What motivates climate change denial, particularly after the evidence of the last five years?

File: 194 KB, 1024x668, DcYuc1vWAAEJuIg.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Mon Aug 20 21:24:34 2018 No.9949450 [Reply] [Original]

What motivates climate change denial, particularly after the evidence of the last five years?

Anonymous Mon Aug 20 21:29:03 2018 No.9949459

The biggest problem is the US. Here in the US the American Dream changed from 'anyone can own their own business' to 'everyone needs a home with a white picket fence and a 2 car garage'.

We have built our society on the car. Climate change threatens this. People would rather accept that there must be some flaw in the science then there's a flaw in the new American Dream.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 20 21:47:32 2018 No.9949489 >>9949450 Fear

Anonymous Mon Aug 20 21:52:55 2018 No.9949499

Very few people legitimately deny that the climate is changing. The concern is the following questions:

1) Are humans a major contributer to the change - I honestly don't think it matters whether we are or not, awful politics means that you pick the side that agress with the way you tick the voting ballot.

2) Can we do anything to stop or divert the change?

3) Should we even care?

Anonymous Mon Aug 20 21:58:14 2018 No.9949507

>What motivates climate change denial
PROPOGANDA

>what?! nobody does propaganda anymore
One word, advertising. We have a $600 billion dollar industry dedicated to propaganda and brainwashing the masses. Innocent propaganda/brainwashing is done out in the open to desensitize people to it. The more sinister/shady stuff is done in subtle and secretive ways. It's all basically advertising designed to make people believe global warming doesn't exist.

I mentioned advertising is a $600 billion dollar industry, which begs the:
question who's paying to convince people global warming is a hoax?
who has the most to loose if carbon is proven to have caused billions of dollars in irreparable environmental damage?
who were the 1st people to conceal the truth about global warming? (somebody knew about it in the 70s/early 60s)

Anonymous Mon Aug 20 22:00:37 2018 No.9949512

Nobody actually hears the facts. You have idiots claiming the world is going to end and people outright reject doomsday bullshit because they got fooled once by that nigerian prince and they're not going to let it happen again. If the only people getting media attention were those who actually represent the data and its implications instead of clickbait pop sci retards, 90% of the US would be in support of efforts to combat it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 20 22:02:48 2018 No.9949513 >>9949499 The answer to all of those is 'yes', but I get your point.

Anonymous Mon Aug 20 22:03:07 2018 No.9949514

>>9949507
>who's paying to convince people global warming is a hoax?
besides the obvious oil/coal industry, the construction/property development industry is probably into that big time. They're mostly mafia black market types to begin with so likely there are no shady dealings beneath them.

Anonymous Mon Aug 20 22:08:27 2018 No.9949523
File: 134 KB, 640x360, Chesterfield-Scientific-Evidence-AD.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9949507
case in point, the tobacco industry

They ran a massive advertising/propaganda campaign designed to convince everyone cigarettes don't cause cancer. IT WORKED!! For a while anyway. It worked for about 40/50 years and in that time the industry was able to operate with impunity and make tons of cash. I'm sure in their eyes it was all worth it in the end.

The war on climate change is following a pattern VERY similar to this one. We can see it ending in about 20/30 years from now. Unfortunately the damage to the Earth will be unfix-able by then. Perma frost will melt, and deep sea methane ice will enter the atmosphere creating a runaway chain reaction that'll bring about a massive extinction level event. Humans might not survive.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 20 22:08:29 2018 No.9949524 >>9949459 >absolutely everything is middle class america's fault no, the blame is more spread out than that

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 20 22:16:18 2018 No.9949536 Media lies so much that people start distrusting everything they say. People also get very triggered when you even suggest something different about climate change so it's kinda funny to disagree

Anonymous Mon Aug 20 22:16:40 2018 No.9949538

>>9949523
>The war on climate change is following a pattern VERY similar to this one. We can see it ending in about 20/30 years from now
It's pretty much already over, the only major hold out is the USA, with pockets of denialist conservatives in other countries whose base is quickly dwindling. China and India are on working like hell to fix their shit. Russia accepts it as fact (even if they're too nihilistic to care). So does the euro-zone, most of SEA and most of Latin America. Even Africa and the Middle East is taking it more seriously than the USA.

On this issue, American neglect is the big hurdle to fixing our shit.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 20 22:16:58 2018 No.9949540 >>9949450 >What motivates climate change denial, particularly after the evidence of the last five years? https://www.edx.org/course/making-sense-of-climate-science-denial-0

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 20 22:50:15 2018 No.9949589 >>9949450 The same thing that motivates flat earthers.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 20 23:04:47 2018 No.9949604 >>9949536 the power of the meme, troll, rebellion, antiestablishmentism I feel like at some point these clowns are just getting tricked with a simple reverse psychology.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 20 23:57:55 2018 No.9949681 >>9949450 Climatefags refuse to consider geoengineering, which suggests their real motivation is just reducing western living standards because "OMG it's so unfair we aren't living the way brown savages do."

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 21 00:00:21 2018 No.9949688 >>9949450 The people who trade in coal and oil don't want to stop making money, and ordinary people don't want to admit the world is changing because that's scary.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 21 00:11:39 2018 No.9949700 >>9949688 >The people who trade in coal and oil don't want to stop making money What's really annoying is the carbon economy could be worth trillions of dollars. They can still make their megafortunes.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 21 00:22:44 2018 No.9949710 >>9949681 Geoengineering is unlikely to save us, and virtually all proposed methods have unknown side effects, which may hardly be worth the effect itself.

Anonymous Tue Aug 21 00:29:21 2018 No.9949718

>>9949710
>unknown side effect
most involve decreasing the amount of sun hitting the earth. Decreased sunlight and increased temperatures will put stress on all plant life, killing many and making farming VERY difficult. Geoengineering will do nothing to prevent ocean acidfication however.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 21 00:34:37 2018 No.9949723 >>9949450 same playbook as cigarettes before https://youtu.be/iMxMPdkcknM?t=7m45s

Anonymous Tue Aug 21 00:43:46 2018 No.9949728

>>9949681
1. climate change doesn't exist
2. climate change exists but it isn't human-made
3. climate change is mostly human-made but we can just use geo-engineering to fix it. no need to cut emissions
4.ok, those cocksucking engineers fucked up everything but we haven't had a chance in the first place with all those denialistic assholes around

Anonymous Tue Aug 21 00:59:30 2018 No.9949743

>>9949718
>>9949710
Every geoengineering conversation comes back to the same conclusion, the only practical solution is decarbonizing our society over the next thirty years and then becoming carbon negative by the order of several gigatonnes a year after 2050.

Difficult but doable. The only thing stopping it is the lack of political leadership. Corporations are making a more honest effort to decarbonize than nations are.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 21 01:38:11 2018 No.9949766 >>9949450 People don't want to drive less

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 21 01:41:01 2018 No.9949770 >>9949681 The West doesn't need to reduce living standards, just the amount of people living.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 21 01:45:59 2018 No.9949773 >>9949450 People want to pretend that everything is going to be ok and it's not all fucked.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 21 01:47:16 2018 No.9949776 >>9949524 Nope. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837709000374

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 21 01:48:54 2018 No.9949782 >>9949523 Wow ads were really obvious then >unnamed "medical specialist" discovers that cigarettes are harmless I guess Flynn effect really is real.

Anonymous Tue Aug 21 02:00:25 2018 No.9949786

>>9949782
We've spent billions of dollars and have had decades to masterfully refine the art of propaganda. It was all just the same crap till a few years ago, but no more. Social media platforms spy on people, picking their brains to see what makes each individual tick, then feeds them the BS that's tailor made specifically for them. I fear the day when AI do this automatically. Or when a computer AI with this capability goes rogue, and either accidentally or intentionally brainwashes it's masters. Worst part is we're celebrating that social media is capable of giving us targeted adds. People actually believe this new change is good. When civilization collapses, it'll be accompanied by our own thunderous applause.

Anonymous Tue Aug 21 02:02:36 2018 No.9949788

>>9949773
>People want to pretend that everything is going to be ok and it's not all fucked
It's not all fucked. If anything the doom's day environmentalists have done as much if not more damage as the denialists through breeding a form of climate apathy or nihilism.

More strident action must be taken to preserve a habitable planet, but that action is possible and is beginning to become more apparent across all sectors. It just needs the political leadership to give it the boost it needs, and not the bargained, half-measure leadership of the Paris Accords, but serious and committed leadership.

You all have to vote, and vote for the candidate or party that takes this stuff seriously, and you need to write or call your local candidates that don't to let them know that global warming is the key voting issue, and if they want your vote they have to do more to get it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 21 02:10:45 2018 No.9949796 >>9949770 fuck off thanos

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 21 03:26:04 2018 No.9949845 File: 127 KB, 601x508, 1512571385792.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9949450 >the world is ending because of glo -- climate change! For real this time!

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 21 04:11:03 2018 No.9949889 >>9949845 The two terms have always been synonymous, and you'd need to be blind and stupid (or well paid to be ignorant) to not see what's going on right now.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 21 04:34:37 2018 No.9949903 >>9949450 >after the evidence of the last five years >five years >FIVE YEARS AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHA

Anonymous Tue Aug 21 04:44:43 2018 No.9949909

>>9949450

Combination of factors. In the people I know personally that deny climate change it seems to be a mix of :

A. Desire to pierce the veil of society and cut through lies and deception to find the "real" truth.

and

B. A total lack of ability to accomplish this goal and self awareness to recognize their limitations.

The effect that cable news has on the argument should not be ignored either. Outlets like Fox or CNN will have on people that present "both" sides of the argument and just let them duke it out.

Ie, the networks present science and misinformation as if they are in the same intellectual realm.

This legitimizes irrational positions because those irrational positions tend to fit with peoples preconceived notions.

Then again, everything I just said is purely anecdotal and not scientific in the least, am I just another brainlet?

Anonymous Tue Aug 21 04:45:11 2018 No.9949912

>>9949450
No one is denying climate change. What we;re denying are the crazed conclusions of the leftist Apocalyptic cult that seems to have attached itself to a natural phenomenon (especially the loons who claim Earth will turn into Venus).
This planet used to be much warmer than it is today.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 21 04:50:00 2018 No.9949919 >>9949912 Theyre cocksucking chicken littles, they offer nothing concrete yet demand everyone panics at the mere thought of a minor shift to Earths climate (which is unavoidable btw, no matter what we fucking do)

Anonymous Tue Aug 21 04:52:32 2018 No.9949923

>>9949912
>What we;re denying are the crazed conclusions of the leftist Apocalyptic cult that seems to have attached itself to a natural phenomenon
I'm a radical environmentalist, and a literal Nazi. Where's your non sequitur argument now, bitch?
>(especially the loons who claim Earth will turn into Venus).
There will be no runaway greenhouse effect, because the emissions required to change the temperature enough to boil off our saltwater oceans are astronomical, and would take many centuries or millennia more of widespread fossil fuel use.
>This planet used to be much warmer than it is today.
And humans didn't exist then. Also, the topsoil wasn't washing away at hundreds of millions of tons per year and the fish in the ocean weren't all predated to ecological collapse, all while a sentient species' population was exploding due to widespread use of technology and food surplus.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 21 04:53:01 2018 No.9949924 >>9949845 >>9949889 climate change: describes local extremes increasing global warming: average temperature of the whole globe increasing

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 21 04:53:39 2018 No.9949926 >>9949919 Here's the problem. It's not a "minor shift" the Sahara desert has grown 50% in the last 100 years. Do you not understand the significance of that? Yes, image changes. But we are changing it drastically. 50% in one century.

Anonymous Tue Aug 21 04:54:59 2018 No.9949928
File: 47 KB, 700x509, 1533404920703.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9949919
You're a cocksucking moron that can't acknowledge the dire threats of a large population addicted to technology and paying no mind to the imminent catastrophe in the environmental balance our entire species depends on.

