Climate Change Denial

[Anonymous No.9413484]

How do we convince people to care about the impending climate change disaster, and do so before we are at the point of unavoidable catastrophe?

The amount of ignorance I've seen on the topic from talking to average people is simply shocking.

How are we to take measures if nobody listens until its too late?

[Anonymous No.9413489]

>>9413484
I'm in Environmental Science and the amount bleeding-heartedness makes me sick. Death to the Earth! Alalalalalala!!!

[Anonymous No.9413490]

>>9413484
If climate change was real, there's be no reason to "convince" anyone of anything

[Anonymous No.9413494]

>>9413484
>How are we to take measures if nobody listens until its too late?
Because you keep calling people deniers instead of skeptics.

Strawmen don't look good

[Anonymous No.9413496]

>>9413490
Back to your people >>/pol/

[Anonymous No.9413499]

>>9413490
It took forever to convince people to believe in germ theory.

[Anonymous No.9413501]

>>9413484
At this point, with guns

[Anonymous No.9413511]

>>9413484
I think it is insane the attention span people have and are still able to function. The only way to convince people of warming climate is to have warming weather. Most people don't know the data or don't wish to. There is too great of a bias toward there own perceptions. If they have not experienced it the way they think it should be then it must not be true... When you show people patterns over more than 2 years and they are already inclined to not believe it for what ever reason then you might as well convince a brick wall. At this point, I am done trying to convince.

[Anonymous No.9413517]

You explain the difference between weather and climate, and also explain how on planets or moons with weak or no atmosphere experience drastic shifts in weather that are not conducive to life. For example, how the surfaces on the Moon and Mars can vary between being hot enough to boil water and cold enough to cause frostbite within a span of several hours. What climate change looks to bring isn't some permanent hell of hot days with high CO2 (which actually wouldn't be a problem at all, because jungle plants would thrive, grow large, and flood all the O2 we needed back so long as we stopped cutting them down for a while), but rather a weakened atmosphere that leads to chaotic weather systems that can kill life left and right as most things aren't suited for their established environment, rather than a constantly changing one.

[Anonymous No.9413519]

>>9413517
started with a good strategy there but then you veered off

[Anonymous No.9413520]

>>9413519
No way it's a veer off. It's right on point. A weaker atmosphere leads to inconsistent climate, just like we observe on other planets.

[Anonymous No.9413524]

>>9413520
>For example, how the surfaces on the Moon and Mars can vary between being hot enough to boil water and cold enough to cause frostbite within a span of several hours. What climate change looks to bring isn't some permanent hell of hot days with high CO2 (which actually wouldn't be a problem at all, because jungle plants would thrive, grow large, and flood all the O2 we needed back so long as we stopped cutting them down for a while), but rather a weakened atmosphere that leads to chaotic weather systems that can kill life left and right as most things aren't suited for their established environment, rather than a constantly changing one.
All of this needs to be fact checked.

[Anonymous No.9413527]

>>9413484
Look at their values and appeal to them rather than spouting the same talking points.

People opposed to climate change primarily come from a place of valuing economics and believing that the environment is able to resist change or that we can fix whatever problems occur with technology. So if you lecture someone about the science behind it when all they really care about is the effects of the policy then you're gonna get nowhere in terms of changing minds. Coming at the issue through the same lens by talking about the economic benefits of green policy and growing a new industry with new jobs: renewable energy, then you're meeting them at their level. It also shifts the conversation away from the low bar of "is climate change real".

[Anonymous No.9413528]

>>9413499
And people largely didn't believe in that either until things started getting too deadly and we were literally facing what could have turned into an extinction event, lol.

Climate Change will be accepted after the bodies start piling up.

[Anonymous No.9413532]

>>9413494
Skeptics use evidence and reasoning, where are the skeptics?

[Anonymous No.9413533]

>>9413524
...anon, seriously?
https://www.space.com/18175-moon-temperature.html
https://www.space.com/16903-mars-atmosphere-climate-weather.html

It's common knowledge that the temperature and weather can vary wildly on planets and moons with low or no atmosphere.

[Anonymous No.9413538]

>>9413527
If you attempt to talk about the benefits of mitigating AGW, they will just deny AGW exists in the first place.

[Anonymous No.9413539]

>>9413528
the dudebromanguy took the handle off a water pump and people stopped getting cholera
that's pretty convincing

[Anonymous No.9413543]

>>9413533
>boiling temperature
>cold enough to cause frostbite
anon please, it's more extreme than that

[Anonymous No.9413546]

>>9413533
Are we facing a reduction in atmosphere?

[Anonymous No.9413547]

>>9413539
That still wasn't enough to convince a lot of people, and people only really accept that story in retrospect presently. At the time it happened, they thought he was a quack and it was all based in bad air.

[Anonymous No.9413550]

>>9413547
brainlets, I swear

[Anonymous No.9413554]

>>9413538
Then don't make it about climate change, make it about the economic benefit.

[Anonymous No.9413555]

>>9413546
Changes to it and reductions to it, yes

https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/997/study-finds-climate-link-to-atmospheric-river-storms/

[Anonymous No.9413558]

>>9413550
I'll fuck your earlobes.

[Anonymous No.9413561]

>>9413554
Mitigating climate change is the benefit. If you ignore climate change, then the effect of replacing gas with renewables is negative.

[Anonymous No.9413577]

>>9413555
A decrease in mslp is probably due to, more or less, more boyant air. Warm, moist air is boyant and rises. Rising air causes sfc pressure falls.

[Anonymous No.9413580]

>>9413561
You're not understanding my point. If you want any action done you have to apply the issue to the things that people care about. If someone doesn't believe in something telling them they're wrong won't change their mind. If you tell someone who doesn't believe in climate change or is doubtful about it
>Mitigating climate change is the benefit.
then you're not gonna get anything done because they'll just say you're wrong and move on. If you tell them there's a way to create jobs then you'll get their attention.

[Anonymous No.9413583]

>>9413558
gross

[Anonymous No.9413588]

>How do we convince people to care about the impending climate change disaster, and do so before we are at the point of unavoidable catastrophe?
Show them the hockey stick graph and a picture of a polar bear on a piece of ice.

[Anonymous No.9413592]

>>9413588
kek

[Anonymous No.9413593]

>>9413577
If that's the case, why haven't we seen a proper correction over the last century?

[Anonymous No.9413594]

>>9413580
You're not understanding my point. If people care about the economy then the only way to get them to care about AGW is to see that AGW will harm the economy. The things that would mitigate AGW do not have magical benefits by themselves. Replacing fossil fuels is inefficient in the eyes of the market, because the market is blind to the harm being done to it by AGW. It's the tragedy of the commons on a global scale. It will not create more jobs than it destroys, unless you take into account that AGW will destroy jobs.

[Anonymous No.9413597]

As one of my lecturers said, the solution is simply to utilize religion.

Those who are intelligent enough will base their values on science, and those who aren't on faith.

It's just a matter of molding the latter into something sensible.

Gaia worship might be a good start.

[Anonymous No.9413601]

>>9413484
there is a lot of money being spent to distribute propaganda discrediting the idea of global warming (and its working)

not to mention that people will just throw their hands in the air and declare whatever happens is god's will, and if the world ends then Jesus will return to save the true believers.

[Anonymous No.9413604]

>>9413593
The mslp measurement is probably a two fold problem. We are also dealing with expanding urban heat islands at a majority of our sensor locations. More asphalt also creates rising air.

[Anonymous No.9413607]

>>9413555
This is could be used as the next big scare.

[Anonymous No.9413613]

>>9413501
Okay, how do you solve this problem when people who don't believe in climate change have all the guns and people who believe in climate change don't believe in guns?

[Anonymous No.9413624]

>>9413613
Few old nutjobs in rural areas are irrelevant.
And don't underestimate the power of government policies and dedication in making them a reality beyond paper.

[Anonymous No.9413626]

>>9413613
That's a sweeping generalization. I could arm a small militia desu

[Anonymous No.9413630]

>>9413613
>don't believe in guns
The evidence is out there. Guns exist, my friend.

[Anonymous No.9413702]

>>9413607
>next
It's what climate change has been talking about this whole time, or at least that was my interpretation. The climate's changing is something of a consistent inconsistence. We see more sporadic and severe weather patterns than we usually would, and experience weather in seasons that we shouldnt as the atmosphere is damaged and weakened and we approach a state as a planet in the long term where our weather can resemble what we see on other planets due to our insulating blanket being stripped away/riddled with holes.

[Anonymous No.9413773]

In 20 years time you're going to feel embarrassed for falling for this climate change meme. It's no better than religious zealots screaming apocalypse every second. Only replace scripture with "satellite data".

[Anonymous No.9413783]

>>9413773
I'm sorry you are so ignorant. I'll be waiting for you on the right side in 20 years.

[Anonymous No.9413787]

>>9413484
>How do we convince people to care about the impending climate change disaster, and do so before we are at the point of unavoidable catastrophe?
We don't. Stop deducing ought from is. That's scientism, and only fedotards do that unironically.

