tend to share the same opinions but thats not representative of the rest of the world at all
and im pretty sure that you know it thats why you make statements like but in countries where it isn't, it's widely accepted without mentioning all those countries put together represent less than 10 million people

[Anonymous No.9401197]

>>9401187
>offer an unpalatable solution
>be suprised when people resist you
Global warming is real! You must kill yourself!
Democrats: Okay, suicide booth here I go.

[Anonymous No.9401200]

>>9401187
>There has actually been studies done on this
*there has been polls done on this

[Anonymous No.9401204]

>>9401160
Technology isn't being looked into though
absolutely fucking nothing has been done
if things were done, They would have been done

there's nothing complex at putting a bunch of separate 850nm meshes at L1 to block half the infrared coming from the sun
doing that greatly lessens the energy hitting the earth, thus cooling the earth
if we make it adjustable, we'll be able to change it at will and control how much is hitting the earth
Fusion is making massive strides as of late, and that's with absolutely fucking nothing in funding, if they were to get funding in any decent amount, they'd be able to do more testing, and achieve far more than fucking wind power ever did
and lastly, many humoured the idea of pulling pollution out of polluted areas, and is actually one of the ideas being worked on, thankfully, so it will probably start giving returns in the near future

this isn't a movie, civilization is not going to collapse, and humanity die, because of pollution, rising oceans, and extra heat
humans have survived and preserved through far fucking worse, with far less technology to work with
We have the technology to make completely artificial habitats and everything needed for life, so it by some magic bullshit earth is fucked into a tomb world, it still wont be able to kill us off, and we can rebuild the world even from that lowest of lows, escape it into the heavens, or do both simultaneously

[Anonymous No.9401209]

>>9401197
the average american causes way more pollution than any non asian person anon,the solution is pretty clear, you must stop reproducing that way your children wont exist and wont have a carbon footprint

[Anonymous No.9401223]

>>9401204
>humans have survived and preserved through far fucking worse
yeah dude, but they did so after reducing their numbers to negligible ammounts

Are you so retarded you're advocating for humans to go through a drastic natural selection process? So that heavy ammounts of us die?

[Anonymous No.9401229]

>>9401200
You don't even need a poll. Just look at this thread.

[Anonymous No.9401230]

>>9401209
Or we could kill the rest of the world and only have americans. Your solution is garbage, mine is awesome.

[Anonymous No.9401238]

>>9401223
no
I'm pointing out that if shit hits the fan at supersonic velocity, we'll still get back up with ease because of all the tools and technology we have at our disposal
We survived an ice age when in the stone age, I'm sure we can survive another event of that scale today

[Anonymous No.9401244]

>>9401238
yeah but almost no one will survive
I mean, wtf man, you seriously think it's cool that your offspring has to go through something like that just so you can have an easy life right now?

[Anonymous No.9401253]

>>9401244
>missing the entire fucking point of the statement so you can ad hom
I did not say it was ideal you shit eating troglodyte, I said it was more than possible to survive in the event it happens

Fine bait good sir, I didn't realize it was bait until now

[Anonymous No.9401256]

Why are right leaning people so fucking stupid?

[Anonymous No.9401257]

^
You didn't even try

[Anonymous No.9401260]

>>9401253
>climate change will be very costly and can be avoided
>>yeah but we will survive
No it's you who missed the point, tard.

[Anonymous No.9401272]

>>9401204
>infrared from the sun
On Jesus just fuck off.

Why do all these people think they can just pretend to know what they're talking about on the science board and get away with it?

[Anonymous No.9401275]

9401260
You're not getting another (You) from me, fuccboi
The key statement was "if it happens"
it was there right from the beginning
no fucking shit it's not ideal, catastrophic even, however it is not the end of all things that climate cultists keep shrieking it is

[Anonymous No.9401277]

>>9401197
>not realizing that you could reject the solution, without having it affect your belief in the science

It's clear that ideology has clouded your brain. irrational idealogues like yourself should definitely kill themselves.