Here's something concrete for you.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 21 04:55:03 2018 No.9949929 >>9949923 >washing away at hundreds of millions of tons per year and the fish in the ocean weren't all predated to ecological collapse, which has nothing to do with climate btw, you stupid fuck.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 21 04:56:25 2018 No.9949930 >>9949928 You're a cult member, who's adopted a religion based around shaky data relating to the "climate"

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 21 04:57:30 2018 No.9949931 >>9949929 Ecological collapse is the entire threat, not simply AGW, you ignorant faggot. Climate change by itself means nothing; it's the rape of the natural world (made worse and accelerated by AGW) that will do us in.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 21 04:58:54 2018 No.9949934 >>9949929 Yes it does. Top soil is usually less dense and made up of minerals. This not only affects the amount of heat the ground absorbs, but also the amount it holds. That's not even taking into account the foliage on top of it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 21 04:59:25 2018 No.9949935 >>9949930 you're a denialist faggot idiot that has trouble with basic scientific reasoning and interpretation of data literally no one should listen to your stupid bitch ass, especially when it comes to getting facts straight

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 21 04:59:54 2018 No.9949936 >>9949931 Well you better panic and start screaming about how we're all going to die.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 21 05:01:23 2018 No.9949939 >>9949935 Your life is likely one pathetic panic attack stacked atop another.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 21 05:05:09 2018 No.9949942 https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2018/08/news-arctic-permafrost-may-thaw-faster-than-expected/

Anonymous Tue Aug 21 05:05:21 2018 No.9949943

>>9949936
>>9949939
Wow, the denialtards continue the chorus of "Chicken Little," despite alarm being the completely rational response to faggot Fudds raping the environment to death for their precious convenience. It's too bad Hell doesn't exist for such deserving and worthless pieces of shit.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 21 05:08:38 2018 No.9949947 >>9949450 charlatans misinterpreting evidence, using old evidence and obfuscating parts of evidence to fit a denialist narrative that dumb people get sucked into when they hear '20 studies have concluded that climate change is bullshit'

Anonymous Tue Aug 21 05:09:15 2018 No.9949948

>>9949943
The warmies can never back their own shit up, their story turns to absolute shit when you take into account shifts in the climate for the last 10,000 years. The TINY "spike" thats occurred over the last 100 years is well within the historical standard deviation. Warmies will never admit that though, they'd rather do their best to spark panic and instill fear in everyone. Warmies are fucked in the head.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 21 05:10:39 2018 No.9949951 >>9949943 You're a chicken little retard, get help.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 21 05:13:50 2018 No.9949956 >>9949926 >Sahara desert has grown 50% in the last 100 years Market will fix it.

Anonymous Tue Aug 21 05:15:21 2018 No.9949958

>>9949948
look at >>9949928 and then please, put a razor blade deep into both of your wrists
>>9949951
you're an actual retard that can't follow basic analysis of data to its logical conclusions

Again, AGW is one part of a suite of problems leading to the simple conclusion that very bad things are going to happen if the status quo continues. The math of population and continuous food supply doesn't add up, especially when Fudds have to drive their retard wagons every goddamn day and buy cheap Chinese shit to throw in the ocean.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 21 05:16:21 2018 No.9949961 >>9949935 Fuck your graphs, you fucking goof.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 21 05:16:26 2018 No.9949962 >>9949958 >The math of population and continuous food supply doesn't add up Malthusian claptrap which has been thoroughly disproven. The numbers don't HAVE to add up.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 21 05:17:26 2018 No.9949963 File: 58 KB, 564x690, 56a7537b1914f97360c50a0d0d5e117b.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9949958 Aka: WE ALL GONNA DIE. News flash, thats going to happen anyways.

Anonymous Tue Aug 21 05:23:23 2018 No.9949971

>>9949961
>I reject evidence that I don't like
this is why you are known as a denialtard
>>9949962
The numbers that don't add up are (topsoil creation) - (topsoil loss) = less food, (fish that exist) - (fish that are being caught) = fish supply collapses to zero, and P = P0 exp(a*t) where t is time and P is population some time t after population P0. Is that math simple enough for you?
>>9949963
All of us will live lives of plenty. It's your great-great-grandchildren (God I hope you didn't reproduce) or those of your family that will have to deal with hordes of third worlders, mass migration, famine, and war. I have enough of a conscience to try and not be remembered as "that bunch of retards that raped the world to death because pickup trucks and cheap bullshit were cool." Unfortunately, your collective retardation will ensure the worst outcome.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 21 05:26:01 2018 No.9949974 >>9949971 >P = P0 exp(a*t) So the population goes up? Looks fine to me. So we'll have a few less fish in the sea or polar bears in yellowstone or whatever. Big deal.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 21 05:28:44 2018 No.9949978 >>9949971 Cry harder, and I might believe you.

Anonymous Tue Aug 21 05:30:53 2018 No.9949982

>>9949974
>I don't understand the full extent of environmental disaster that is happening
Then shut up and learn, before your descendants suffer the consequences.
>inb4 misanthropy or defeatism
>>9949978
>you're triggering me, facts aren't real!
It's really unfortunate that the worst offenders will get away with it. You deserve so much worse.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 21 05:33:18 2018 No.9949986 File: 626 KB, 1920x1156, igor-sobolevsky-infv3-copy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9949982 Ill give you a hint chicken little, no one gives a fuck. Go head and scare yourself, we dont care.

Anonymous Tue Aug 21 05:41:10 2018 No.9949993

>>9949986
>REEEEEEEEE I HATE FACTS
And everyone 150 years from now will have nothing but deserved contempt for you and your contribution to the irreversible rape of the environment. I'm sorry that facts are so triggering to you, but this is one. Guess you'll have to be rational and change your worldview in accordance to one with reality. But who am I kidding? Your manchild worldview is precious to you, crafted out of stupidity and denial of basic facts as it is, and wastefulness and irreversible destruction, for some odd reason, that you take as your rights.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 21 05:45:33 2018 No.9949996 >>9949993 "facts" lmao, cry harder.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 21 05:48:04 2018 No.9950002 >>9949996 >your facts aren't real if I say they aren't! >no actual argument I think I've said enough.

Anonymous Tue Aug 21 05:50:12 2018 No.9950004

>>9950002
You havent said anything, as a matter of fact. The most substantial thing you've done so far is post an idiotic hundred year long graph and presented it as evidence of a "dangerous shift in earths climate"

Get ahold of yourself, you dumb nigger.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 21 05:53:16 2018 No.9950006 >>9949450 Disinformation paid by the oil and automobile companies does.

Anonymous Tue Aug 21 05:53:49 2018 No.9950008
File: 33 KB, 426x639, spoookyhm.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9949450
a keen eye for reality, the ability to recognize in oneself the emotional and idealistic biases oneself and the broader culture has, understanding the preposterous notion of it ever being soundly proven in any way, the ability to synthethize information and eliminiate contradictiory ideas

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 21 06:01:39 2018 No.9950014 >>9949923 >Nazi >environmentalist >wants to reduce harmful gas in the atmosphere Something doesn't add up

Anonymous Tue Aug 21 06:02:04 2018 No.9950015

>>9950004
>0.8C in one century isn't unprecedented in Earth's climate record outside of cataclysms like the meteor that killed the dinosaurs
AGHGs eclipse natural sources by nearly two orders of magnitude on an annual basis. Their radiative forcing effect also eclipses natural variations in forcing such as solar cycles. The ocean absorb large amounts of heat and suppress the observed surface trend further than it otherwise would be, so the signal is frustratingly slow enough for ignoramuses like you to creep into the conversation and deny the whole pattern, in spite of the graph still clearly showing the signal.
If you can show a flaw in the data or a counterexample, please do. Please make sure it's not the usual crap, like adjustments of measurements increasing the slope while the less adjusted data still shows a warming trend.
>>9950008
all the data indicates it is happening, your assertions of supreme rationality aside

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 21 06:03:29 2018 No.9950019 >>9949450 The same thing that motivates climate change doomsayer : politics

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 21 06:06:48 2018 No.9950023 >>9950019 So where does a right-wing environmentalist fit into the stereotypes of political agendas? As far as I can tell, this wing doesn't even exist outside of that one Finnish guy and me. This guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentti_Linkola

Anonymous Tue Aug 21 06:07:30 2018 No.9950024
File: 259 KB, 536x585, 1532205643903.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9950015
>in spite of the graph still clearly showing the signal.
Theres absolutely nothing there, the shift you present is well within the standard deviation over the last 10,000 years, and if anything the earth is continuing its cooling process, unhindered by mans activity. At any rate your only form of retribution is a "carbon tax" so we can start funneling more money to the rotting corpse of the corrupt government and perhaps drag out a few more climate destroying wars before we finally choke to death on our own waste. Your plan is fundamentally flawed, its backwards, and makes no fucking sense whatsoever. You're an unforgivable retard and you need to kill yourself immediately.

Anonymous Tue Aug 21 06:17:23 2018 No.9950034

>>9950024
>standard deviation
You're misusing the concept. Standard deviations of normal distributiond are a measure of randomness; applied to measurements, the method provides an estimation of random biases inherent in the measurements. The signal of 0.8C over the last century persists in spite of this statistical analysis of the instrumental record.
>and if anything the earth is continuing its cooling process, unhindered by mans activity.
well that's not what the data shows
>At any rate your only form of retribution is a "carbon tax"
a carbon tax is a good start but doesn't go nearly far enough
>so we can start funneling more money to the rotting corpse of the corrupt government
Woah woah woah, the American government (I'm American) is a pile of shit and I don't want it becoming any more bloated and auhoritarian either. Put the carbon tax towards paying down the debt and as a windfall for (not bullshit excess spending) deficits.
>and perhaps drag out a few more climate destroying wars before we finally choke to death on our own waste.
now we can agree, bad things are on the way because we aren't doing enough to stop it
>Your plan is fundamentally flawed, its backwards,
My plan is the best I have, and I'm open to ideas.
>inb4 kys to save the environment

>and makes no fucking sense whatsoever.
science disagrees
>You're an unforgivable retard and you need to kill yourself immediately.
I told you to kys so I suppose I had this coming.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 21 06:18:10 2018 No.9950035 >>9949948 Atmospheric co2 levels haven't been as high as they are now for several hundred million years, not since long before the dinosaurs we're talking back when the oceans were hostile acidic nightmares.

Anonymous Tue Aug 21 06:25:16 2018 No.9950041

>>9949996
yo mate
did you ever wonder what really killed off the great roman empire or why the middle east is a shitty war torn dust bowl now when it was once a fertile open land?
soil erosion
they literally eroded their originally super productive soils so badly that their historic populations collapsed and never recovered.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 21 06:27:22 2018 No.9950043 File: 5 KB, 224x225, deadsam.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9950041 what fucking stupid theory is this

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 21 06:29:50 2018 No.9950047 >>9950041 >>9950043 https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/58/4/363/310371 Article I found on Google and am now reading. I've seen this theory before but it's something to explore further.

Anonymous Tue Aug 21 06:32:14 2018 No.9950050

>>9949903
This. Inb4 some 18 year old brainlet tries to convince me otherwise, the issue isn't climate change. Climate change is real, with very real evidence supporting it. What are repetive ice ages and cataclysmic climate change events that occurred *gasp* without man made intervention?!?!?!

If the problem is man-made, I guarantee Western Civilization is not the main culprit. Look towards China, India, and every third world nation that is industrializing. Hell, go read about the three gorges damn built in China if you want to see man made effects on a macro scale. Buy don't penalize Western society for the idiot hordes.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 21 06:32:34 2018 No.9950051 >>9950043 are you the retard who gets off from trolling scientific discussion because it makes you feel important or the other guys?

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 21 06:32:46 2018 No.9950053 >>9949923 National Socialism is a leftist ideology.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 21 06:33:48 2018 No.9950054 >>9949928 >THE END IS NIGH >REPENT YOU SINNERS

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 21 06:35:04 2018 No.9950055 >>9950053 the name was leftist their politics and ideology weren't and the word Nazi is an insult

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 21 06:41:46 2018 No.9950065 >>9949943 What is the "chicken little" defence?