[Anonymous No.9413841]

>>9413783

Yeah and you'll be blaming every weather occurrence throughout those years on CO2 emissions in a constant state of paranoia.

Pseudo-science, not even once.

[Anonymous No.9413859]

Make provisions for the people you care about and leave everyone else to die. You gave them a fair warning and if things turn out worse it's on them for not listening. It's basically the same thing as telling people to wear a seat belt. Telling them once is enough and from there whatever happens, happens.

[Anonymous No.9413862]

>>9413859
(you)

[Anonymous No.9413922]

>>9413594
>The things that would mitigate AGW do not have magical benefits by themselves.
>It will not create more jobs than it destroys, unless you take into account that AGW will destroy jobs.

There are definitely things that would mitigate climate change that have benefits on their own. People are more likely to be influenced by the economic gain of the issue because it skirts around whether or not climate change is real. Saying we have to control jobs and stifle industries will face more negativity. If you're trying to avoid risk then the responsibility for it all boils down to if it exists.

[Anonymous No.9414051]

>>9413484
None of the great scientists here can explain why we (west world) should care.
I don't believe in climate change,but let's suppose it's real.
As i live in a first world country i will have little to no problems,so why should i take restrictive measures and lower the quality of my life?I get nothing out of it.

[Anonymous No.9414070]

>>9413922
>There are definitely things that would mitigate climate change that have benefits on their own.
Yeah, stuff that's already being done. If there was an economic incentive it would already be working. But that's not all that a cost benefit analysis would recommend. Your argument defeats itself.

>Saying we have to control jobs and stifle industries will face more negativity.
Jobs and industry being lost from unmitigated AGW would face even more negativity, if people were actually paying attention.

>If you're trying to avoid risk then the responsibility for it all boils down to if it exists.
So you agree with what I said, that you have to convince people that it exists before you can convince them it is beneficial to mitigate.

[Anonymous No.9414071]

>>9413532
This is not the definition of skeptic, fucking illiterate millenial.

[Anonymous No.9414078]

>>9414071
>That's not the definition
I didn't say it was, but thank you for admitting you have no evidence or reasoning behind your denial. And if you want to argue based on literal definitions, you would have to accept that you are a deny that theory of AGW is true. Faggot.

[Anonymous No.9414081]

>>9414071
>That's not the definition
I didn't say it was, but thank you for admitting you have no evidence or reasoning behind your denial. And if you want to argue based on literal definitions, you would have to accept that you are a denier, since you deny that theory of AGW is true. Faggot.

[Anonymous No.9414236]

You god damn christians are going to kill the entire human species.
Going postal on deniers would only martyr them, making them look at statistics wont help. Is that it, are we really just fucked?

[Anonymous No.9414238]

>>9413484
1. CO2 and many other gases have "greenhouse" properties in that they allow visible light to pass through (hence invisible), but trap and re-emit infrared radiation. This is literally 19th century science, first proposed by Joseph Fourier in 1824, verified and quantified experimentally beyond reasonable doubt by Svante Arrhenius.

2. CO2 in the atmosphere has been rising, and this is a result of fossil fuel combustion (pic related). CO2 can be measured experimentally in the lab, and the stable isotopes of CO2 plunges into the negative values. Fossil fuel has distinct negative isotopic signature compared to natural CO2. This is also an undeniable fact from observation.

3. You add 1+2, you would expect the radiative energy budget of the earth to be out of equilibrium. This is exactly what we observe, based on satellites that measures total energy in vs. energy out by CERES satellite at NASA. https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page6.php On average, only 71% of energy entering the Earth is leaving. 2nd law of thermodynamics and conservation of energy states that when a system had energy imbalance, T must go up.

In short, CO2 causes greenhouse effect. Humans put CO2 into the atmosphere through fossil fuel burning. The earth is now in energy imbalance due to additional CO2, and therefore warming. All basic, high school physics that should be easy to understand

[Anonymous No.9414260]

>>9413484
much more problematic than deniers are the hysterics who want to destroy our economy and cause tremendous damage to mankind because of their irrational and unscientific beliefs

[Anonymous No.9414268]

>>9414260
>the hysterics who want to destroy our economy and cause tremendous damage to mankind because of their irrational and unscientific beliefs
So deniers.

[Anonymous No.9414278]

>>9414260
Someone's afraid they won't be able to afford a third Ferrari if they have to pay carbon tax. Don't worry Mother Gaia will provide you with something better: a healthy and beautiful environment.

[Anonymous No.9414279]

>>9414268
wrong. climate change deniers and hysterics are opposite extremes

[Anonymous No.9414281]

>>9414278
everything in your post is complete garbage

[Anonymous No.9414297]

>>9414281
says the retard

[Anonymous No.9414299]

>>9414279
Climate change deniers get hysterical and alarmist about efforts to mitigate global warming, claiming it will destroy economies when in fact doing nothing leads to much more harm to the economy and mankind from unmitigated global warming. In fact, economists have consistently found that simply raising the price of fossil fuels through an optimal carbon tax can maximize the benefit to the economy minus the costs, saving billions of dollars.

[Anonymous No.9414300]

>>9414297

[Anonymous No.9414304]

>>9414299
>doing nothing leads to much more harm to the economy and mankind from unmitigated global warming
post evidence for this

are you worried that an increase in life span will severely outweigh the decrease in accidents?

[Anonymous No.9414306]

>>9414304
global warming and increase in co2 can have great benefits for biodiversity and agriculture

[Anonymous No.9414314]

>>9414306
increase in temperature even helps corals to grow much faster and can counteract some of the great damage caused by water pollution

[Anonymous No.9414321]

>>9414314
society has peaked during warm periods

[Anonymous No.9414340]

I don't think climate change will be a cataclysmic event. It'll make life more expensive, possibly standards of living might stagnate or even drop a little. Prove me wrong.

[Anonymous No.9414341]

>>9414304
>post evidence for this
Enjoy:

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg3/index.htm

>are you worried that an increase in life span will severely outweigh the decrease in accidents?
I don't understand what you're referring to.

[Anonymous No.9414350]

>>9414321
This isn't a "warm period" this is unprecdented global warming. That's like saying productivity peaks when you have food, therefore eating 7000 calories a day must be good for you.

[Anonymous No.9414364]

>>9414306
>>9414314
>>9414321

All of this are so wrong I'm just speechless at how someone can be so ignorant.

[Anonymous No.9414365]

>>9414314
thats total bullshit
its exactly the opposite
warm temperatures literally kill coral reefs.

[Anonymous No.9414382]

>>9414321
>Human contribution of CO2 to the entire atmosphere.
This is incredibly misleading since global warming is caused by the change in greenhouse gas forcing, not the absolute amount. Most of the greenhouse effect goes toward keeping the planet from not being an ice ball. Global warming is the deviation from that baseline.

>CO2 lags temperature
This is misleading since CO2 currently does not lag temperature, and it fails to explain why CO2 lagged temperature. The reason CO2 lagged temperature in the past is because warming was started by increased solar radiation due to orbital eccentricity of the Earth. This increase in solar radiation started the feedback loop between warming and CO2/water vapor being released from the oceans. Today however, CO2 started the warming.

>As carbon dioxide increases it has less warming effect
Yes, and this is taken account into all climatologists' analysis. Unfortunately, GHG emissions have been increasing exponentially since the industrial revolution, leading to the linear warming we see. Logarithmic does not mean the effect is small.

>The models are wrong'
These graphs cherrypick by using old satellite data which was admitted even by skeptics to be flawed due to orbital decay. It has since been corrected and is now in line with both instrumental data and models.

>No global warming for 18 years 3 months
This graph also uses flawed satellite data and uses the old trick of cherrypicking the data to start at the 1998 El Nino in order to flatten the trend. Pathetic really.

>Sea levels have been drifting higher for 8000 years
This graph does not have the resolution to show the current period of sea level rise, which is at a much higher rate.

>No increase in the frequency or intensity of storms in the US.
>No increase in the frequency or severity of droughts in the US.
Strawman argument.

>"The entire North 'polarized cap' will disappear in 5 years" -Al Gore
Fake quote.

[Anonymous No.9414391]

>>9414321
>Ice core samples indicate warm periods long before the Industrial Revolution
Straw man. No one says there weren't "warm periods" before the Industrial Revolution. Current temperatures are much higher and more importantly, the rate of warming is unprecedented in human history. Also, the chart is not of global temperatures but of Greenland, the time axis incorrectly identifies 2000 as "Present" when it's actually referring to 1950, and the warming trend has nothing to do with the starting point of the data.

>The models are wrong.
The chart is a fraud. Pic related. And it's cherrypicking flawed satellite data AGAIN.

[Anonymous No.9414504]

>>9413547
>they thought he was a quack and it was all based in bad air.
Hence the word "malaria".