[Anonymous No.9401278]

>>9401272
>Sunlight is a portion of the electromagnetic radiation given off by the Sun, in particular infrared, visible, and ultraviolet light
no friend, it is you that is the know nothing brainlet

[Anonymous No.9401280]

>>9401260
people whose house gets knocked down every four years from a hurricane anyways will have to buy property 50yds further inland to keep their oceanfront
nothing about global warming is costly

[Anonymous No.9401286]

>>9401238
>if shit hits the fan at supersonic velocity

If it does that we're going to have WW III m8.

Already going to have water/food resource wars, question is scale. If it goes "supersonic"... The nukes are in play.

[Anonymous No.9401287]

>>9401275
>however it is not the end of all things that climate cultists keep shrieking it is
Straw man.

[Anonymous No.9401289]

>>9401277
The factory warranty on your vehicle may have expired buy this extended warranty, You trust me after all the science is settled.

You still can't fathom the depth of the lies.

[Anonymous No.9401292]

>>9401253
you're fucking retarded
if I'm able to avoid my offspring going through an ecological disaster I will do so. And no, it's not a case of "if" a ecological disaster happens, it's a matter of "when" lest we change our habits.

[Anonymous No.9401298]

>>9401280
>biodiversity loss
>extreme weather
>flooding
>ocean acidification
>loss of agricultural production centers
Yup no costs at all.

[Anonymous No.9401300]

>>9401280
Oh look an inner city latte sipper.

Food just *magics* it's way into the supermarket, right? Growing stuff, that doesn't depend on any of this pesky weather business does it?

[Anonymous No.9401307]

>>9401280
Large-scale property damages hurts the economy. And it's not just people's houses. It's businesses, industries, agriculture, and infrastructure all being destroyed. Why would you think it's just houses?

[Anonymous No.9401312]

>>9401278
Wow so I guess I have to spoonfeed the answer to you... Infrared radiation from the sun has nothing to do with global warming, because infrared doesn't pass through greenhouse gasses without being reemitted. It's the visible light which passes through greenhouse gases, gets turned into infrared, and only then is trapped in the atmosphere which is causing warming. But good luck putting up a giant mesh that will have to block sunlight, doing as much harm to agriculture as global warming would have done.

[Anonymous No.9401317]

>>9401300
>he thinks farming is magic
>he thinks farming isn't planned
>he thinks farms can't be relocated

>>9401298
>meme loss
>weather isn't climate
>memeing
>meme acid
>I don't understand farming
Everything you said is journalist level hyperbole and unrealistic experiments on hyberbolic extrapolations.

[Anonymous No.9401322]

>>9401307
You have large scale property damage EVERY YEAR

Look at California, the state is on fire because they refuse to do control burns because NIMBY faggots can't stand some minor smoke for two weeks a year.

[Anonymous No.9401325]

>>9401289
Nah oil makes more money than cigarettes ever did, completely unsurprising their campaign of lies is correspondingly orders of magnitude larger than the cig companies ever came out with.

And I suppose I shouldn't be surprised so many people are so fundamentally retarded as to buy it.

[Anonymous No.9401335]

>>9400174
>marxist anti-industrial anti-civilization cartel who control the global warming narrative.

[Anonymous No.9401338]

>>9401317
>he thinks all land is arable land
>he thinks agricultural quantities of water are independent of that sky thing
>he thinks he's not a brainlet

[Anonymous No.9401345]

>>9401322
Oh okay let's burn it all to the ground then

[Anonymous No.9401346]

>>9401317
>meme
>meme
>meme
Yeah agriculture, fishing, and medicine are memes

>weather isn't climate
Climate is the average of weather.

>I don't understand farming
Yes, we know.

[Anonymous No.9401357]

Please take this moment to remember what you believe or don't about Global Warming/Climate Change. In the year 2030 please reflect about today's belief.

>its not a belief its science
kys, literally kys. Your belief is unrelated to the truth and your inability to comprehend the difference marks you as a mental failure.

[Anonymous No.9401358]

>>9401317
>loss if biodiversity is a meme loss
>flooding is a meme
>ocean acidification is a meme
wew, I thought the guy saying that an article on "why organic agriculture emits as much greenhouse emissions" was the same as "CO2 emissions make agriculture more productive" was the most retarded specimen on this thread.