Anonymous Tue Aug 21 06:43:14 2018 No.9950067

>>9950047
it's just a book review now that I read it
>>9950050
>Climate change is real, with very real evidence supporting it. What are repetive ice ages and cataclysmic climate change events that occurred *gasp* without man made intervention?!?!?!
Annual AGHGs are about 24 billion tons of CO2, plus 18 billion tons CO2 equivalent for the other GHGs. The average volcanic eruption is around 200 million tons CO2. Anthropogenic emissions eclipse natural ones. Solar variation also does not account for the observed warming trend.
>If the problem is man-made, I guarantee Western Civilization is not the main culprit.
America, Canada, and Australia are all in the top five in per capita emissions. Canada has some small excuse because it's really cold and rural.
>Look towards China, India, and every third world nation that is industrializing.
China is about 1/4 per capita as America. About twice the total of American GHG emissions with four times the people. India is even less.
>Hell, go read about the three gorges damn built in China if you want to see man made effects on a macro scale.
no comment
>Buy don't penalize Western society for the idiot hordes.
resource consumption is too high period
>>9950053
okay, guess all those protestations about racial purity and being rid of Juden were just a suggestion that turned into a disastrous war
>>9950054
the end is still a few centuries off, but yes, we must all repent, and change our ways

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 21 06:46:34 2018 No.9950070 >>9949450 Conspiratorial thinking and anti intellectualism. They also have a lot in common with anti vaxxers and 9/11 truthers

Anonymous Tue Aug 21 06:47:15 2018 No.9950071

>>9950065
"The sky is falling!" Denialists equate strong opinions about strong action on environmental protection as worthless doomsday prediction. The collective factors do add up to a literal day of doom, but the severity of these problems escapes those willing to ignore the evidence of serious problems.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 21 06:50:58 2018 No.9950078 >>9949450 People don't have the competence to understand the science and let their cynicism about the absolute state of things distort the reality of the problem.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 21 07:01:55 2018 No.9950088 >>9949930 no u

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 21 07:04:44 2018 No.9950093 >>9949450 Petrol industry and sheer spite.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 21 07:30:09 2018 No.9950119 >>9949450 Why is "global warming" no longer mentioned? "Climate change" is an ambiguous phrase that could mean almost anything, including an Ice Age. Ice Age... hmm.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 21 07:31:55 2018 No.9950122 >>9950067 >the end is still a few centuries off God I hope so, it feels just a few years away

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 21 07:34:35 2018 No.9950125 >>9949450 The only solutions posited are "give the corrupt and incompetent government more power, so I can embezzle billions instead of millions"

Anonymous Tue Aug 21 07:35:54 2018 No.9950129

>>9950067
All those protestations about "racial purity" have nothing to do with political orientation. That kind of talk was common in the political circles of the time, whether on the left or on the right.

>>9950055
Not so. National Socialism was identifiably leftist on just about any measure you can come up with _except_ the focus on racial purity, which, as I noted above, was not a left-right thing at the time. Eugenics advocacy was quite popular with leftist progressives (for example, a notable case being Sweden's Social Democrats, who went on to pursue such policies well into the 1970s.)

Identifying racial politics with the right is nothing but historical revisionism.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 21 07:40:39 2018 No.9950134 >>9950129 Has any country succeeded with eugenics?

Anonymous Tue Aug 21 09:56:32 2018 No.9950278

>>9950041
>>9950043
>>9950047
>--
'Province after province was turned by Rome into a desert,' wrote Simkhovitch, 'for Rome's exactions naturally compelled greater exploitation of the conquered soil and its more rapid exhaustion. Province after province was conquered by Rome to feed the growing proletariat with its corn and to enrich the prosperous with its loot. The devastation of war abroad and at home helped the process along. The only exception to the rule of spoliation and exhaustion was Egypt, because of the overflow of the Nile. For this reason Egypt played a unique role in the empire. It was the emperor's personal possession, and neither senators nor knights could visit it without special permission, for even a small force, as Tacitus stated, might "block up the plentiful corn country and reduce all Italy to submission".'
Latium, Campania, Sardinia, Sicily, Spain, Northern Africa, as Roman granaries, were successively reduced to exhaustion. Abandoned land in Latium and Campania turned into swamps, in Northern Africa into desert. The forest-clad hills were denuded. 'The decline of the Roman Empire is a story of deforestation, soil exhaustion and erosion,' wrote Mr. G. V. Jacks in The Rape of the Earth. 'From Spain to Palestine there are no forests left on the Mediterranean littoral, the region is pronouncedly arid instead of having the mild humid character of forest-clad land, and most of its former bounteously rich top-soil is lying at the bottom of the sea.'
>----
http://journeytoforever.org/farm_library/Wrench_Recon/Wrench_Recon_3-5.html

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 21 10:22:46 2018 No.9950294 >>9949770 >thw west is the one who needs to reduce the amount of people living >not the savages found the retard/rabbi

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 21 10:25:38 2018 No.9950299 >>9950125 There are more white collar criminals in the private sector.

Anonymous Tue Aug 21 10:51:07 2018 No.9950319

>What motivates climate change denial, particularly after the evidence of the last five years?

The realization that your view on life could be wrong and that your personal perception on any particular purpose you have in life plays against the best interest of the world and reality you occupy.

I don't imagine most people like the idea that the life they live is viewed as being antagonistic. So they will instead argue that it is the establishment/ world/ everyone else who is antagonistic to reality, their reality instead.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 21 11:01:51 2018 No.9950336 >>9949796 Click

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 21 11:03:07 2018 No.9950338 >>9950134 If they did, then you wouldn't have to ask that question

Anonymous Tue Aug 21 11:10:30 2018 No.9950349

>>9949450
>What motivates climate change denial,

Several things.

First, for some the violence is legitimately not compelling. That's OK, somebody arguing the other side helps keep the science on it's toes.

SOme are just congenitally unable to face a looming threat -- people still live near major volcanoes, or in tornado alley, etc.

For some, the issue has become that the political left has o-opted the issue, and made it synonymous with a suite of solutions designed more to adhere to their political goals than to do much about the climate. There is a strong sense (maybe correct) that if the solution to climate change was discovered to be a struct adherence to conservative political policies, way too many of those now saying The End Is Nigh would switch to saying It's Fucking Nothing. It ius also noted that many of the "Limousine Liberal" climate alarmists do not, in fact, stop living a lifestyle that supposedly exacerbates the problem -- making it pretty obvious that, for them at least, the concern is not real or heartfelt, but just virtue signalling that they don't really believe in, deep down. But to go on about that would get into /pol/ territory, so I'll stop there.

>the evidence of the last five years?

Que?

Anonymous Tue Aug 21 11:14:05 2018 No.9950356

>>9949507
Please return to /x/.

Your theory falls apart pretty quickly when you ask yourself"Who stands to profit from destroying the only world that they and their progeny will have to live on?" Then look at how much advertising is based on "LOOK HOW FUCKING GREEN WE ARE! LOOK HO MUCH WE ARE HELPING FIGHT ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS!" Such advertising only works if you believe in the problem, it is in the interest of these advertisers that you, too, are worried about the issue.

We could debate that further if you like -- but if you want to do so, start a thread on /x/, conspiracy theory debates belong there.

Anonymous Tue Aug 21 11:15:48 2018 No.9950362

>>9949512
>90% of the US would be in support of efforts to combat it.

I would guess the numbers supporting such a position would be pretty high already -- and the US objectively is doing a great deal to combat it.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/08/21/whos_the_cleanest_of_them_all_137850.html

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 21 11:16:49 2018 No.9950366 >>9949589 They're all trolls, then?

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 21 11:18:48 2018 No.9950375 >>9949710 >virtually all proposed methods have unknown side effects Emulating Mt. Pinotubo has exactly known side effects, since large volcanoes erupt from time to time and we know exactly what happens afterward.

Anonymous Tue Aug 21 11:21:28 2018 No.9950383

>>9949743
>the only practical solution is decarbonizing our society over the next thirty years and then becoming carbon negative by the order of several gigatonnes a year after 2050.

But CO2 is such a weak greenhouse gas -- surely it would make more sense to focus on methane and other more powerful greenhouse agents,

Of course, if your goal is enforce a political ideology, fighting methane is not as much fun.

ut I assume you are sincere, and want to fight warming more than advance things like wealth redistribution. So what are we going to do about methane?

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 21 11:22:29 2018 No.9950388 >>9949770 >just the amount of people living. Please show us the way -- you first.

Anonymous Tue Aug 21 11:24:27 2018 No.9950392

>>9949919
>a minor shift to Earths climate (which is unavoidable btw, no matter what we fucking do)

Which raises an interesting question -- is the current climate the optimal one we should try and freeze in place forever? Or would it be optimal to have the Earth, say 2% cooler on average? Or even a degree warmer?

And who gets to decide?

Anonymous Tue Aug 21 11:26:58 2018 No.9950396

>>9949926
>Sahara desert has grown 50% in the last 100 years.

OK, now how much would it have grown anyway?

You seem to assume that the Earth "should" be a static system. It never has been, things change all the time. Deserts grow and shrink, continents move around, insolation varies, rivers change their courses or dry up completely...

50% sounds like a big fucking deal -- but is it? Would it have grown 48% were it not for human impact on climate?

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 21 11:28:30 2018 No.9950399 >>9950383 carbon

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 21 11:30:26 2018 No.9950405 >>9950383 >fighting methane most of that is going to come from melting permafrost the permafrost will melt because of guesswhat

Anonymous Tue Aug 21 11:43:57 2018 No.9950442
File: 32 KB, 408x632, fdsa.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>contrarian edgelord trolls everywhere

You ever stop to think, it was big oil cronies who created the meme of trolling people with global warming denial in the first place? It's simple reverse psychology designed to shut down any useful discussion on the topic. If people you're trolling get angry or upset, it's because you're too stupid to see you're being used like a tool.

Anonymous Tue Aug 21 11:44:31 2018 No.9950443

>>9950356

>Who stands to profit from destroying the only world that they and their progeny will have to live on?"

Not him but it's not that anyone wants to profit from the destruction of the world. But that they ignore the limits of sustainable profitability even when given evidence of serious cascade effects if pursuit is contiued. After a certain amount of success the stakes become too high reduce. Especially when everyone else wants a piece of the cashcow prize.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 21 13:00:42 2018 No.9950550 >>9950375 Have you heard of acid rain? Now multiply that by 1000 for what you're proposing as a geoengineering solution.

Anonymous Tue Aug 21 15:38:01 2018 No.9950807

>>9950362
>The world's largest emitter of carbon dioxide emissions is China. According to the invaluable Institute for Energy Research, "China produces 28 percent of the world's carbon dioxide emissions. India is the world's third-largest emitter of carbon dioxide and had the second-largest increment (93 million metric tons) of carbon dioxide emissions in 2017, more than twice as much an increase as the U.S. reduction." This means it doesn't really matter how much America reduces its greenhouse gases because China and India cancel out any and all progress we make. Those who think they are helping save the planet by purchasing an electric car or putting a solar panel on their roof are barking up the wrong tree.
Jesus fucking Christ, the same bogus arguments the denialists love to throw out shows up here. Per capita usage in America is still far higher than these countries, and therefore there should be plenty of room to reduce usage. Regardless of what China and India are doing, the entire world still needs to reduce emissions, and every country needs to take these steps. Put the pressure on them with sanctions for noncompliance, but that only works if there's an actual international agreement and not an army of dipshits pretending the phenomenon doesn't even exist.

Good news that a 0.5% reduction actually happened in America, but it doesn't look like Trump wants it to stay that way, going to considerable lengths to prop up the coal industry.

Anonymous Tue Aug 21 18:39:33 2018 No.9951170

>>9949450
Mostly confusion I think, when people like Steven Crowder and Stafen M. who appears to be smart and educated, spreads misinformation around the topic it confused the average person.