[Anonymous No.9414505]

>>9414341
>ipcc
they are proven to have been wrong in the past and have history of lacking integrity. therefore not a credible source

>>9414350
how do you know. from what I see our current warming isnt anything out of the ordinary even in the past few thousand years, let alone the entire history of the planet
>pic related

>>9414364
arguments in your post: zero

>>9414365
this proves you have no fucking clue what you are talking about

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Janice_Lough/publication/221802155_Growth_of_Western_Australian_Corals_in_the_Anthropocene/links/00463526c533be0425000000.pdf
>the larger the temperature rise, the larger coral growth increase
>most coral reefs have increased coral growth in the past decades
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00402312?LI=true
>a decrease in the natural water temperature of Hawaiian reefs would be more harmful to corals than a temperature increase of the same magnitude
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15686
>the maintenance of elevated but near-constant Ωcf in mature coral colonies is not directly influenced by ocean acidification
so obviously optimal growth temperature varies from species but generally favors warm water. ocean acidification does not harm corals, as you can see from my previous picture corals grow near the equator and global warming greatly accelerates growth from those further from the equator and increases the habitat of corals

[Anonymous No.9414513]

Aren't we already at the point of unavoidable catastrophe? Also I think scientists ought to focus on more obvious evidence, to me it almost seems like they purposely pick the evidence that can be easily manipulated by some retarded infograph to make it seem like some conspiracy. For example, we didn't have permanent snow here in southeastern WI until christmas fucking eve, which seems like a pretty big deal to me. Also i'm surprised people don't point out how blatant human effects on the environment are in cities, what with the smog and general shit feeling they all have.

[Anonymous No.9414531]

>>9414278
>durr hurr only the rich are affected by taxes right guiiiiz :DDDDD

[Anonymous No.9414532]

>>9414505
>they are proven to have been wrong in the past
Oh god! How shocking! As we know, scientists are not allowed to be wrong about anything. Only perfect beings are allowed to do science. Science is perfect, so if it's not perfect it's not science. I'm glad you caught that.

>have history of lacking integrity
Stop lying.

>how do you know. from what I see our current warming isnt anything out of the ordinary even in the past few thousand years, let alone the entire history of the planet
Your graph doesn't show anything past 1855, so how can it tell you that current warming isn't out of the ordinary? And it shows the temperature in one place in Greenland, not global temperature.

[Anonymous No.9414537]

>>9413555
>~0.15% in almost 100 years

[Anonymous No.9414542]

>>9414081
>Faggot
Why the homophobia?

[Anonymous No.9414545]

>>9414382
>This is incredibly misleading
not an argument
>This is misleading since CO2 currently does not lag temperature
not an argument
>This increase in solar radiation started the feedback loop between warming and CO2/water vapor being released from the oceans
then explain pic related. pre industrial perid co2 kept increasing for thousands of years while average temperature was in decline
>GHG emissions have been increasing exponentially since the industrial revolution
but are they still increasing exponentially to compensate for the less than logarithmic nature?
>It has since been corrected
so the data was modified. how do they know how to "correct" the satelite data? if the data was modified it loses all credibility
>This graph does not have the resolution to show the current period of sea level rise, which is at a much higher rate.
false. even ICPP says ocean level rise is expected to be around 20 cm for the 21th century, which is negligible. also, glacial melting is largely due to pollution which lowers its albedo
>Strawman argument
wrong. it disproves the claims that even miniscule global warming leads to much more extreme weather
>Fake quote
you are right for once
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFmqtkeQy9c
in reality he says "The entire north polar ice cap may well be completely gone in 5 years". that was in 2008

[Anonymous No.9414550]

>>9414391
when "no rise in temperature" is basically included in the uncertainty range the entire prediction becomes not falsifiable and therefore is not scientific

[Anonymous No.9414558]

>>9414532
heres the graph updated to 2009

look, I post specific data and facts and evidence and arguments and all you do is whine around and post ICPP. post specific sources. thats like me linking to wattsupwiththat.com as support for my argument. be specific so I can address and falsify your claims otherwise you are just shitting out fallacious bullshit

[Anonymous No.9414566]

>>9414505
Not that guy but you are severely misrepresenting your sources

>the larger the temperature rise, the larger coral growth increase
This is only true for a short time in certain areas. On average, it's false. Your own source points this out:

"Warming SSTs are resulting in (i) increased calcification rates reported here in the southeast Indian Ocean, where marginal reefs have taken advantage of warmer conditions, and (ii) recent declines reported elsewhere for more typical reef environments where thermal optima for calcification have been exceeded or resulted in setbacks in growth as a result of thermally induced bleaching."

>most coral reefs have increased coral growth in the past decades
Where do any of your sources say this? It's completely, utterly false.

>a decrease in the natural water temperature of Hawaiian reefs would be more harmful to corals than a temperature increase of the same magnitude
>Starving would be worse than getting fat, therefore getting fat is good...

>the maintenance of elevated but near-constant Ωcf in mature coral colonies is not directly influenced by ocean acidification
Odd how you left out the rest of the sentence: "it is however highly susceptible to thermal stress."
Do you really think being dishonest is helping your case?

[Anonymous No.9414567]

>>9413490
True

[Anonymous No.9414574]

>>9414513
>Aren't we already at the point of unavoidable catastrophe?
We can't avoid all the effects but we can mitigate them.

>Also I think scientists ought to focus on more obvious evidence, to me it almost seems like they purposely pick the evidence that can be easily manipulated by some retarded infograph to make it seem like some conspiracy.
I don't see what evidence is more obvious than the direct proof of it. People will make up conspiracies about anything they want to deny.

>For example, we didn't have permanent snow here in southeastern WI until christmas fucking eve, which seems like a pretty big deal to me.
Local weather is not good evidence.

>Also i'm surprised people don't point out how blatant human effects on the environment are in cities, what with the smog and general shit feeling they all have.
That's separate from global warming.

I don't think being dishonest would help climate scientists.

[Anonymous No.9414588]

>>9414558
Where did the +1.44 degrees come from? And again, this is the temperature in one place in Iceland, not global temps.

>look, I post specific data and facts and evidence and arguments and all you do is whine around and post ICPP
All I did was debunk your argument. You certainly posted specific data and facts, but you grossly misrepresented them. Either you have no idea what you're talking about or you did it on purpose? Which is it?

>thats like me linking to wattsupwiththat.com as support for my argument.
You asked for evidence that doing nothing does more harm tothe economy. I linked you a specific report on mitigation. Maybe next time make your question more specific.

>be specific so I can address and falsify your claims otherwise you are just shitting out fallacious bullshit
Massive projection.

[Anonymous No.9414593]

>>9414566
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/icdc7/proceedings/abstracts/mcneil1HI75.pdf
>Our analysis suggests that annual average coral reef calcification rate will increase with future ocean warming and eventually exceed pre-industrial rates by about 35% by 2100.

look, I am posting evidence and providing sources which you can look at and criticize what I say. studies all show the same: calcification rate has increased with increased ocean temperature

>On average, it's false
go ahead and post evidence then. I wish I could find a list of all reefs and their measured and historical calcification rates but I cant find it anywhere

>it is however highly susceptible to thermal stress.
that does not contradict an increased calcification rate at higher temperatures. thermal stress refers to when the upper limit is exceeded and of course then the corals die as pointed out in the hawaii study

you can see it like human metabolism. higher body temperature means faster metabolism. but of course when an upper limit is exceeded necrosis sets in and we die

[Anonymous No.9414598]

>>9414588
evidence and facts and sources in your post: zero

[Anonymous No.9414625]

>>9414382
piss off, asshat

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/coralreef-climate.html

such a retarded lil consumer, rationalizing the shit out of your bloated lifestyle, just like every other psychopath through history.

maybe quit squabbling over literally the most basic shit in science and find something a little more complicated next time if you feel like rationalizing.

[Anonymous No.9414635]

>>9414625
>government ressources
>replying to the wrong person
>name calling instead of posting evidence
you are legit sub 100 IQ and should stop posting on /sci/

[Anonymous No.9414639]

>>9414635
im replying to the person who replied to my post.

and thanks but I'll trust scientists at noaa instead of you to summarize the research

have a nice day

[Anonymous No.9414642]

>>9413484
Simple.

Make people bet.

If you deny it exists, you must absorb the risk and let the people who accept it pool their resources and survev.

[Anonymous No.9414643]

>>9414545
>>This is incredibly misleading
>>This is misleading since CO2 currently does not lag temperature
not an argument
You cut out the argument and ignored it. Why do you keep misrepresenting sources and your opponent?

>then explain pic related. pre industrial perid co2 kept increasing for thousands of years while average temperature was in decline
I find this argument very odd since you are using temperatures which were determined from the GHG gas composition in an Arctic ice core and comparing it to the CO2 composition in an Antarctic core, and trying to use the lack of correlation between the two to argue that CO2 does not cause temperature increase. But the Arctic ice core temperatures are completely based on the assumption that CO2 means warmer temperatures. So your argument does not support your conclusion.
And the lack of correlation between the two can be explained by the fact that the Arctic is not the same as the Antarctic.