But we have the average Trumplet brain in action.

>"IF IT DOESN'T CONCERN MY LIFE DIRECTLY IT'S A MEME LOSS AND THEY CAN BURN IN HELL"

holy shit

[Anonymous No.9401366]

The greatest part of /sci/ is not only are people unironicly this stupid they also think they're smart and winning the argument. You people make me long for answers like "50/50 either it happens or it doesn't."

[Anonymous No.9401377]

>>9401357
Scientific facts are facts regardless of what you believe, Mac.

[Anonymous No.9401387]

>>9401357
>Your belief is unrelated to the truth and your inability to comprehend the difference marks you as a mental failure.

Yup. Suspect your intent with that statment was different to the meaning which illuminates your position tho.

Do make sure you don't try to weasel out of your culpability in 2030 with some excuse as to how you "couldn't have known", BTW. You should feel the weight of being so culpably wrong before you paint the walls with your brain.

[Anonymous No.9401392]

>>9401358
Caring only about personal gain/loss is a legitimate philosophical position.

[Anonymous No.9401402]

>>9400795
Yet, despite the Bush years where the government was full of Republicans, consensus on climate change didn't change at all.

The idea that the government intrinsically supports climate science is a really stupid Idea. Support also comes from many different scientific organizations around the world, both government, and non-governmental. There is literally no scientific organization in the world that rejects human induced climate change.

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

[Anonymous No.9401453]

>>9400892
Climate change is fake. Immigration is stoppable at a policy level.

[Anonymous No.9401499]

>>9400314
Nice link. Thanks anon

[Anonymous No.9401559]

>>9401147
>hey, what should we do to combat climate change?
>well we could use less fuel, recycle, and try to lessen our impact in responsible ways while developing new technologies to move ourselves away from what caused the problem in the first place
>ehhhh
>or we could continue destroying our atmosphere with reckless abandon and simultaneously pump half the world's gdp into an inconceivably massive sun screen that could potentially wipe out all life on earth if something goes wrong with its implementation
>yeah let's go with that

[Anonymous No.9401644]

>>9399666
satan has spoken

[Anonymous No.9401661]

>>9399781
>blame obama for not making it harder to remove, not the people who removed it

[Anonymous No.9401692]

>>9399665
Because global warming is the idea that the average temperature on earth is going to get much hotter over time, even if the intermittent period has freak snowstorms and cold snaps in localized regions as a result of heat's influence on the weather. But there kept being too many laymen asking why it snowed in Atlanta two weeks ago if the world is supposed to be getting warmer, thinking they had busted open some conspiracy. So the term climate change was introduced to try and remedy that, unfortunately it seems to have more than failed.

[Anonymous No.9401818]

>>9400361
>recognizing that there will almost invariably be future generations of people around to experience the worst effects of climate changes is contradictory to believing it's a person's right to choose whether to carry their pregnancy to term or not

You can't be serious. I'm not even pro choice really but the two aren't comparable concepts at all.

[Anonymous No.9401876]

>>9400861
Local climate and weather are products of the global geology and temperature gradient, so just because the earth will get hotter overall doesn't mean it can't or won't get colder is some areas. The most famous example is that the only reason why London is so warm and temperate despite being as far north as Newfoundland and Kamchatka is because of the gulf stream bringing warm air from the Caribbean to Europe. If the Earth got much warmer on average, weather patterns would change and the gulf stream would likely no longer exist, thus Europe would become much colder despite most of the rest of the world becoming much hotter.

[Anonymous No.9401899]

>>9401238
>if the absolute worst case scenario happens we'll probably still survive so why try to prevent it at all

If a dinosaur-killer sized asteroid was headed towards us would you also say we shouldn't bother to divert it because at least some humans will probably manage to endure the catastrophe?

[Anonymous No.9401985]

>>9399663
r/the_donald cultists need to be gassed

[Anonymous No.9401998]

>>9401985
Fuck off. We're talking America back from the bankers and jews.

[Anonymous No.9402912]

>>9401998
Trump's on the side of the bankers and Jews, you idiot. If you actually think he gives a shit about you then you're delusional.