Then you have the political part. As environmentalism is pushed heavily on the left, the right goes against them automatically.

Anonymous Tue Aug 21 19:14:29 2018 No.9951224

>>9951170
I really hate how the average person on the left argues AGW. Claiming a single weather event is due to climate change is dubious at best, which denialists rightly sieze upon, despite their position being wrong. The focus should be on the scientific evidence, but I suppose the average person does not have proficient scientific reasoning skills. "97% of climate scientists agree!" is weak too.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 22 10:06:15 2018 No.9952355 File: 124 KB, 1006x748, north-america--sea-level-rise-map.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9949450 >What motivates climate change denial, particularly after the evidence of the last five years? Coal and oil industry money.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 23 06:48:00 2018 No.9954038 The people who deny it are the people Ho cope the most blame for it; older people. It's not really their fault and they didn't know, so they feel that they should deny it on principle. Accepting it means accepting the insults of entitled young people.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 23 06:50:52 2018 No.9954042 >>9952355 Those images aren't all that scary. American coast is like 10000 miles. America has 600000 miles in roads. Building a levy around the whole continent is well within the capability of any one of the 3 biggest countries in North America.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 23 10:54:29 2018 No.9954364 >>9949948 >The TINY "spike" thats occurred over the last 100 years is well within the historical standard deviation. Surely you can back up your own shit.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 23 11:56:32 2018 No.9954455 File: 445 KB, 640x480, flashing_eye_frog_2.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9952355 >Coal and oil industry money. Spotted the idiot who doesn't know what coal is really used for.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 23 19:25:48 2018 No.9955065 >>9949912 >most of the planet is part of an apocalyptic death cult face it cletus, you got duped by mr.Carstein

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 24 02:44:02 2018 No.9955710 Because the average person is fucking retarded. + lobbying money This is a serious threat to human survival and people don't take it seriously.

Anonymous Fri Aug 24 03:05:28 2018 No.9955728

>>9949538
The USA, unfortunately, has a whole way of life devised around needing gas. How can I stay in my exurban home 45 minutes from work if I don't have my car to take me anywhere?

Americans need to be removed from the planet. They're all doped up on psychiatric drugs, dying early, eating shit food, working with little to no vacation, and spending most of their free time decompressing in front of shit TV shows. And this is the lifestyle they'll burn the world for.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 24 03:20:17 2018 No.9955764 >>9955728 get an electric or nitrogen powered car.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 24 03:23:13 2018 No.9955767 >>9955728 america was a mistake

Anonymous Fri Aug 24 09:44:45 2018 No.9956106

>>9949459
No, the biggest problem is overpopulation. Imagine if in the 1960’s the US government unleashed a super virus on China, India, and Africa. Imagine how much more resources there would be for the ones that would really need it, rather than being slowly wasted by a sick and dying populace

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 24 09:50:01 2018 No.9956110 >>9949450 The fact that it's bullshit is a fairly big motivator for me.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 24 09:50:28 2018 No.9956111 >>9949450 >the evidence of the last five years Which is, specifically?

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 24 09:53:15 2018 No.9956116 >>9949538 >China and India are on working like hell to fix their shit. How naive. China says they are working on it, receiving bountiful CO2 quotas. That does not mean they do much. Ref. the Swiss investigations into illegal emissions.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 24 09:54:51 2018 No.9956117 >>9949710 >virtually all proposed methods have unknown side effects How can you even know that when it is UNKNOWN ?? Did you even think before you abused your keyboard?

Anonymous Fri Aug 24 10:07:33 2018 No.9956132

>>9956110
what's bullshit is you speaking on something you don't understand
>>9956116
There are barely any quotas at all you petrol addicted cunt. Boohoo they do it too, that means nothing has to change because I am a petulant child who likes his toys.
>>9956117
Are you just pretending to be retarded? Given the multiple statements and repeated emphasis on nothing, I'm guessing you're the real deal, a true fucking moron.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 24 11:23:25 2018 No.9956211 >>9956106 >release 60's supervirus on China, India, Africa >disease spreads over the rest of the globe in a matter of months a wonderburg idea

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 24 11:38:26 2018 No.9956230 >>9950050 >hurrrr it's not us it's the negroes!!1

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 24 11:49:11 2018 No.9956243 >>9950008 >the ability to recognize in oneself the emotional and idealistic biases oneself and the broader culture has the irony

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 24 11:51:16 2018 No.9956248 >>9956132 >Are you just pretending to be retarded? Given the multiple statements and repeated emphasis on nothing, I'm guessing you're the real deal, a true fucking moron. Damage limitation, this bad.

Anonymous Fri Aug 24 11:56:40 2018 No.9956259

>>9949450
For Americans its cultural. We are told from the beginning of our lives that consumerism is awesome. We are told God has a plan and it's perfect. Millenials aren't falling for the bullshit as easily though since (1) we aren't getting jobs as easily and (2) we have a massive debt from school.

My father listens to right wing radio that blasts out how Democrats are running the secret states and keeping the common man down so its theory fault for everything. He feels physically I'll listening to someone like Al Gore. Not making this up. These people are literally brainwashed.

Anonymous Fri Aug 24 12:44:23 2018 No.9956334

>>9949450
The oceans are cooling anon. During grand solar minimum the IR radiation levels are reduced while the Cosmic ray levels are increased.

As a feedback loop there is an increase in large seismic activity which further cools the planet during this phase.

There is historical evidence that Solar Minimums caused several empires to fall due to crop shortages and supply chain interruptions.

The rich aren't building bunkers because they think the nuclear holocaust is coming, they are trying to escape the effects of societal collapse brought on by crop failures and ensuing famines.

People who deny man made climate change understand climate cycles. They firmly believe in climate change as the norm.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 24 12:47:07 2018 No.9956337 >>9956230 this but unironically

Anonymous Fri Aug 24 13:55:30 2018 No.9956411
File: 58 KB, 800x450, SotC2017_04_OceanHeatContent_graph_800x450.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9956334
>The oceans are cooling anon.
Wrong, pic related.

>During grand solar minimum the IR radiation levels are reduced while the Cosmic ray levels are increased.
The earth has been rapidly warming for over a century regardless of solar activity. Way is your point?

>As a feedback loop there is an increase in large seismic activity which further cools the planet during this phase.
You mean solar activity is related to seismic activity? No it isn't, and again the earth had been warming this whole time, so your fake feedback loop is irrelevant.

You're incredibly stupid and you understand nothing about the climate.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 24 13:59:56 2018 No.9956416 >>9949523 >Humans might not survive. lol. We live everywhere and eat everything. As long as there is some life somewhere, we will survive.

Anonymous Fri Aug 24 14:11:22 2018 No.9956427

>>9956106
Well, yeah. But it's a bit fasecious just to state that overpopulation is a problem. Sure, if there'd be 10 million humans on the entire planet, everyone could drive monster trucks to work and back, spew whatever shit they can find into the oceans and it would make little difference. But there's more than 7 billions of us, and that ain't changing anytime soon unless you're willing to take away people's rights to procreate.

Obviously, the most effective solution in terms of ecological sustainability is to stop having children for a while. Go and tell that to the vast majority of regions in the world where children are your ONE and ONLY retirement plan.

Anonymous Fri Aug 24 15:35:20 2018 No.9956525

>>9949681
the idea is not necessarily that we need to reduce living standards, but that a reduction in living standards will occur anyway due to climate change. and i'm not saying that everyone should live equally just because, but there are unfair relations in the world, such as fossil fuel drilling causing sickness and corruption in the third world.

for my part i don't really see limiting consumption as reducing living standards, nearly everyone has way too much useless crap they don't need. no, you don't really need all those plastic toys, that air-conditioning or that second SUV. sometimes i'm shocked at how much people accumulate when it has no positive effect on their happiness or health.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 24 16:11:19 2018 No.9956614 >>9956334 >As a feedback loop there is an increase in large seismic activity which further cools the planet during this phase. Hard to believe. I see absolutely no plausible mechanism here, So: cite?

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 24 16:13:13 2018 No.9956620 File: 312 KB, 1175x1762, 0032.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] THE SUN IS THE VARIABLE MOST PEOPOLE IGNORE SOLAR CYCLES CORRELATE TO CLIMATE DATA

Anonymous Fri Aug 24 16:18:35 2018 No.9956641
File: 314 KB, 1200x1800, My_GOD_ANUBIS_Non_108.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

THE REAL QUESTION IS WHY DOES SLOWING DOWN THE ECONOMY AND TAXING OUR EXHALATION APPEAL TO SO MANY LIBTARD BRAINWASHEWD SHEEP PEOPLE

SUCH IS THE MAJORITY OF HUMANS.. ANYTHING WITH MASS APPEAL SUCKS.. MOVIES, TV, COMMERICALS, POP MUSIC, MCDONALDS.. CLIMATE CHANGE

PEOPLE WANT TO RESENT ENERGY ITSELF.. THEY WANT TO BELIEF THAT MORE RESTRITRICTIVE LAWS WILL HELP

THEY DONT WANT TO THINK ABOUT OTHER OPTIONS LIKE BUILDING SOMETHING IN SPACE THAT WOULD ALSO PROTECT US FROM THE SOLAR STORMS THAT WE DODGED IN 2012 WHICH WOULD PUT US IN TEH STONE AGE!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_storm_of_2012

>The solar storm of 2012 was an unusually large and strong coronal mass ejection (CME) event that occurred on July 23 that year. It missed the Earth with a margin of approximately nine days, as the equator of the Sun rotates around its own axis with a period of about 25 days.[1] The region that produced the outburst was thus not pointed directly towards the Earth at that time. The strength of the eruption was comparable to the 1859 Carrington event that caused damage to electric equipment worldwide, which at that time consisted mostly of telegraph stations.[2]

BASICALLY liberalism, BASICALLY AUTHORITARIAN COLLECTIVISM, AND THIS IDEA THAT RICH PEOPLE ARE BAD AND IT USES JEALOUSY AND ENVY AND ITS NICE TO THINK THAT OH YEAH THOSE DIRTY POLLUTING INDUSTRIALISTS.: THATS WHAT YOU SAY WHEN YOU HATE YOUR LIFE AND SEE NO WAY OUT AND JUST WAGESLAVE FOREVER

THE SAME PEOPLE HATE IT WHEN THEY SEE SEXUALLY ACTIVE PEOPLE BECUASE THEY ARE JEALOUS

THE SAME PEOPLE POST ON REDDIT

THE SAME PEOPLE WORSHIP ELON MUSK AND THINK THAT BATTERIES WILL SOLVE EVERYHING

THE SAME PEOPLE THINK BIOFUEL IS BAD EVEN THOUGH IT'S CARBON NEUTRAL

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 24 16:20:00 2018 No.9956644 File: 342 KB, 1200x630, tucker_nye.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] https://youtu.be/qN5L2q6hfWo TUCKER BTFO OUT OF CREEPY BILL NYE WHO WANTS TO PUT CLIMATE DENIERS IN CAGES (GULAGS) TYPICAL SOCIALIST BEHAVIOR

>>	party rawcocker Fri Aug 24 16:27:26 2018 No.9956668 >>9950129 National Socialism was identifiably leftist on just about any measure you can come up with _except_ being capitalists, irrationalist, dictatorial, ultra nationalist, ect fascists are leftists now, sure.

Anonymous Fri Aug 24 16:27:41 2018 No.9956669

>>9949450
>particularly after the evidence of the last 5 years
>last 5 years
>FIVE YEARS

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

The climate is constantly shifting, with or without our help, and theres nothing we can do to stop it.

>in b4 muh carbon tax spiel, which is government organized propaganda

Anonymous Fri Aug 24 16:32:41 2018 No.9956682

>>9950278
>Province after province was conquered by Rome to feed the growing proletariat with its corn and to enrich the prosperous with its loot. The devastation of war abroad and at home helped the process along. The only exception to the rule of spoliation and exhaustion was Egypt, because of the overflow of the Nile. For this reason Egypt played a unique role in the empire. It was the emperor's personal possession, and neither senators nor knights could visit it without special permission, for even a small force, as Tacitus stated, might "block up the plentiful corn country and reduce all Italy to submission".'