>but are they still increasing exponentially to compensate for the less than logarithmic nature?
The change in GHG forcing has remained linear, so it must be compensating.

>so the data was modified. how do they know how to "correct" the satelite data?
Because they know the source of error is a specific orbital decay.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JTECH-D-16-0121.1

>if the data was modified it loses all credibility
If the data is not modified it loses all credibility, since there is a known error. Are you trying to make logical arguments, or will you just spout anything nonsensical in order to support your belief?

>false. even ICPP says ocean level rise is expected to be around 20 cm for the 21th century, which is negligible.
This doesn't respond to what I said. The graph's timescale does not have the resolution to show current sea level rise. It's another cut off graph.

[Anonymous No.9414645]

>>9414639
>>9414635

ooops. nevermind....

mean to reply to this
>>9414505

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/coralreef-climate.html

whatever... youre still an asshat rationalizing your bloated consumerism

[Anonymous No.9414648]

I suck at this... replying to the wrong posts....

fuck all of you

[Anonymous No.9414651]

>>9414545
>wrong. it disproves the claims that even miniscule global warming leads to much more extreme weather
So it disproves a strawman. That's exactly what I said. And the US is not the world.

>>9414550
>when "no rise in temperature" is basically included in the uncertainty range the entire prediction becomes not falsifiable and therefore is not scientific
But it's not. Why do you keep misrepresenting sources?

[Anonymous No.9414654]

>>9414635
>you are legit sub 100 IQ and should stop posting on /sci/

you are literally legit unironically legit literally retarded

I am so incredibly awesomely cool and awesome at using massive numbers of unnecessary words

[Anonymous No.9414655]

>>9414642
Nobody would keep their bet

[Anonymous No.9414657]

>>9414654
I am so incredibly awesomely cool and awesome at using massively huge numbers of unnecessary words

[Anonymous No.9414661]

>>9414654
>emphasis
WOULD YOU RATHER ALL CAPS???

[Anonymous No.9414664]

also fuck your post count, if you're that same guy

[Anonymous No.9414666]

>>9414661
Yes, yes I would.

[Anonymous No.9414668]

>>9414666
NICE TRIPS
santa

[Anonymous No.9414670]

>>9413484
>How do we convince people to care about the impending climate change disaster, and do so before we are at the point of unavoidable catastrophe?

impossible. Honestly most countries don't give a fuck. Places like china and india are polluted beyond belief and are barely making any effort to fix it. The Idae that they would make an effort to fix a more abstract thing like climate change is madness.

[Anonymous No.9414674]

>>9414668
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I AM VERY MUCH APPRECIATIVE OF YOUR HONEST CANDOR.

[Anonymous No.9414680]

>>9414668
ALSO

APPARENTLY I AM SATAN.

[Anonymous No.9414697]

>>9414593
>look, I am posting evidence and providing sources which you can look at and criticize what I say. studies all show the same: calcification rate has increased with increased ocean temperature
Another lie. You provided one source who's model is contrary to most other models:

https://coastal.er.usgs.gov/crest/research-themes/community-metabolism.html

http://www.environmentalindicatorsjournal.net/Journal/DisplayArticle/tabid/57/ArticleId/106/Effects-of-Climate-Change-Global-Warming-on-Coral-Reefs-Adaptation-Exaptation-in-Corals-Evolution-in.aspx

>that does not contradict an increased calcification rate at higher temperatures. thermal stress refers to when the upper limit is exceeded and of course then the corals die as pointed out in the hawaii study
Of course it contradicts it, since what you are saying is only true up to a certain point and in a certain context, which you attempted to hide by cutting off a sentence mid-quote. The fact is, the net affect of global warming and ocean acidification on coral reefs is negative growth.

[Anonymous No.9414700]

>>9414598
Responses to the argument in your post: 0

Do you ever get tired of getting BTFO?

[Anonymous No.9415031]

The United States is too busy having a great ideological war to give a fuck about this problem. I do wish people gave a fuck about this

[Anonymous No.9415113]

>>9413489
perhaps EnviroSci is not for you; have you thought of
switching to PoliSci, CompuSci, or maybe Women's Studies?

[Anonymous No.9415139]

Probably when we begin to lose billions in infrastructure from hurricanes, wildfires, and flooding. More likely, we will never solve it.

[Anonymous No.9415148]

>>9415139

But America did lose billions from those very same things in 2017 and they still don't give a shit...

[Anonymous No.9415239]

>>9415113
He should obviously go into petroleum engineering

[Anonymous No.9415244]

>>9413511
>The only way to convince people of warming climate is to have warming weather.
That doesn't even work. It's objectively hotter here in the southern US than it was when I was a kid---I wore jackets in September when I was growing up---but nobody believes it here. You'd think we'd be all aboard the climate change train but we're too busy deciding whether or not we want a pedophile to be in Senate

[Anonymous No.9415253]

>>9413484
Look at some case studies of conservative climate converts: https://e360.yale.edu/features/climate-converts-the-conservatives-who-are-switching-sides-on-climate-change
First, show them that everything they've been told about the models not being accurate is a lie.

[Anonymous No.9416980]

Daddy trump said it isn't real so it can't be

[Anonymous No.9417073]

Impending? Haven't we been experiencing the deleterious effects for at least a year already?

[Anonymous No.9417080]

The IS no way to convince some people.
Logic is a matter of reasoning from agreed upon axioms or postulates. If someone won't accept basic facts, there's nothing you can do.

All that we CAN do is make sure they're no longer in positions of power to make decisions.

You have my sympathy >>9415244. Assuming you're a Georgian, enough of your citizenry was sane.

[Anonymous No.9417083]

>>9417080
More of the same.

[Anonymous No.9417118]

>>9414070
>that you have to convince people that it exists
You should probably just throw climate change deniers in jail - for the economy, of course.

[Anonymous No.9417122]

How can people still believe in Climate change when it has literally been record cold temperatures in the Midwest and Eastern US?

[Anonymous No.9417125]

>>9415139
>lose billions in infrastructure from hurricanes, wildfires, and flooding

This is actually beneficial for the economic growth.

You should take a basic economic course.

[Anonymous No.9417136]

>>9417122
>>9417125
How can /pol/tards be this stupid? Must be a troll.

[Anonymous No.9417144]

>>9413588
Kek

[Anonymous No.9417152]

>>9417136
I'm not a poltard, and I'm 100% serious and 100% correct.

Can you please explain the reasoning for your nasty accusations?

[Anonymous No.9417156]

>>9417152
Prove you're not a troll and then we'll talk.

[Anonymous No.9417157]

>>9417136
I’m not from /pol/, either. It’s clear to me that Climate Change has always been happening over a period of millions of years.

[Anonymous No.9417170]

>>9417157
Of course the climate is always changing, that completely misses the point. The current change is unprecedented in human history, and will cost hundreds of billions of dollars in damage to human infrastructure and the ecologies we rely on. The fact that you can't even respond with a relevant argument just leads me to believe you are a shitty troll.

[Anonymous No.9417176]

>>9417122
(Midwest and Eastern US) =/= global

[Anonymous No.9417181]

>>9417156
How about instead of doing that (since there is no plausible way to meet your ridiculous demand), I just repeat myself and post an article that essentially proves my point.

>>9417125
>lose billions in infrastructure from hurricanes, wildfires, and flooding
This is actually beneficial for economic growth.
You should take a basic economic course.

https://www.bnn.ca/fort-mcmurray-fire-recovery-to-boost-alberta-gdp-by-1-1b-next-year-1.608301

Maybe you're the troll. You produce nothing, and just scream useless trigger words to silence opposition.

[Anonymous No.9417202]

>>9417181
Are you actually illiterate? Because your source says the complete opposite of what you claim:

>CALGARY -- The massive efforts to respond to and rebuild after the wildfire of Fort McMurray, Alta., will spur economic growth in the coming years but leave insurance companies and governments with a tab of more than $5 billion, says a new report.
>The Conference Board of Canada said in a paper released Tuesday that the spending will add 0.4 per cent or $1.1 billion to Alberta's GDP next year, followed by growth of 0.2 per cent and 0.1 per cent in 2018 and 2019, respectively.

Is $5 billion greater than or less than $2 billion? Tough one.

>The Conference Board also warned that while the increased spending in the coming years will boost the GDP, it isn't suggesting there will be any overall benefit to the disaster.

Troll or severely retarded? You decide!

[Anonymous No.9417210]

>>9417181
For someone telling people to take a basic economics course, this is pretty damn ironic. Dunning-Kruger in action.

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/08/broken-window-fallacy.asp

[Anonymous No.9417214]

>>9417202

Oh ok I guess 0.4 boost to GDP doesn't count as economic growth

My bad... please call me a retard again.

[Anonymous No.9417220]

>>9417202
Seriously someone should screencap this post as a textbook example of gaslighting.

[Anonymous No.9417222]

>>9417214
Oh OK, so just ignore the massive costs of global warming and only pay attention to the few good things that will happen. Makes perfect sense! Thank you for teaching me how economics really works, I'll stop using cost-benefit analysis now. Retard.