You wanna know how I know this is bullshit? One word.

Corn.

The feathers are the ones that cultivated corn, and prior to 1651 the old world knew nothing of it.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 24 16:40:19 2018 No.9956699 >>9956669 >The climate is constantly shifting bullshit pseudoscience. the climate doesn't shift.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 24 16:41:15 2018 No.9956703 >>9950070 *anti-conspiratorial thinking

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 24 16:46:30 2018 No.9956713 >>9956699 Theres no point in attempting to reason with you nutcases. The only real course of action is to just point and laugh.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 24 16:55:14 2018 No.9956739 >>9956713 im trolling him you stupid fuck. its the exact same argument they use against actual climate change.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 24 16:56:16 2018 No.9956741 >>9956739 *climate science

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 24 16:57:07 2018 No.9956745 >>9949450 It's viewed as a political problem, not a scientific one. Giving Al Gore the Nobel Prize for his "Inconvenient Truth" work was the worst thing that could have happened.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 24 17:23:16 2018 No.9956782 >>9949499 so much this

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 24 17:51:40 2018 No.9956833 >>9956682 what are you talking about? corn crops were domesticated in the fertile crescent 10,000 years ago Wheat, Rye, barly, oats etc etc, Are you just dumb and think corn means maize?

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 24 17:56:06 2018 No.9956837 >>9956745 No anon that was a bizarre misguided mistake the same as barack obama's the Nobel peace prize is a complete joke considering Kissenger was awarded one America was the mistake.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 24 17:59:18 2018 No.9956844 >>9949459 >biggest problem isnt india and china, who literally just dont give a shit

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 24 18:27:41 2018 No.9956893 >>9956844 India and China are working god damn hard to turn their shit around. The USA still has leaders that refuse to recognize there's a problem.

Anonymous Fri Aug 24 18:43:37 2018 No.9956910

>>9956893
>India and China are working god damn hard to turn their shit around.
No.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-44738952
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-40669449

Just because Chinese government says so does not make it true. You are far too naive.

Anonymous Fri Aug 24 19:15:14 2018 No.9956939

>>9949450
People do not want to feel any partial guilt that they might be partaking the acceleration of conditions that make our planet "differently hospitable"
I use that term because people have a tendency to doomsay. "If we all don't go vegan and drive electric cars next Tuesday, we will die out as a species."
Yeah sure we kill some polar bears and shit and sink Florida (possibly beneficial), but I think we're past the inflection point of our contribution to climate change. Our whole culture is slowly maneuvering itself to point in a direction of sustainability. We can see it in token changes such as the Starbucks straw thing.
>>9950014
>yfw Jews don't stop harming the planet even after they're burnt to a crisp

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 24 19:26:57 2018 No.9956952 File: 139 KB, 555x414, Ted Kaczynski.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9950023

Anonymous Fri Aug 24 19:35:05 2018 No.9956957

>>9949450
65% are people who don't agree with policies that the left think will be effective, and would rather deny it all together

30% are the stereotypical Republican who believes everything fox news says

5% are conspiracy nuts who must always believe the opposite of what the majority thinks

Source: me

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 24 20:01:41 2018 No.9956988 File: 15 KB, 410x288, polarbear01.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9950442 Nearly got a laugh out of the retard saying he doesn't care if we have fewer "polar bears in yellowstone or whatever."

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 24 20:04:31 2018 No.9956993 >climate change denial I was promised honest to goodness global warming, not some nebulous "climate change".

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 24 20:11:01 2018 No.9957001 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DyV7b7tsPQ

Anonymous Fri Aug 24 20:15:35 2018 No.9957006
File: 490 KB, 245x188, 1498225775781.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Reminder that nuclear energy would solve all our energy problems, while being safer and cleaner than every other energy source, including wind and solar
reminder that the newest nuclear plant designs have been made to be impossible to melt down, even in the event of sabotage, but because of anti-nuclear shit, will not be built to replace the older and dangerous designs

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 24 20:16:56 2018 No.9957007 >>9949513 Lol drink the koolaid son....

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 24 20:18:22 2018 No.9957009 >>9949450 The fact that the exact same trend happened 100 years ago

Anonymous Fri Aug 24 20:22:55 2018 No.9957024

>>9949450
Can't we just admit that climate change ideology of today is more make belief so that way we can push a moral reason to move away from fossil fuels before it all runs out ..... Because the economic argument in the future nobody would care about .... Carbon dioxide is not really that bad a greenhouse effect .... But running out of fossil fuels in 100 years will have a great effect ... Does nobody find it odd that both are marked for 100 years

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 24 20:25:01 2018 No.9957028 >>9957009 go find some actual results that show this, you should be able to find fairly accurate records from 1918, I'll wait

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 24 20:26:49 2018 No.9957032 >>9957024 both are important but your ignoring of the compounding effects of atmospheric modification from burning fossil fuels and environmental degradation is ludicrous for a sentient human

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 24 21:01:16 2018 No.9957093 >>9950067 >per capita emissions. Cmon son

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 24 22:13:59 2018 No.9957229 >>9956893 Imagine actually believing this lol

Anonymous Fri Aug 24 23:48:24 2018 No.9957362
File: 145 KB, 1265x950, forcing components.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9957024
>Can't we just admit that <absolute horseshit>
No, because that would be dumb.

>Carbon dioxide is not really that bad a greenhouse effect
Where do you even find this crap from? Carbon dioxide is by far the dominant cause of the current warming. The only more effective greenhouse gas is water vapour, which is held in tight equilibrium by the water cycle.

>Does nobody find it odd that both are marked for 100 years
You've got it backwards. People don't predict that X will happen after a hundred years, they use "100 years" as an interval when they make a set of predictions about X in the future. Global warming is a trend, not an event.

>>9957093
>>per capita emissions.
>Cmon son
Per-captita is the obvious metric for discussing emissions. Comparing the total emissions of two countries when one has ten times as meany people as the other is absurd. To put it a different way: do you think that Kuwait is "greener" than France?

Anonymous Sat Aug 25 00:11:46 2018 No.9957379

>>9957362
co2 is a trace gas that (as of now) exists at a concentration of 0.04%. It doesnt take a genius to realize the surface area of each molecule, at that low of a concentration is not going to be reflecting or retaining any significant amounts of heat, and its role is quite negligible in the grand scheme of things. As Im sure you know, water vapor is responsible for 95% of the total heat retentive capacity of Earths atmosphere.

You warmies are literal fucking clowns.

Anonymous Sat Aug 25 00:16:38 2018 No.9957384

>>9957362
Per capita is terrible. Who cares about per capita when a country puts out almost half the total emissions of the world?

Another way to look at it is that us reducing per capita to that of China would only reduce the total yearly emissions by about 5% and that's only if it's done responsibly. We could just import enough people to the states to artificially lower it, just like china.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 00:20:58 2018 No.9957389 >>9957229 Imagine not, especially if you’re an American patting yourself on the back for your clean cities while still importing and consuming absolute shit-tons of plastic bullshit.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 00:22:11 2018 No.9957391 >>9957384 queu 4chan's full time climate scientist poser/shill who will now be calling you a liar, 5, 4, 3, ....

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 00:22:59 2018 No.9957393 >>9957384 Everyone, everywhere, has to shift to a zero carbon economy. Stop using Asia as an excuse to not do your bit.

Anonymous Sat Aug 25 00:24:18 2018 No.9957395

>>9957024
>a moral reason to move away from fossil fuels before it all runs out
the only problem with that is that rich people won't be able to larp as environmentalists as they fly their delegations around the world and spend their vacation time on yachts.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 00:24:31 2018 No.9957397 >>9957393 How much do they pay you and what are your hours like?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 00:26:20 2018 No.9957399 >>9949450 You mean how the Earth goes through cycles right? Climate change isn't influenced by human activity.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 00:27:33 2018 No.9957402 >>9957397 That's the thing about you denialists, you can't conceive of someone trying to make a difference without money being involved

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 00:31:10 2018 No.9957407 Hey everyone. Just wanted you all to know, that it's ok that my footprint is in the top 0.01%, because I'm a philanthropist and I'm a carbon tax advocate.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 00:34:03 2018 No.9957413 >>9957402 > you can't conceive of someone trying to make a difference without money being involved I don’t want my money involved with global alarmism.

Anonymous Sat Aug 25 00:35:55 2018 No.9957416

>>9957413
>I don’t want my money
By cutting off the petrodollar you'll be saving money and ensuring your country isn't dependent on the whims of oil barons to survive. You'd think full energy independence and low power bills would be appealing to the libertarian set.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 00:42:23 2018 No.9957419 >>9957416 Energy is cheap enough and my 401k is doing excellent right now. Fuck off with upsetting of the status quo.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 00:45:00 2018 No.9957422 >>9957416 >appealing to the libertarian set You do realize where you are, right?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 00:47:11 2018 No.9957424 >>9957422 /sci/ leans pretty left as far as 4chan goes

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 00:48:19 2018 No.9957426 >>9957419 It won't be doing so well come mid-century if we do nothing, and you can't drink petrol. I don't want you to have 'I told you so' ringing through your head when the world finally collapses.

Anonymous Sat Aug 25 00:51:05 2018 No.9957430

>>9957379
>co2 is a trace gas that (as of now) exists at a concentration of 0.04%.
So what?

>It doesnt take a genius to realize the surface area of each molecule, at that low of a concentration is not going to be reflecting or retaining any significant amounts of heat, and its role is quite negligible in the grand scheme of things.
It takes a retard to ignore the fundamental chemistry that says it does, and the direct observation of the amount of infrared heat being reflected back towards the Earth by CO2 via radiative spectroscopy that says it does. You are talking out of your ass and you know it. Stop lying.

>As Im sure you know, water vapor is responsible for 95% of the total heat retentive capacity of Earths atmosphere.
Most of the heat retention keeps the Earth from being a ball of ice. It's the change from the baseline that's concerning, not the total amount of heat retention. Do you seriously think scientists are not aware of these banalities you think are somehow important? An elementary school student would be able to see through your idiotic nonsense. Kill yourself.

Anonymous Sat Aug 25 00:54:45 2018 No.9957434

>>9949450
Everyone agrees that the climate changes.
Modern humans do effect it but in extremely minuscule ways
The only ones who are maybe having a slight effect on climate change would be China and India
Now before one you say China and India are cleaning up their act; just know China has a literal river of trash in their country.

Anonymous Sat Aug 25 00:54:48 2018 No.9957435
File: 41 KB, 562x437, haha.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9957384
>Per capita is terrible. Who cares about per capita when a country puts out almost half the total emissions of the world?
So if China was split up into many different countries you would suddenly not care, right?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 00:58:28 2018 No.9957440 >>9957434 >Everyone agrees that the climate changes. Except for all the people who deny it. >Modern humans do effect it but in extremely minuscule ways False, see >>9957362 You are clearly in denial.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 00:58:48 2018 No.9957442 >>9957430 >Kill yourself. Hey now. We shills must remember to maintain a high standard of discourse. We are not winning over any of the little people with such language.

Anonymous Sat Aug 25 00:58:57 2018 No.9957443

>>9957426
People who oppose action on climate change generally also look forward to the day when we start getting massive waves of refugees that make the current ones look small, because that would give them an excuse to shoot some brown people. For them, it's a win-win.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 01:00:16 2018 No.9957446 >>9957424 That's like saying you're pretty far left for someone on /r/the_donald.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 01:01:46 2018 No.9957447 >>9957424 /sci/ has a significant overlap with /pol/

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 01:02:14 2018 No.9957448 >>9957443 Don't forget they also mostly believe that if things get fucked up enough they will be raptured away by Jesus.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 01:02:26 2018 No.9957449 >>9957447 You have to go back >>>/pol/

Anonymous Sat Aug 25 01:03:55 2018 No.9957451

>>9957440
>Except for all the people who deny it.
No one denies it.
Its a fact that everyone who went through high school and middle school know
they know that the earth doesn't stay the same and that earth can change drastically in a short period of time
take pole shifts for example; how do you know we aren't in the middle of one and that its the pole shift causing the climate change? (data does show the poles moving in a straight line away from their supposed origin points)
also worst green house gas emission come from factory farming and is methane from livestock shit and farts

Anonymous Sat Aug 25 01:04:14 2018 No.9957452

>>9957443
We cannot operate as a society without burning fuel. Get that through your head. The manufacture transport and maintenance of all these "green products" necessitates the burning of fuel. The heating of homes necessitates the burning of fuel. Economic trade requires enormous amounts of fuel expenditure. What you're suggesting is not only retarded, its impossible.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 01:07:39 2018 No.9957454 File: 400 KB, 1296x972, space-heater.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9957452 >The heating of homes necessitates the burning of fuel.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 01:09:51 2018 No.9957455 >>9957452 There are a lot of ways to generate electricity. Acting like there are only two options, doubling down on coal or no electricity at all, is absurd.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 01:11:09 2018 No.9957458 >>9957454 >he doesnt know how we generate electricity anon I..

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 01:12:43 2018 No.9957460 >>9957458 >he doesn't know there are better alternatives anon I...

Anonymous Sat Aug 25 01:13:33 2018 No.9957461

>>9957452
Fucking THIS.
Climate change (or global warming, or whatever they're calling it this week) is just civilization's cost of doing business. If greens want to go back to living in mud huts, fine. Let them. But anyone who tries to drag the rest of us down with them should be fought every step of the way.

Anonymous Sat Aug 25 01:13:58 2018 No.9957462

>>9957455
Who said anything about coal you shill. Its so obvious you've been coached on talking points because you're projecting pretty fucking hard.

There might be other ways but the only viable one is nuclear, the others are too cumbersome or exclusive to specific regions like hydro electric (which comes with its own ecological cost)

When it gets down to it you dont even have a game plan.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 01:14:49 2018 No.9957463 >>9957462 >the others are too cumbersome That's what scientific advancement is for.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 01:15:14 2018 No.9957464 >>9957460 >he doesnt know that wind and solar cant generate enough electricity for 350 million people care to name a better alernative i hope you are smart enough not to suggest nuclear

Anonymous Sat Aug 25 01:15:54 2018 No.9957465

>>9957455
Because there are only two options. All industry creates pollution, no matter how "clean" someone claims they're being. If you want to eliminate pollution, then you have to eliminate industry, and if you do that you eliminate civilization. It's as simple as that. You can't have it both ways.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 01:16:16 2018 No.9957466 >>9957464 >wind and solar cant generate enough electricity for 350 million people [citation needed]

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 01:17:08 2018 No.9957468 >>9957464 heat can be generated using hydro electricity, wind, or any other renewable source of energy.

Anonymous Sat Aug 25 01:17:09 2018 No.9957469
File: 60 KB, 628x288, trump-tweet-china-hoax_1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9957451
>No one denies it.
Wroooooong.

>they know that the earth doesn't stay the same and that earth can change drastically in a short period of time
Relative to what? The earth is currently warming faster than it has in at least the past 600,000 years. Plenty of retards deny this though.

>take pole shifts for example; how do you know we aren't in the middle of one and that its the pole shift causing the climate change? (data does show the poles moving in a straight line away from their supposed origin points)
Please explain to me how a process that occurs over millions of years started causing warming about a hundred years ago, and why this is a better explanation than already known facts about greenhouse gasses. Please, I really need a good laugh right now.

>also worst green house gas emission come from factory farming and is methane from livestock shit and farts
Look at >>9957362 again, the effect of all methane emissions is only a quarter of the effect of CO2 emissions. If you're just going to parrot long debunked memes that only take two brain cells to respond to, this is going to be very boring, do try harder.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 01:18:04 2018 No.9957470 >>9957469 > No one denies it. > Wroooooong. Fake news.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 01:19:41 2018 No.9957471 >>9957470 The best people deny it. Just the best.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 01:19:59 2018 No.9957472 >>9957466 >he doesnt realize how unreliable solar and wind energy production is >>9957468 enjoy ruining a whole ecosystem for a power generator that wouldnt even be able to provide for a small city

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 01:20:40 2018 No.9957473 >>9957469 That tweet is probably closer to the truth then you'd care to admit. This astro turfed climate change bullshit is so very obviously politically oriented.

Anonymous Sat Aug 25 01:20:48 2018 No.9957474

>>9957469
Trump just likes to troll shitlibs because they're easy to trigger and your tears are delicious. The climate changes. It always has and always will, no one ever seriously denied that. The debate is over whether humans can do it (they can't really do much), what we can do about it (basically nothing), and if it's even a bad thing (not really for most of the people who matter).

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 01:21:02 2018 No.9957475 File: 459 KB, 785x466, consumer16.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] muh civilization muh growth... muh need industry

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 01:22:00 2018 No.9957476 >>9957472 >how unreliable solar and wind energy production is moving goalposts and [citation needed]

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 01:22:57 2018 No.9957478 File: 299 KB, 598x353, consumer9.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] I pay carbon taxes. I give a portion of my dividends to the poor. I earned the right. What would all the little people do without me?

Anonymous Sat Aug 25 01:25:22 2018 No.9957484
File: 64 KB, 199x202, angryconsumer.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9957474
>The climate changes. It always has and always will, no one ever seriously denied that.
That's clearly fucking bullshit pseudoscience you obvious (((shill))). Any retard knows that.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 01:25:34 2018 No.9957485 >>9957473 t. the guy denying scientific facts because of his political ideology

Anonymous Sat Aug 25 01:25:38 2018 No.9957486

>>9957469
dude you are a fucking wreck, look at you posting style, its straight out of leddit
you realize many scientists have said that pole shifts and happen extremely fast (like within a decade) after its build up of thousands of years, once it gets going and to a certain point it goes really quick
methane is actually confirmed to be the biggest contributor of green house gasses, many times for methane than co2
also CO2 is taken in by plants and then give us back oxygen
co2 is not even a green house gas
the fact you think so shows you know nothing about climate change

Anonymous Sat Aug 25 01:28:09 2018 No.9957488

>>9957485
>scientific facts
This is the warmie version of notakebacksies. Its thrown around so non chalantly, even though the data presented doesnt indicate anything at all, other then a slight, momentary uptick on a consistent cooling trend.

>inb4 NO IT DOESNT, SHUTUP

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 01:29:46 2018 No.9957490 >>9957476 >spoon feed me just look it up, you wont cause you already know and are trolling me though you realize its not windy everyday right? you realize its not sunny everyday right?

Anonymous Sat Aug 25 01:31:42 2018 No.9957493

>>9957474
>Trump just likes to troll shitlibs because they're easy to trigger and your tears are delicious.
You don't know my political beliefs retard. I bet I know yours though, since the only reason people deny climate science is for political reasons or because they are mentally ill.

>The climate changes. It always has and always will, no one ever seriously denied that.
This is like saying that vaccine deniers have never denied that vaccines exist. It's pure semantics designed to avoid the point. Climate change deniers deny the climate is rapidly changing, that humans are causing it, or that it has significant negative consequences. If you need help understanding commonly used phrases, try reading:

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

>The debate is over whether humans can do it (they can't really do much), what we can do about it (basically nothing), and if it's even a bad thing (not really for most of the people who matter).
So you're a climate change denier, you're in denial of basic scientific facts. If you would like to "debate" I suggest you present and argument or scientific evidence.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 01:33:39 2018 No.9957495 File: 58 KB, 610x622, 1519967930850.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9957493 If you think you're being persuasive...you're not.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 01:33:51 2018 No.9957496 >>9957490 >you wont cause you already know Yeah I do know that you don't have to put all the solar panels and win farms in one place. It's never cloudy everywhere and the wind is never still everywhere.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 01:33:57 2018 No.9957497 File: 157 KB, 317x416, consumer13.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9957486 STFU YOU FUCKING NORMIE (((SHILL))) POLE SHIFTS ARE BULLSHIT PSEUDOSCIENCE JUST LIKE YOUR (((SATELLITES))) CLIMATE SCIENCE CULTISTS!!!

Anonymous Sat Aug 25 01:37:50 2018 No.9957499

> people still in the climate change cult
Fuck, it's like you people are living under a rock. Google "climategate." There was never anything real to climate change, it was always just an excuse to try to pass more taxes to "save the planet." You suckers got had.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 01:39:32 2018 No.9957505 >>9957497 The reason objects are around .50% lighter at the equator than at the poles is from centrifugal force. This is measurable proof of the globe.

Anonymous Sat Aug 25 01:41:54 2018 No.9957506
File: 228 KB, 555x396, consumer2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9957499
100% this. I also believe the (((climate cultists))) are bad bad bad. Here is a picture of me when I'm not on the internet fighting for the rights of the consumers to have fun fun fun consuming more and more of the stuff multinational corporations sell.

Anonymous Sat Aug 25 01:43:06 2018 No.9957507
File: 10 KB, 400x350, Greenhouse_Spectrum.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9957486
>you realize many scientists have said that pole shifts and happen extremely fast (like within a decade) after its build up of thousands of years, once it gets going and to a certain point it goes really quick
Utter nonsense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pole_shift_hypothesis#Scientific_research

Thank you for displaying your level of scientific literacy and you're willingness to present pseudoscience as science. You're really helping me.

>methane is actually confirmed to be the biggest contributor of green house gasses, many times for methane than co2
You don't even understand what you're typing, it's pure nonsense. How is methane the biggest "contributor" of greenhouse gasses? Do you mean it has the biggest effect of all the greenhouse gasses? No, again, the total effect of all methane emissions is only a quarter of the effect of CO2 emissions, according to the data. See >>9957362. Either present evidence of your claims that are better than the IPCC's radiative forcing calculations or fuck off. You have no idea what you're talking, and you know it. Do you have any shame?

>also CO2 is taken in by plants and then give us back oxygen
And? You must have the attention span of a toddler if you these non sequiturs will actually distract people from the argument.

>co2 is not even a green house gas
What exactly do you think you are going to get from denying fundamental physics? Is this a joke or are you mentally ill?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 01:43:22 2018 No.9957508 File: 76 KB, 484x350, consumer2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9957505 That's fuckign bullshit pseudoscience. ARe you a (((climate cultist)))? Next you'll be telling me the earth is round. Fuck off (((shill))).

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 01:44:59 2018 No.9957510 >>9957508 it is round why do you believe in flat earth? ancient Egyptians knew the earth was round a million years ago, they even measured it accurately

Anonymous Sat Aug 25 01:47:14 2018 No.9957514

>>9957488
>This is the warmie version of notakebacksies. Its thrown around so non chalantly, even though the data presented doesnt indicate anything at all, other then a slight, momentary uptick on a consistent cooling trend.
Weird how warming more rapid than anything in at least the last 600,000 years can be dismissed as a momentary uptick. I guess it is technically momentary if you consider the timescale it's unprecedented in, which is of no comfort to the humans that have existed on Earth for an equally "momentary" span of time. So what exactly is your point? Global warming will be as bad for us as scientists say it will be regardless of what timescale you compare it to.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 01:48:32 2018 No.9957515 File: 39 KB, 500x442, cat.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9957510 >it is round >bullshit pseudo science >t. climate cultist

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 01:49:22 2018 No.9957517 >>9957495 So you don't want to debate, you're just in denial. Very persuasive.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 01:49:38 2018 No.9957518 >>9957507 why must it be co2 thats causing climate change? why cant it be literally anything else or multiple factors? every action has a reaction, so what makes you so confident that co2 is causing climate change?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 01:50:23 2018 No.9957520 >>9957514 > warming more rapid than anything in at least the last 600,000 years Isn't happening. The medieval warm period was way more serious, and far from being the catastrophe that you cultists claim it was a big help to civilization.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 01:50:25 2018 No.9957521 >>9957499 >googles climategate >first result is https://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 01:51:02 2018 No.9957522 >>9957518 >every action has a reaction This is only applicable to physics and free body diagrams not climate or chemistry.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 01:51:14 2018 No.9957523 >>9957515 climate change is real, undeniable; it's just not cause by humans but i really would like to know why you believe flat earth

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 01:54:00 2018 No.9957526 >>9957522 >This is only applicable to physics and free body diagrams not climate or chemistry. dude you really dont know anything, damn how you think climate works? by a bunch of forces.