[Anonymous No.9417241]

>>9417222
Since you brought it up.
Some of the main economic benefits of global warming include:
Longer growing season
Easier shipping through arctic
Easier mining of arctic/antarctic
Fewer cold related deaths

[Anonymous No.9417247]

>>9417222
And besides "costs" are good for the economy - its good when people buy things. Consumption is good for the economy. Recovery from natural disasters is good for the economy. They all lead to GDP increases/economic growth.

Didn't you know that?

Some economist you are - perform "cost benefit/analysis" and you don't even know the basics.

[Anonymous No.9417261]

>>9417247
Your own source says that it will be a net negative. Why are you lying? Because you're a troll that's why.

>Some economist you are - perform "cost benefit/analysis" and you don't even know the basics.
The basic fact is that it's an economic fallacy to claim that destruction of resources and infrastructure is good. See >>9417210

[Anonymous No.9417266]

>>9417261
I didnt say it would be a negative. I didn't lie.

I said it would lead to economic growth.

What is an economic fallacy? I've never heard that term before.

[Anonymous No.9417267]

>>9417266
*positive

[Anonymous No.9417273]

>>9417266
>I didnt say it would be a negative. I didn't lie.
No. you said it will be positive, which is a lie.

>I said it would lead to economic growth.
So would breaking all the windows in your house, go do it.

>What is an economic fallacy?
An economic fallacy is a fallacy in an economic context. For an example, try reading about the broken window fallacy, instead of attempting to avoid the argument.

[Anonymous No.9417284]

>>9417261
That article is basically someone's opinion.

The fact is that unnecessary spending - by definition - boosts GDP and economic growth.

You cannot refute that basic fact.

[Anonymous No.9417302]

>>9417284
The article is an illustration of a fundamental economic fallacy, one that anyone who actually took a basic economics course would have learned.

>You cannot refute that basic fact.
So why aren't you supporting a law that says everyone must break their windows? Because you don't actually believe the shit you're spewing.

[Anonymous No.9417315]

>>9417302
What a useless graph. Did you just make that up now using paint?

I took micro and macro economics. I know about supply and demand, how monopolies/taxes affect the curves. I know about fiscal and monetary policy.

And I'm still waiting for you to refute one of the most basic fundamentals of macroeconomics.

[Anonymous No.9417318]

>>9417302
I'll even repost it, to help it stay fresh for you.

The fact is that unnecessary spending - by definition - boosts GDP and economic growth.

[Anonymous No.9417324]

>>9417302
Also know about the money multiplier. Central and chartered banks. Inflation etc...

Any time buddy... please enlighten us.

[Anonymous No.9417327]

>>9417315
>I took micro and macro economics.
Yet you've never heard of the broken window fallacy? You're not very good at lying.

>>9417318
>The fact is that unnecessary spending - by definition - boosts GDP and economic growth.
The fact is that climate change will lower GDP:

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6345/1362.full

But I'm sure your fake knowledge of economics trumps actual economists.

[Anonymous No.9417329]

>>9417327
So in other words, you cannot refute my point:

The fact is that unnecessary spending - by definition - boosts GDP and economic growth.

Nice. Thanks for playing. Have a nice day, bud.

[Anonymous No.9417336]

>>9417329
Your first claim was that climate change would be beneficial for economic growth, which is a lie. Then you attempted to shift the goalposts to "unnecessary spending." You're really just a pathetic liar, and you lost because of it.

[Anonymous No.9417344]

>>9417329
You just keep repeating the broken window fallacy over and over. Of course spending increases GDP, if you ignore that that you lost value in the first place and that that money could have been better spent in the economy through regular demand. Purposefully ignoring relevant facts does not get you to the correct conclusion.

[Anonymous No.9417351]

>>9417329
>The fact is that unnecessary spending - by definition - boosts GDP and economic growth.
The fact is, people who gamble win money.

[Anonymous No.9417441]

>>9417351
this guy gets it

>>9417344
this guy is a whiner, and kind of dumb... but his spelling, punctuation, and grammar is impeccable, and his heart seems to be in the right place.

[Anonymous No.9417549]

>>9413501
We tried that with communism yet people still buy that garbage

[Anonymous No.9417551]

>>9413588
Haha

[Anonymous No.9417558]

>>9413588
>>9413592
>>9417144
>>9417551
Samefag

[Anonymous No.9417593]

>>9417558
Why the homophobia?

[Anonymous No.9417600]

>>9413543
With a thin atmosphere boiling temp is extremely low

[Anonymous No.9417657]

>>9413484
This is every scientific topic: climate change is just the trendy one. Listen to a public figure like a politician or celebrity talk about the importance of fighting climate change and they know barely more than the average person does on the subject. Between the fact that everyone on both sides is either retarded or demands a thesaurus with each sentence, the competing lobby interests muddling the waters further by spouting half-truths and outright lies, the agendas and favoritism of modern universities doing their part to cast doubt on the validity of what they do publish even if it's good research, and the fact that the scientific community as a whole can be a confusing mess to unravel, and learning about climate change on a functional level can easily take hundreds of hours of wading through research. Modern science is not for people with lives.

[Anonymous No.9417659]

>>9413484
it is to late. how the fuck are going to fix it now? stopping will not reverse it now. enjoy the ride.

[Anonymous No.9417681]

It's not about wether climate change is real, it is
It's about wether the orderly world we built is worth saving (if it even still can be)
Most Climate-change "projections" etc. involve society collapsing into entropy as law collapses under the strain of maintaining cities battered by adverse weather effects
That's a fantasy to a great deal of people you know
I just don't know why we would bust our balls so our kids can have shitty marriages and miserable jobs just like we do

[Anonymous No.9417711]

>>9414505
>le Lappi ice core meme
every time you dumb cockholsters post this on /sci/, it's pointed out that not only is this a local rather than global proxy, and that it stitches together two data series but only references one, but it ends at 1855, completely leaving out pretty much all modern warming.
every time we tell you this, but you're too imbecilic to learn apparently.

this is all deniers have to fall back on: claims that have been comprehensively refuted a thousand times already. luckily for them, they have the attention span of an insect, so they quickly forget about it.

[Anonymous No.9417744]

>>9413490
If the Earth was round,there would be no reason to convince anyone of that fact...except you need to.
Knowledge cannot be simply fed to someone,critical thinking is important,we should encourage questioning of facts more often.

[Anonymous No.9417750]

>>9417744
Personally, I think climate change is man made and will become problematic, but I thought you might like to know that there is a group of climate scientists (mostly from Germany, albeit working all over the world), that are working on convincing politicians to enact laws which criminalize climate science denial. They're on the same spectrum as people who think we ought to criminalize anti-vaxers.

[Anonymous No.9417756]

>>9417744
and I think that is definitely going way too far, and will backfire on them and the rest of humanity disastrously.

[Anonymous No.9418110]

>>9417266
>>9417267
>I don't know WTF I said

[Anonymous No.9418291]

>>9413532
https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

[Anonymous No.9418691]

>>9413597

But climate change is already a religion. It's not like 99% of the people who believe it have checked the research themselves(including you most likely).

[Anonymous No.9418743]

>>9414537
>implying that's not a huge difference for life on earth

[Anonymous No.9418756]

>>9413484
What difference does it make? Taxes and windmills aren't going to fix it.

[Anonymous No.9418763]

>>9418756
this. once green energy is more efficient everyone will use that, until then supply for fossil fuels will always meet the huge demand, if not in 1st world countries when banned in places like china where they will undercut our economy

[Anonymous No.9418765]

>>9418691
>But evolution is already a religion. It's not like 99% of the people who believe it have checked the research themselves(including you most likely).

[Anonymous No.9418769]

>>9418765
well you are not wrong

[Anonymous No.9418794]

>>9418765
>But economics is already a religion. It's not like 99% of the people who believe it have checked the research themselves(including you most likely)

[Anonymous No.9418798]

>>9418794
>But seeing niggers as human is already a religion. It's not like 99% of the people who believe it have checked the research themselves(including you most likely)

[Anonymous No.9418804]

>>9418794
>But round Earth is already a religion. It's not like 99% of the people who believe it have checked the research themselves(including you most likely)

[Anonymous No.9418806]

>>9413484
I think consensus means something in science because of peer review. They're not just agreeing with each other for no reason, they verify each others' work.

[Anonymous No.9418866]

>>9413484
>How do we convince people to care about the impending climate change disaster, and do so before we are at the point of unavoidable catastrophe?
By screeching about it as loud as possible, telling people that they shouldn't be driving their cars, the getting the government to destroy nuclear power plants and building coal power plants all while screeching about the planet soon dying.
That will surely gain you massive support.

Another good plan is to exclusively market climate change to liberal and trying your hardest to make conservatives your enemy and not engaging with any "pro-environment" forces from the right.

At best ignore any economic argument and do not try to propose alternatives to transition the economy in a reasonable time frame.

>The amount of ignorance I've seen on the topic from talking to average people is simply shocking.
The amount of ignorance on ANYTHING is simply shocking.
The more you talk to the average person about something the more the average person will ignore you.

>>9413517
>You explain the difference between weather and climate, and also explain how on planets or moons with weak or no atmosphere experience drastic shifts in weather that are not conducive to life. For example, how the surfaces on the Moon and Mars can vary between being hot enoug
And your average person has just turned his brain off and is now 100% convinced that climate change is some nerds stirring up shit or already convinced.
Good job.

>How are we to take measures if nobody listens until its too late?
You don't.

[Anonymous No.9418877]

>>9418866
Its the economy, stupid.

[Anonymous No.9418886]

>>9418866
Economy and politics are irrelevant. It's the environment that matters.
And the issue with solving the problem comes from the right, not the left. So you are full of shit.

[Anonymous No.9419473]

>>9413484
Until their lives and futures are clearly and actively in danger, people will always just continue on, leaving the tasks to the few who do find climate issues more directly impactful. Eventually the world will change enough so that the people directly impacted outnumber those who aren't, and then there will be a political majority that actually allows congress to authorize some significant portion of taxes from America's large GDP towards improving things, or by that point more like diminishing the extend of the impact.

Until then, all we can hope for is enough like-minded individuals get a company going with enough income to do something about the issue directly instead of going through lobbyists and Congress.

[Anonymous No.9419480]

>>9413613
Texan here. My guns and I are ready to fix the climate at any time, just tell me where to shoot.

[Anonymous No.9419976]

>>9413484
How many people will die?

Then ask yourself if it will be a disaster.
Also if you have a bone to pick why not have one with the people who claim to be fighting against global warming as they seem to be against every viable solution (nuclear and sequestration) in favor of currently non-viable solution (solar and wind) because they want to fight the fossil fuel bogeyman.

[Anonymous No.9419980]

>>9419473
The idea that we can simply "spend" our way out of this is ridiculous - that's the philosophy of the rich, and that's what got us in this situation to begin with.

Working within the framework of a system that relies on the assumption that only good can come from economic growth / unnecessary spending isn't going to work. GDP is really just a measure of how much material is being moved around, including carbon into the atmosphere. Best case scenario your sanctimonious save the world taxes will be used to at-most partially compensate those worst affected by climate change. Worst case scenario they'll just be used to keep those same sanctimonious pricks bloated lifestyles going.

[Anonymous No.9419997]

>>9419473
>Until their lives and futures are clearly and actively in danger

This will never be the case, no matter how fast temperatures are rising. Climate is not weather. Natural disasters are going to happen either way - you can try to pin the blame for all of them on climate change if you want (and tax the people in a futile attempt to prevent future ones). but it will not change the fact no one is ever directly impacted by climate change. It's an existential threat, unlike day to day natural disasters.

Anyway, I know there is know way I am going to convince a devotee from the religion of economics, who has benefited immensely from said philosophy, that their entire philosophy in life which they've been raised from birth to believe in isn't going to work for certain types of problems.

[Anonymous No.9420001]

>>9418866
>The more you talk to the average person about something the more the average person will ignore you.

This is true and I have never been so alone.

[Anonymous No.9420008]

>>9413484
Call them names and tell them lies. Then hold a conference boasting about all the money we expect to make, while insisting that nobody is making any money. The most important part: pollution is only bad when it comes from white people. As in the non-binding Paris musings, China's rapid industrialization can continue freely.

[Anonymous No.9420009]

>>9417711
That's not the biggest flaw with the representation of the dataset.

The biggest flaw is that there's no error bar, and if you look at Alley et al. 2000 it is said explicitly that the error from GISP2 borehole T reconstruction were +- 3C

[Anonymous No.9420233]

>>9418886
>Economy and politics are irrelevant.
Not to 99% of the people you talk to.

>It's the environment that matters.
1% of the population cares.

>And the issue with solving the problem comes from the right, not the left.
Did you read what I said?
Because what you are doing here is EXACTLY the reason climate change will not be stopped.

[Anonymous No.9420236]

>>9418877
>Its the economy
What is "the economy"?

[Anonymous No.9420237]

>>9420233
>1% of the population cares.
It doesn't matter. Babies don't care about eating their carrots instead of candy either.

[Anonymous No.9420242]

if climate change is for real then where's the proof?

[Anonymous No.9420247]

>>9420237
>It doesn't matter.
You are sadly living in a democracy.
If 1% of the population cares then good fucking luck getting anything done at all, 1% of the populations are commies or neo-nazis.
In a monarchy you just have to convince a few people, but in democracy you need mass support to get anything done.

Stopping climate change has been pushed as a "political issue", which the left supports and the rights opposes.
Thats why nothing will be done for a very long time, it doesn't matter anymore if you convince people, they are supporting/opposing it out of principle.

Have you seen that guy "Steven Crowder" on youtube?
He cares about opposing climate change legislation not because it is some "deeply rooted belief", but simply because liberals are for it.
That is the fucking state of democracy.

[Anonymous No.9420273]

>>9413484
We don't convince them.
People listening to you won't solve the problem.
We're headed for an irreversible famine. Its time to find inland property that won't suffer from water inequality and pray for our ancestors to forgive us.

[Anonymous No.9420278]

>>9413484
Buy a gun instead. We're past the point of no return. Humanity as a species will survive, but there are modes of survival that are no better than going extinct.

[Anonymous No.9420438]

I think we should convince the jihadists to become kamikazes and attack USA. 95% of the unproductive idiots will be wiped out. All conspiracists, racists, flattards, weaboos and of course; climate change deniers will be dead. we will kill many birds with a single bird.

[Anonymous No.9420890]

Let's be real here. The people who deny climate change don't really give a fuck if it's true, or not. They just don't wanna deal with the regulations and measures that will be implemented to try and stop it.

[Anonymous No.9421168]

>>9413484
t. Self (paid shill)

[Anonymous No.9421170]

>>9413613
Build autonomous robots to use guns more effectively than people

[Anonymous No.9421297]

>personal motorized vehicle ban
>kw/h limit per household based on people registered
>ban of highly polluting plastic goods such as cups, bags, etc
>promotion of environmentally friendly behavior and lifestyles

We could ban fossil fuels in a decade if we start now.

[Anonymous No.9421321]

>>9421297
>>personal motorized vehicle ban
WHOOPS, looks like you got 0.5% support for your issue and no politician will ever bring forth such an issue as it makes him undetectable.
You can thank democracy for that, but you will never get something as unpopular as that through any democracy.

>kw/h limit per household based on people registered
>ban of highly polluting plastic goods such as cups, bags, etc
Exact same issue.

>promotion of environmentally friendly behavior and lifestyles
How authoritarian can you even get?
WHAT THE FUCK DOES THE GOVERNMENT HAVE TO DO WITH HOW I DECIDE TO LIVE MY LIFE.
Might as well start banning faggotry, it will be just as popular.

>We could ban fossil fuels in a decade if we start now.
Only if you start rounding up the people who won't vote for your candidates ans start putting millions into concentration camps.

[Anonymous No.9421338]

>>9421321
>How authoritarian can you even get?
>WHAT THE FUCK DOES THE GOVERNMENT HAVE TO DO WITH HOW I DECIDE TO LIVE MY LIFE.
>Might as well start banning faggotry, it will be just as popular.
Faggotry doesn't literally destroy the planet we live on. It's not authoritarian - it's protecting our petri dish for future generations. We can't just destroy it's and it's an unconscionable trampling of the human rights of future generations to allow this destructive behavior

I don't own a car and I limit my meat consumption to times when it has already been made for my by family or work occasions, because it's harmful for the environment.

[Anonymous No.9421374]

>>9421321
If you think this is bad for your life then just wait and see what climate change brings to the table. Doing the right thing now would be for the best.

[Anonymous No.9421382]

>>9421338
you should move to the tropics and learn to fish/ forage for fruit and vegetables.

be the change you want to see

[Anonymous No.9422133]

>>9413490
Man, I guess we don't need to talk about evolution, or gravity, or Earth being round anymore then.

[Anonymous No.9422136]

>>9421338
>Faggotry
Why the homophobia?

[Anonymous No.9422141]

>>9421382
that sounds like a lot of fun
for me that would be going back to my roots

[Anonymous No.9422263]

>>9413484
How is climate change human induced?

[Anonymous No.9422349]

A friend just told me about this website, he encouraged me to read this thread for a good laugh. Boy was he right!
I have a B.S. in Environmental Science and Resource management and a M.S. in Biosystems Engineering. I'm no kook, listen carefully.
Climate change is real, but not to the degree of anthropogenic causes as most of you believe.
Of course we pollute our waters, air and soil, fragment habitats, transform land, CRISPER, GMO's, and the list goes on. Industries should be held accountable for any unnecessary pollution. The pollution they do create should accurately be reflected in the price.
We are all stewards of this earth, we should all care for her.