Anonymous Sat Aug 25 01:55:15 2018 No.9957527

>>9957518
>why must it be co2 thats causing climate change?
Because the scientific evidence supports that answer much more than any other answer. You're right though, it could be invisible unicorns farting pixie dust.

>why cant it be literally anything else or multiple factors?
There are literally other factors you utter moron. The picture I keep telling you to look at shows several. CO2 is just the main factor.

>every action has a reaction, so what makes you so confident that co2 is causing climate change?
Gee, I don't know, maybe the fact that our understanding of physics, chemistry, the climate, direct observation, indirect observation, modeling, etc. tells us that it is. Are you in denial about everything scientists conclude? Why or why not?

Anonymous Sat Aug 25 01:56:50 2018 No.9957531
File: 62 KB, 720x237, 720.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9957520
>The medieval warm period was way more serious, and far from being the catastrophe that you cultists claim it was a big help to civilization.
The medieval warm period wasn't even noticeable globally, you hack. Yet another retarded denier meme with no data to back it up.

Anonymous Sat Aug 25 01:57:35 2018 No.9957533

>>9957527
>Are you in denial about everything scientists conclude?
>muh 97% agree on climate change
that number is bogus and it more 50/50
there are just as many scientists that say climate change isnt caused by humans and is inevitable as there are ones who say it is manmade

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 01:57:46 2018 No.9957534 >>9949450 So what percent of climate change is caused by humans? Cause no one is denying the earth is getting warmer. The argument is human impact. I’ve yet to see hard data that shows humans are causing the warming and no cyclical patterns.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 01:59:26 2018 No.9957538 >>9957514 >Weird how warming more rapid than anything in at least the last 600,000 years So we're going to tell straight faced lies now?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 02:00:24 2018 No.9957539 >>9957533 >that number is bogus and it more 50/50 It's not and you again have presented no evidence to back up your bullshit. Shove it back up your ass. https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 02:00:34 2018 No.9957540 >>9957533 >that number is bogus and it more 50/50 [citation needed]

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 02:01:27 2018 No.9957541 >>9957538 You've been telling lies throughout this thread, not me. https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page3.php

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 02:01:53 2018 No.9957542 >>9957538 When have leftists ever done anything else?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 02:02:42 2018 No.9957543 >>9957542 >leftist How exactly am I a leftist?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 02:03:16 2018 No.9957544 >>9957539 >>9957540 >they actually believe the 97% meme

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 02:03:41 2018 No.9957545 >>9957541 Its easy to fabricate data. https://science.house.gov/news/press-releases/former-noaa-scientist-confirms-colleagues-manipulated-climate-records

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 02:04:34 2018 No.9957548 >>9957539 >scientific consensus Kek. This should be a gigantic red flag to anyone with an ounce of skeptic in them. Funny how people are mentioning propaganda in here but only in terms of climate denial and not the other way around.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 02:05:02 2018 No.9957549 >>9957545 so you admit that all the data you present could be heavily skewed just like anyone else's?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 02:06:08 2018 No.9957551 >>9957544 >They don't actually have sources.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 02:09:01 2018 No.9957553 >>9957545 It's easy to fabricate political propaganda and have retards like you gobble it up. https://www.factcheck.org/2017/02/no-data-manipulation-at-noaa/

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 02:09:58 2018 No.9957554 >>9957551 i could but i dont even need to all i have to do is tell you that science doesnt have a consensus forming a consensus is the opposite of science >>9957548

Anonymous Sat Aug 25 02:12:34 2018 No.9957557

>>9957548
>No arguments or evidence debunking the published research, just vague conspiracy theories
This should be a gigantic red flag to anyone with an ounce of skeptic in them.

The argument doesn't go both ways, only one side actually has scientific evidence for their claims.

Anonymous Sat Aug 25 02:12:34 2018 No.9957558

>want to publish anything meaningful
>want to receive funding for research
>have to tow the Al Gore narrative or you won’t see the light of day
Science has been politicized for decades, for both sides of the aisle.
I hate how simpletons can’t see this. The earth is warming but you cannot say what if any percentage is made by man. That doesn’t mean trash the earth and burn fuel, but you HAVE to realize the political factors at play that make any research that doesn’t fit the narrative hard to published.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 02:13:58 2018 No.9957559 >>9957554 >i could but I dont even need to >all i have to do is tell you Written like a person with no actual evidence for the things they believe.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 02:14:11 2018 No.9957560 >>9957554 >it's another /pol/tard pretending to know something about science episode https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 02:14:17 2018 No.9957561 >>9957557 Because no one is arguing the earth is warmer. But show me the data on how much humans are responsible for the warming. You can’t because it doesn’t exists.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 02:15:28 2018 No.9957563 >>9957553 >being so naive you dont understand the ulterior motive behind "fact checking" sites. >being so idiotic you never realize you're making an appeal to authority, which is fallacious, as far as arguments go.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 02:15:52 2018 No.9957565 >>9957560 Do you not see the inherent problem of calling anything in science a “consensus”?

Anonymous Sat Aug 25 02:18:08 2018 No.9957567

>>9957561
>Because no one is arguing the earth is warmer.
First of all, there are plenty of retards saying that the temperature record showing warming is fake. Second this is a non sequitur as the consensus is not only that the Earth is rapidly warming, but that it's manmade and will have significant negative consequences.

>But show me the data on how much humans are responsible for the warming. You can’t because it doesn’t exists.
Already done. See >>9957362

How many times are you going to get BTFO before you admit you have no idea what you're talking about? Just give me a ballpark number.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 02:18:49 2018 No.9957569 >>9957563 >You are wrong see here is some flimsy piece of evidence. No here is a counterpoint to that flimsy evidence. >Y-y-y-your refutation is invalid because the ((shills)) are lying to everyone.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 02:21:06 2018 No.9957571 >>9957565 It would be a lot of work for every scientist in the entire world to all drop their own work to study the same data and present independent findings with the same results.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 02:22:37 2018 No.9957573 >>9957569 >being this booty blasted

Anonymous Sat Aug 25 02:23:57 2018 No.9957574

>>9957563
>being so utterly BTFO that you can't even counter the argument and can only attack the source with zero evidence of bias.
>being so utterly lacking in self awareness that you don't realize the same exact attack could be thrown at your own source
>being so fucking stupid that you confuse appeal to scientific avidence with appeal to authority
>being so fucking hypocritical that you cry appeal to authority while failing to see your own fallacious ad hominem argument

Jesus, it's almost like you are trying to make /pol/tards look incredibly dishonest and stupid. I can only hope for the sake of the intelligence of the human race that you are just trolling.

Anonymous Sat Aug 25 02:24:42 2018 No.9957576

>>9957559
>>9957560
the amount of CLIMATE SCIENTISTS that agree on man made climate change is real
but in the literature that this "97% agree on man made climate change" came from doesnt state anything about this being catastrophic
in the literature it claims that there is a global warming trend and that human beings are the main cause (at least 50%), however the warming they mention is 0.8 degrees over the past 150 years. That warming has also since tapered off to about nothing in the last decade.
so when you mention the 97% just know that they mentioned nothing about this being catastrophic and needing to ban fossil fuels

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 02:27:02 2018 No.9957581 >>9957567 >>9957567 Zero data in the post you linked. When will you admit it doesn’t exist. No one has quantified the supposed human impact.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 02:27:58 2018 No.9957584 >>9957576 [citation fucking needed]

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 02:28:06 2018 No.9957585 >>9957574 >blaming the pol boogeyman Every time

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 02:28:20 2018 No.9957586 File: 16 KB, 225x225, 1524639974236.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9957574 >being this booty blasted

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 02:30:53 2018 No.9957588 >>9957584 read the literature of the 97% then you were the one saying they are right, that means you agree that this man made climate change isnt catastrophic, because the scientists dont mention it being bad in the literature

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 02:32:36 2018 No.9957593 >>9957588 [citation needed]

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 02:34:01 2018 No.9957597 >>9957581 STILL WAITING for those numbers, mason

Anonymous Sat Aug 25 02:34:57 2018 No.9957598
File: 7 KB, 640x480, mean-12.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9957576
>but in the literature that this "97% agree on man made climate change" came from doesnt state anything about this being catastrophic
Nice attempt to move the goalposts, but unfortunately for you there is no mention of "catastrophic" anywhere in the discussion leading up to the post you are responding to. And "catastrophic" has no scientific meaning, so why would scientists have any consensus on it?

>in the literature it claims that there is a global warming trend and that human beings are the main cause (at least 50%), however the warming they mention is 0.8 degrees over the past 150 years.
It's more like 1.4 degrees, but nice try.

>That warming has also since tapered off to about nothing in the last decade.
No, it hasn't. Why do you feel the need to lie constantly about things that are easy to check? It only destroys your credibility.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 02:35:59 2018 No.9957600 >>9957581 >Zero data in the post you linked. Look at the picture, you illiterate piece of shit.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 02:36:23 2018 No.9957602 >>9957593 [spoon feed me] sorry but 97% of scientists agree that the man made climate change isnt a problem its literally the scientists you guys think you agree with, you just know the buzz term "climate change" and nothing about their literature

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 02:37:42 2018 No.9957607 File: 51 KB, 550x440, Global-Jan-Dec-14-550x440.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9957593 Heres a source, nigger. The NCEP data shows a good portion of the world well below the average of the past 30 years

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 02:38:29 2018 No.9957608 >>9957602 >>9957586 >no argument BTFO

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 02:38:59 2018 No.9957609 >>9957602 [citation needed] You don't even have any spoons.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 02:39:04 2018 No.9957610 >>9957608 I presented one >>9957607

Anonymous Sat Aug 25 02:39:58 2018 No.9957611

>>9957598
>>9957602
at this point you must be trolling
the scientists you guys think you agree with literally do not state anything about the man made climate change being a problem at all
so how about you guys post sources to back up your "man made climate change is bad" argument
i told you my source, its the 97% of climate scientists that agree man made climate change isnt a problem

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 02:40:38 2018 No.9957614 >>9957600 God you’re retarded. Do you even know what that means?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 02:40:54 2018 No.9957616 >>9957610 What is the argument?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 02:42:53 2018 No.9957620 File: 330 KB, 550x440, global anom.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9957607 Like POTTERY.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 02:43:10 2018 No.9957622 >>9957614 Of course I know. Retarded is someone who is late.

Anonymous Sat Aug 25 02:43:30 2018 No.9957623

>>9957611
>the scientists you guys think you agree with literally do not state anything about the man made climate change being a problem at all
Yup they totally don't state anything at all about it being a problem!

American Association for the Advancement of Science
"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)

American Chemical Society
"Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)

American Geophysical Union
"Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)

American Physical Society
"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (2007)

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 02:44:18 2018 No.9957625 >>9957616 Your argument is that theres a consistent upward trade that directly correlates with co2 levels, when its quite clear, that for the last 3 decades most of the world has been below average.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 02:45:18 2018 No.9957629 >>9957614 Good, the first step to learning how to read is to admit that you're illiterate.