That being said, let's get down to why people don't believe in climate change.
*Its not real*
At least not in the picture that Al Gore frames it for you. The models were wrong, it's going to get cold, very cold.
CO2 concentrations were over represented by 45-55% depending on the model.
Total solar radiance assumed constant of .1%
Ion flux and Kp index assumed insignificant, <.05%
The global electric circuit is just now being understood. Earthquakes are being predicted using OLR and pressure maps. Berkland currents were directly observed.
Our sun entering a modern minimum, more sever than the Dalton Minimum.

Non-scientific reasons people don't believe in climate change?

They don't trust unelected and unaccountable people to assert taxes for "climate change"

The belief that Innovation, competition, and necessity operating within a FREE market is a far superior answer to quite literally humanity's survival on this planet.

So please stop demonizing those who don't share your concern with eliminating coal burning power plants, even though CO2 is plant food...

Love one another, and work together to build a community your grandchildren will be proud to call their own.

[Anonymous No.9422374]

>>9414550
>falsifiable
babby lern'd a new werd

[Anonymous No.9422376]

>>9413517
>Mars and Moon
You mean the celestial bodies with so little atmosphere that the only source of heat is the Sun? Their weather is actually pretty consistent; it is hot in the day and cold at night. The reason their weather is like that is because there is no magnetic field to protect the atmosphere; nothing to do with excessive gases.
If anything we are making our atmosphere more like Venus, which has the most consistent weather in the solar system all year round. The atmosphere is so dense that it actually creates its own magnetosphere because of its abrasion with the solar wind, preserving itself despite the planet’s core having no discernible magnetic field. You should be happy that we are moving towards this; our planet will become more like the Chad Venus instead of the Virgin Mars.

This is all assuming climate change is real (which it isn’t).

[Anonymous No.9422383]

>>9422349
>a FREE market
...is a myth for everything except contraband.

[Anonymous No.9422394]

>>9414588
All of the ‘evidence’ if global warming (sorry, “climate change”) comes from ice cores. But as soon as ice cores show that nothing is changing it is no longer valid. Moreover, the graph shows that a difference of zero degrees (the null hypothesis) is within the uncertainty range, and anyone who has taken a basics statistics course knows that this means that you cannot reject it using this evidence.
Can you shill any harder?

[Anonymous No.9422397]

>>9422374
that's actually a common word in science.
When we're learning epistemological aspects of what we call "science", Popper's ideas are pretty much the consensus. In his development, the concept of "falsifiability" is the key. For example, "god" is not falsifiable, therefore, it falls outside the range of scientific methodology.

[Anonymous No.9422403]

>>9422394
>All of the ‘evidence’ if global warming (sorry, “climate change”) comes from ice cores.

[Anonymous No.9422414]

>>9417083
Wow, that's an amazing amount of perception that guys got there. Litteral genius...

[Anonymous No.9422448]

>>9419480
already shot your foot

[Anonymous No.9422463]

>>9422376

[Anonymous No.9422478]

>>9422397
It's not "a common word" except among anti-scientists who purloined it from Philosophy.
>Popper's ideas are pretty much the consensus.
...among whom ... Philosophers? Try to focus upon /sci/ence, please.

[Anonymous No.9422504]

>>9422478
>falsifiability is only for philosophers and “anti-scientists”
>pic related

[Anonymous No.9422521]

>>9422478
you need to understand that it's important to acknowledge the abstract concepts of science. I work with mathematical physics (non-abelian gauge fields, in particular), but in order to develop a full critical perspective on science, I took some time to study the philosophy behind.

Science is based on reasoning and logic. Logic is fundamental in philosophy. You see the connection now?

[Anonymous No.9422529]

>>9422521
Astronomy is based upon astrology. Astrology is based upon superstition. You see the connection now?

[Anonymous No.9422538]

>>9422529
Nice try, but it's the other way around.
Astrology is based upon astronomy.
Astronomy -> observations + data
Astrology -> use this info + superstition
The point is that the superstition portion doesn't lies in the roots of astronomy, but in the some non-scientific extension of it.
Take a look at some source:
"Early Physics and Astronomy: A Historical Introduction", by Olaf Pedersen

[Anonymous No.9422550]

The problem with trying to connect heady concepts like climate change (not weather change; the climate itself shifting, and creating environments not suited for a lot of life) with the layman is that there's almost nothing analogous that you can base it off of, and no reason for the layman to be immediately invested in it.

The political divide is incredibly complex, but simplifying it a little bit would be to bring it down to the level of the tragedy of the commons. In this thought experiment, a village has a common grazing ground for their livestock. Eventually, there are enough livestock such that the grass begins to thin, and there isn't enough pasture to sustain the amount of livestock.

For the entire village, it would be best to impose some kind of rule or limit on the amount of livestock in the pasture at any given time. However, for each individual family, it's more profitable to just increase the amount of livestock they have and get it before it's all gone. Such is the case with many industries; mining, logging, fishing, hunting, and recently even issues of emissions have turned into such a problem.

Politicians can tackle it based on whether they want to give people the personal benefit for the short term, or benefit everyone in the longrun, and for people working in the field it's much easier to see the short term benefit than it is to put your faith in the communal effort and think the problem might be fixed.

Good short term ways to help with the problem is to directly connect with some communities. For example, I'm from a fishing family and I go to some of the town hall meetings for deciding the salmon runs and explain the concept of how ocean acidification may be affecting the runs, and have even taken people out to perform some basic empirical tests, all to help demonstrate the real effects. It's nothing compared to a large scale effort- but if you want to try to make a difference, starting small can be a good way to see how it'll go.

[Anonymous No.9422564]

>>9422538
All right, so astrology is not a counterexample; but still, the only mention of "falsifiability"
that routinely appears on /sci/ is from the anti-science global warming denialists.

[Anonymous No.9422568]

>>9422564
New anon here, I actually disagree entirely. The scientific process is, at its heart, based on falsifiability; nothing that is inherently unfalsifiable can be considered scientific.

Think about a claim like "The devil doesn't exist.". The problem with this claim, and why it can't be scientific, is that there is no way to test this theory absolutely- you would need to be in every place in the universe all at once to determine absolutely that there exists no devil anywhere. This is really just a thought experiment- replace devil with any kind of claim, and the universe with any kind of undefined system.

Philosophy is often the backbone to science, in the applicable sense that philosophical logic is the backbone to mathematics. Trying to dismiss philosophy as it isn't science is like trying to dismiss chemistry as it isn't biology.

[Anonymous No.9422573]

>>9417176
Again the sloppyness with terminology: Regional is not global.

When claiming *global* warming it means, for real scientists, that it is all over the globe and with no exceptions. Otherwise it may be regional warming.

[Anonymous No.9422578]

>>9413484

The human race is altering the weather, but its not the general population doing it.

https://climateviewer.com/

http://www.thevinnyeastwoodshow.com/show-archives/top-10-weather-modification-technologies-jim-lee

[Anonymous No.9422584]

>>9422568
>Think about a claim like "The devil doesn't exist."
>The problem with this claim, and why it can't be scientific, is that there is no way to test this theory absolutely
First, it's not a theory: it doesn't explain any data.
Second, it's stated as a negative, and in order to be testable, the claim must be a positive.
Third, none of this is an attempt to dismiss Philosophy.
It's an (evidently futile) attempt to show the parrots of "falsifiability" on /sci/ are anti-science denialists.

[Anonymous No.9422588]

>>9422584
Shit man I'm so tired my vernacular is bleeding into my technical. I'm trying to say the same thing- a claim like the devil's proof is not scientific, and can't represent a scientific theory because it's not falsifiable. I was just trying to use an example that was easy to Intuit the ramifications with, sorry if I jumbled up any meaning.

Fucking Kuhn and Popper, man. People should read them in highschool, if you ask me.

[None !niqjediPCA No.9422610]

>>9413484
So, what "Solutions" are you preposing to deal with this so called "Climate Change"

Protip: Answers involving giving money to international banks, and answers involving DE-industrializing the west will not be accepted.

Go ahead, do your worst.

[Anonymous No.9422618]

Just because the Jews want to implement a global carbon tax to further reduce the masses into debt and lower quality of life doesn't mean that climate change is legitimate. Climate changes every hour of every day, constantly. For you to claim that the changes are suddenly man's fault is absurd.

[Anonymous No.9422660]

>>9422573
>what is average
are you 10y old?

[Anonymous No.9422671]

>>9422349
>The models were wrong, it's going to get cold, very cold.
contrarians have been predicting that for decades ("the trend will surely turn around in the next ten years") and they've been wrong over and over.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPSIvu0gQ90

[Anonymous No.9422677]

>>9422660
>Clinging to pseudo science terminology and sloppiness.
Desperate? In real sciences correct terminology is not nice to have, it is a requirement.

[Anonymous No.9422775]

>>9421374
>If you think this is bad for your life
I don't and if you didn't figure that out from the post then seriously read it again.
The fact is 99% of people will think that the legislation is LITERALLY ruining their lives.

>Doing the right thing now would be for the best.
You can only do things in a democracy if the population supports you.