Anonymous Sat Aug 25 02:48:21 2018 No.9957633

>>9957625
>when its quite clear, that for the last 3 decades most of the world has been below average.
That's not what the picture you posted shows. It shows the temperature anomaly for 2014. I think the first step before you attempt to debunk climatology is to learn how to read.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 02:48:25 2018 No.9957634 >>9957625 see >>9957620

Anonymous Sat Aug 25 02:48:49 2018 No.9957635

>>9957623
sweet
now you know that there are scientists on both sides which you initially disagreed with
there is the 97% of climate scientists who think mad made climate change isnt a problem and you then you have all those alphabet agencies on the other side claiming man made climate change is a problem
so there you go, there is no consensus and it it is more like 50/50

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 02:49:10 2018 No.9957636 >>9957634 Don't tell me what to do, bastard!

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 02:50:07 2018 No.9957639 >>9957636 see >>9957634

Anonymous Sat Aug 25 02:51:00 2018 No.9957640

This thread is absolute proof that America must be nuked. Raze it to the ground while human civilization still has a fighting chance, not just at climate change, but at a future beyond the “American Dream” of anti-depressants, loneliness, and six hours daily of TV.

Anonymous Sat Aug 25 02:51:21 2018 No.9957641

>>9957635
>now you know that there are scientists on both sides which you initially disagreed with
I don't see any scientists with relevant expertise disagreeing with these assessments besides a handful of quacks. You are free to provide evidence for your claims, until then they will be rejected along with the rest of your many lies that have been debunked in this thread.

>there is the 97% of climate scientists who think mad made climate change isnt a problem
Why are you lying?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 02:51:46 2018 No.9957643 >>9957640 The only thing that can beat global warming is nuclear winter.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 02:53:01 2018 No.9957646 >>9957641 >Why are you lying? i wouldnt be thats directly from their literature that those 97% did so if anything, that means 97% of climate scientists have lied, not me

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 02:53:10 2018 No.9957647 >>9957639 Don't you ever reply to my posts ever again!

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 02:53:58 2018 No.9957651 >>9957646 >thats directly from their literature that those 97% did Where, liar?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 02:54:23 2018 No.9957652 >>9957640 The true motive read its ugly head. Funny how violent these people get. Violence = stupidity Go suck al gore off

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 02:54:28 2018 No.9957653 >>9957647 You seem pretty buttmad that I assblasted you with your own image.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 02:57:51 2018 No.9957656 >>9957653 My IQ is 176, you didn't assblasted me, I just gave up.

Anonymous Sat Aug 25 02:58:07 2018 No.9957657

>>9957651
you do know the climate scientists wrote a research paper stating that 97% (this literature is where that statistic came from) of climate scientists agree that man made climate change is not a problem
they mention nothing about this being a problem
you can find that paper anywhere and read it online

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 02:58:54 2018 No.9957658 >>9957656 >My IQ is 176 >t. brainlet

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 02:59:57 2018 No.9957659 >>9957657 >you can find that paper anywhere and read it online Unfortunately the one place I can't find it is as a link in this thread. How about you help a fellow out?

Anonymous Sat Aug 25 03:01:10 2018 No.9957662

>>9957653
That was me. I mistakenly grabbed a one year snap shot, but the data does show a cooling effect for major portions of the globe, and a stalling of the temperature climb. Heres a proper analysis of the data.

https://www.weatherbell.com/images/imguploader/files/Global_Warming___WeatherBell_Ag.pdf

(Im a Canadian btw)

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 03:05:07 2018 No.9957664 >>9957662 Oh, you're the one assblasted?!

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 03:05:38 2018 No.9957665 >>9957662 >weatherbell.com that website made my computer very sick once

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 03:07:27 2018 No.9957668 >>9957662 Dude, that's a report by one guy for the agriculture industry in 2014. It is now current year and you can't find anything better than a 4 year old summary meant for laymen and executives?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 03:07:40 2018 No.9957670 >>9957664 >>9957665 >Ignores the data Why am I not surprised.

Anonymous Sat Aug 25 03:08:52 2018 No.9957671

>>9957657
No, they didn't. How many times are you going to get BTFO before you admit you have no idea what you're talking about? How many of your arguments in this thread have you abandoned after they were refuted or you failed to support them? A man would have admitted his mistakes and tried to learn about what he's discussing. You're not a man, you're a child. Grow up

Anonymous Sat Aug 25 03:11:00 2018 No.9957672

>>9957652
That’s not the “true motive” of climat science, it’s just the only conclusion any sane person can reach when watching a bunch of Amerifats put the future on the line for the sake of their cancerous, depressive, and miserable culture.

I wish I was not alone in my feelings, unfortunately most scientists are too professional and conservative by nature to prescribe the only solution for the cancer that is American society.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 03:15:22 2018 No.9957677 >>9957662 Funny how earlier in the thread "no one is denying the earth is warming" and we only had to wait a few minutes for the real cranks to come out of the woodwork and prove them wrong.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 03:27:35 2018 No.9957691 >>9957671 >Grow up I will grow up inside your mom

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 03:42:02 2018 No.9957701 >>9957672 you should go tell that to China and India who are actually ruining the planet

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 03:43:42 2018 No.9957703 >>9957701 USA emits more than India.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 03:49:19 2018 No.9957708 >>9957703 thats 100% wrong china has a river of trash and india has people shitting in their streets you think they care about their emissions?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 03:55:32 2018 No.9957718 File: 21 KB, 485x326, main-qimg-ef6ca662be37bf0799775ff3e5be3e30-c.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Why don't we just Geoengineer the problem away?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 04:01:13 2018 No.9957725 >>9957718 because to block the necessary 2% of light, a shield the size of fucking India has to be sent to L1

Anonymous Sat Aug 25 04:02:49 2018 No.9957728

>>9949718
> Decreased sunlight and increased temperatures will put stress on all plant life, killing many and making farming VERY difficult.

Bullshit... Just Bullshit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_sunshade#cite_note-Benford1-11

>In 2004, physicist and science fiction author Gregory Benford calculated that a concave rotating Fresnel lens 1000 kilometres across, yet only a few millimeters thick, floating in space at the L1 point, would reduce the solar energy reaching the Earth by approximately 0.5% to 1%.

That's not enough to really hinder photosynthesis at all, the excess amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will offset any fractional impacts in plant metabolism, it's literally nothing.

Anonymous Sat Aug 25 04:05:24 2018 No.9957735

>>9957708
China communist party is sick worried about global warming, not because they are treehuggers, but because when warming climbs to 450ppm/+2C, China loses 35-40% of its crops. That in turn will mean civil war and revolution - the party knows its days are numbered if a solution isn't found.

Anonymous Sat Aug 25 04:05:47 2018 No.9957736

>>9957725
It would only have to be paper thin in order to work, graphene could do the job, thousands of smaller parasols could be launched into orbit with today's technology to produce the desired surface area instead of having to assemble one big parasol.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 04:09:14 2018 No.9957740 >>9957736 > daydreams blahblahblah do it then if it's so fucking easy

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 04:10:19 2018 No.9957742 >>9957735 >when warming climbs to 450ppm/+2C at current pace, that's about 2030

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 04:10:50 2018 No.9957743 >>9957740 ???

Anonymous Sat Aug 25 04:21:54 2018 No.9957755

>>9949450
>>9957743

Actually, to answer OP's question, it's because it's difficult o have a discussion about climate change without people like this >>9957740 having a moment and flinging shit, there is so much emotion associated in the topic it's impossible to discuss rationally.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 04:38:09 2018 No.9957776 >>9957755 >lets send 13 gazillion satellites >yeah no can do, we can launch stuff once a week at best > oh you're so emotional fucking idiot

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 04:41:54 2018 No.9957780 >>9957776 >yeah no can do, we can launch stuff once a week at best literally where did you say this? >oh you're so emotional >fucking idiot you give yourself way too much credit anon

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 04:50:36 2018 No.9957790 >>9957780 come back with the nuts and bolts of your solution instead of this bs daydreaming

Anonymous Sat Aug 25 05:26:34 2018 No.9957824

>>9957790
My math is not that good so forgive me

The Wikipedia article states that a parasol 1000km in diameter would be sufficient, if we take the surface area of the shade at 1000km (3179000 meters^2) and divide it by 100 we would need roughly 31,800 parasols of 100 square meters to be launched into orbit to make a parasol of equal surface area to the monolithic one, being able to fold themselves out once in orbit(like the sunshield on the James Webb Telescope) to save space bringing the number of launches needed further down, but still not on the order of the '13 gazillion' you cite.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 06:38:52 2018 No.9957890 >>9957728 You could use a dichroic filter instead, block IR and let light useful for photosynthesis through.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 07:27:16 2018 No.9957929 I know it's a meme, is /sci/ literally infested with boomers? the denialists make this thread read like the comment section of a youtube video about global warming from 2007

Anonymous Sat Aug 25 07:38:34 2018 No.9957944

>>9957824
>we would need roughly 31,800 parasols of 100 square meters to be launched into orbit
>being able to fold themselves out once in orbit(like the sunshield on the James Webb Telescope)
The JWST project has cost 8 Billion dollars, mostly due to the difficulty of deploying a sunsheild that large. You're proposing a fleet of thirty thousand JWSTs.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 07:49:44 2018 No.9957956 >>9957944 It may be fair to say the reason it was so expensive is that it's new technology. Maybe the cost will go down per production volume? 31,800 is a lot.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 07:59:31 2018 No.9957966 >>9957890 >block IR the atmosphere does that already light changes to ir after it hits the ground https://youtu.be/x26a-ztpQs8?t=39m

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 08:08:08 2018 No.9957973 >>9957929 are you saying that denialists are boomers?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 08:10:09 2018 No.9957974 >>9957929 No, this is just what American conservatives sound like in general, even including the ones from later generations.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 08:36:00 2018 No.9957984 I know a molecular biologist who thinks climate models are shit and so are climate scientists. That they are literally too mathematically ignorant to accurately model a single storm system, let alone the global climate.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 08:39:15 2018 No.9957988 >>9957984 lol take hurricane lane right now for example none of the models were right

Anonymous Sat Aug 25 08:44:05 2018 No.9957992

>>9957984
>I know a molecular biologist who thinks climate models are shit and so are climate scientists.
If I can find a climatologist who believes in ID, do they cancel out?
Seriously though, scientists say dumb shit about other fields all the damn time. You shouldn't take the opinions of someone in one field as authoritative about the state of another field.

>That they are literally too mathematically ignorant to accurately model a single storm system, let alone the global climate.
Climatologists don't model hurricanes, they model climate systems. Climatology is distinct from metrology, and climate isn't weather.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 08:44:55 2018 No.9957993 >>9957973 even the newest newfag on /pol/ wouldn't say democRAT or be talking about Al Gore, who hasn't been relevant in 10 years

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 10:06:14 2018 No.9958043 >>9957993 There are a handful of /pol/tards that come to every climate thread and repeat the same youtube memes, which get debunked. Then they leave the thread and post them in the next one.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 10:30:16 2018 No.9958061 >>9957984 >hurr durr >it's impossible to know the odds of roulette since you can't even predict each spin

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 25 18:47:40 2018 No.9959050 >>9958043 What are the chances these really are from Internet Research Agency?

Anonymous Sat Aug 25 21:32:55 2018 No.9959372

>>9957992
I'm just telling you what he told me. This is an elite scientist. People seek him out with money in their hands for his brains. He says the climate models are shit. That is an entirely different category of criticism to belief in magic (ID). I've always believed strongly in Climate Change and have seen its effects strongly in my country; having said that his comments shook me.

Anonymous Sun Aug 26 00:09:51 2018 No.9959682

>>9959372
>I'm just telling you what he told me.
Why? Do you think a the random opinions of a non-expert are somehow ore compelling then thw actual evidence that supports AGW?

>This is an elite scientist. People seek him out with money in their hands for his brains.
None of that prevents him from believing incredibly stupid things. Scientists spouting rubbish about topics outside their field is a common issue.

>I've always believed strongly in Climate Change and have seen its effects strongly in my country; having said that his comments shook me.
Yeah no, I don't believe that at all.

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 26 00:14:54 2018 No.9959684 >>9959372 There's no modelling required to know that increasing greenhouse gas concentrations is going to cause the earth to warm.

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

/sci/ - Science & Math