>>9421338
>It's not authoritarian
It is, no getting around that.

>I don't own a car and I limit my meat consumption to times when it has already been made for my by family or work occasions, because it's harmful for the environment.
And 99% of humans don't want to do that.
What are you gonna do? Since these people WILL vote against you.

[Anonymous No.9422779]

>>9422677
>he is 10
does your mother know you are here?

[Anonymous No.9422801]

>>9422584
How are you so dense that you can’t see that science requires a theory be able to be proven wrong? Perhaps the only reason you see this only on climate change threads is because only climate change brainlets are retarded enough to disregard such an integral part of science.
The term is on the scientific method’s Wikipedia page ffs

[Anonymous No.9422803]

>>9422779
>Still maintaining his right to be wrong.
Clowns like you are the cause for climate denialists.

t.Physicist

[Anonymous No.9422811]

>>9422803
Son, shut up and go clean your room

[Anonymous No.9422816]

>>9422811

[Anonymous No.9422841]

>>9413484
considering there are people who still try to demonstrate that the earth is flat, we are pretty much fucked

[Anonymous No.9423248]

>>9413841
I guarantee you are not educated on AGW or any of the relevant fields of study. It is misguided though possibly logical to aruge that the current models are incorrect. Calling it pseudo science is utterly incorrect and displays your incredible lack of understanding.

[Anonymous No.9423270]

>>9414670
Tbh recently places like China and India have shown more inclination to be serious about it, I would guess because they live with the fallout from it ever day in their immediate vicinity. Hard to deny mankinds negative impact on the environment when you live in hong kong or new delhi

[Anonymous No.9423292]

>>9417657
There is a lot of merit to these points but I question someones moral fibre and civic virtue if they are unwilling to spend 100 hours of their life becoming educated on one of the great challenges of our time. That equates out to 1-3 months of casual reading.

[Anonymous No.9423303]

>>9419997
I could flame you out of existence for how retarded this is but instead if posit a simple thought experiment: You live in a town by a lake which provides greatly for the necessities of life to the towns residents, over the course of 50 years the lake dries up and with it, its bounty. Do you stay there or move somewhere else?

[Anonymous No.9423310]

>>9421321
>WHAT THE FUCK DOES THE GOVERNMENT HAVE TO DO WITH HOW I DECIDE TO LIVE MY LIFE.
Literally everything, the government as a manifestation of the general will of the society you are a member of decides how, where, and when you can live your life. Welcome to the social contract.

[Anonymous No.9423328]

>>9423310
I agree, I don't think Fascism is such a bad Idea.

[Anonymous No.9423370]

>>9413613
In America, most people believe in climate change and most people believe in the 2nd amendment. I figure there is enough overlap to start arming people.

[Anonymous No.9423374]

>>9413484
>The amount of ignorance I've seen on the topic from talking to average people is simply shocking.

Half the population has a double digit IQ. This explains why most of the people I meet believe humans cause global warming but don't know why they believe that. The TV tells them and they believe it. That's about as much as you can expect out of them.

If you want people like me, someone not familiar with climate science but familiar enough with other fields to tell when he's being bullshitted, to even consider you scientists then you need to quit letting people like Al Gore talk for you.

You need some version of Dawkins. Someone who actual understands the field and doesn't mind explaining it. Even if this magical person shows up and explains why we should believe climate predictions from people who can't tell me what the whether is next week you're still stuck with the what do we do about it. But at least you quit letting people make a quick buck or political points off your work.

[Anonymous No.9423386]

>>9422573
>Regional cooling + Global warming is actually regional warming
Hello Mr. "Real" Scientist.

[Anonymous No.9423408]

>>9422376
>wanting to be "chad" venus with a surface temperature of 864 degrees (in Chad Fahrenheit)
>literal cuck venus can't even spin like a real planet
>takes a half year just to rotate
>probably incapable of ever having tidal lock with another celestial body
>has zero moons
>named after the god of pussies
>name rhymes with penis

>not wanting to be chad mars
>has two moons, does not give a fuck about moonogamy
>they're both only allowed to be his moon
>figuratively and literally the coolest rocky planet
>named after the most badass god
>name rhymes with fast cars, candy bars, super stars

[Anonymous No.9423417]

>>9423328
Well, here in Europe people are seriously suggesting that we need somehow to set democracy aside to enact climate reversal. Somehow the new people in power to rule over the creti ... uh, I mean the people, will funnily be the very people who suggest setting democracy aside.

That would explain the religious touch to the debate. It is all about power.

[Anonymous No.9423438]

>>9423417
>set democracy aside
Wouldn't be a first for the EU.
It wouldn't surprise me all that much if they just do it without any kind of popular support, they love talking about democracy but when it gets to the "important issues" "the people" suddenly become not all that relevant.

>It is all about power.
That is certainly true.

[Anonymous No.9423550]

>>9423438
That identical to every modern democracy, people are too stupid and apathetic to be given serious credence to on certain issues.

[Anonymous No.9424136]

>>9420242
https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

[Anonymous No.9425668]

>>9414260
>Not wanting the government to put more regulations
>harmful tot the economy
>will destroy muh enviorment
Yes because filthy peasants during the midevil ice age causes so much damage. They didn't have cars, so they must have excelled enough CO2 to cause an ice age to happen.

[Anonymous No.9425674]

>>9424136
>skepticscience
Whoa there, we got a Skeptic® here! Our ideas just got BTFO!

[Anonymous No.9426009]

>>9413484
Hey, I've got an idea. Instead of forcing people in Europe who contribute 1e-10% to global warming to buy 95% of clean energy shit we leave them alone and focus on people who are really responsible so they don't think it's just a scam for money? Farmers in Belarus sure need dem solar panels but let's maybe focus on China? Oh wait that wouldn't be profitable I guess we just have to insult them and call them retards and deniers

[Anonymous No.9426042]

>>9413490
If climate change were false, there'd be no reason to 'convince' anyone of it

[Anonymous No.9426130]

>>9424136
>https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php
Some of their arguments are odd. Looking at 3:
>3 "It's not bad" Negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health & environment far outweigh any positives.
That is just a statement. Looking at more details, such as polar ice, we find this:
>While the opening of a year-round ice free Arctic passage between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans would confer some commercial benefits, these are considerably outweighed by the negatives. Detrimental effects include loss of polar bear habitat and increased mobile ice hazards to shipping.

If the polar ice cap melted, how on Earth can there then be mobile ice hazards?

[Anonymous No.9426137]

>>9413490
If x was real, there's be no reason to "solve for x" anyone of anything

[Anonymous No.9426142]

>>9413484
Don't bother, move inland and laugh as the coastal retards who deny any climate changes drown.

[Anonymous No.9426288]

>>9426130
No ice cap does not mean no ice on the water

[Anonymous No.9426583]

resident of a landlocked state here, convince me why I should give a single shit about this

[Anonymous No.9426592]

>>9426583
What do you eat?

[Anonymous No.9426593]

>>9426592

any fucking thing I can get my hands on

[Anonymous No.9426597]

>>9426593
I hope you like rocks then, because food is going to become increasingly scarce.

[Anonymous No.9426603]

>>9426597

How so? Keep in mind I live near several quadrillion gallons of fresh water so it won't be a drought.

It's real, but it's a self correcting problem.

[Anonymous No.9426686]

>>9426603
>How so?
Do you import food? Also heat stress is probably going to impact your agriculture, even with sufficient water.

[Anonymous No.9426905]

Question, aren't "temperature readings" false due to urbanization? Also, doesn't the sun go through cycles of its own that could explain natural phenomenon? Such as Hurricanes, and stop me if I'm being retarded but, isn't CO2 plant food?

Along with that, do Humans really have any effect at all over climate change? shits been cooking off for millions of years familia, ice ages come and go and so do interglacial periods.

[Anonymous No.9426928]

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/01/180108121547.htm
more evidence climate change alarmists are shills

[Anonymous No.9427214]

>>9426905
>Graph
That's almost certainly bullshit. No record that spans millions of years is also going to capture the last hundred accurately. Also, comparing slopes on a graph with a varying scale is retarded.

>Question, aren't "temperature readings" false due to urbanization?
No, The urban heat island effect is removed using homogenisation.

>Also, doesn't the sun go through cycles of its own that could explain natural phenomenon?
No. None of the sun's cycles can explain the current warming trend.

>isn't CO2 plant food?
No. CO2 is only the limiting factor of plant growth under ideal conditions, such as a greenhouse.

>do Humans really have any effect at all over climate change?
Yes. Adding large amounts of greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere has an impact.

>shits been cooking off for millions of years
So?

>ice ages come and go and so do interglacial periods.
Very slowly, by human standards. The changes we are making are MUCH faster.

>>9426928
>https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/01/180108121547.htm
As far as I know, methane hydrates have been considered fairly negligible as a feedback for a while now. I'd be surprised if this noticeably impacts any predications.

>more evidence climate change alarmists are shills
Please learn what some of those words mean.