[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/sci/ - Science & Math


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



File: vu69n88eu9i21.jpg (38 KB, 640x524)
38 KB
38 KB JPG
I feel like there are very few real discussions about climate change going on today. People either deny its existence or act like the entire world is about to collapse in the next ten years. From what I understand ~95% of the world's pollution comes from China, Africa, and India. So why do retards like pic related act like they're speaking for the scientific community when they say we should completely destroy Western economies (Green New Deal) for the sake of climate change?
>>
Most carbon pollution comes from America alone
>>
>>10641131
>From what I understand ~95% of the world's pollution comes from China, Africa, and India.
lmao what a fucking brainwashed retard.
>>
>>10641131
>~95% of the world's pollution comes from China, Africa, and India.
Im not a faggot enough to know but that sure sounds about right to me.
>>
>>10641131
>feel like there are very few real discussions about climate change going on today
Are you fucking deaf?
>most pollution comes from africa
LMFAO no
>>
File: Untitled.png (1.38 MB, 1517x1003)
1.38 MB
1.38 MB PNG
>>10641131
What the fuck happened to this retard?
>>
Everyone has their own opinion on this but since you asked mine, I think a lot of are retarded because climate change is very hard, and people like this fag don't simply have what it takes to even talk about it.
A lot of is also virtue signaling. Ask any person on climate marches the name of one researcher and I bet they'll not even answer the question.

In my opinion stopping carbon dioxide emissions can be good but if the climate is really fragile as some think, it could lead to CO2 deficit in plants and cause famines. At the same time if CO2 emission rates keep growing it can also be bad.
I also think it's a self correcting problem since things always get more efficient over time which means less emissions.

Basically treat everything you see on the news as propaganda and read the abstracts of papers and people actually involved in the subject and don't talk about it just because everyone is
>>
>>10641162
he loves money
>>
>>10641131

This is entirely just you poisoning the well. You're citing a non-scientist entertainer as if he's the authority on climate change, you frame it as if climatologists argue that the world is "about to collapse in the next ten years", and you're equating sensible environmental regulation with "completely destroy[ing] Western economies (Green New Deal)". None of these things are true, but they're easier for you to argue against.

>I feel like there are very few real discussions about climate change going on today.

Probably because the people who don't agree with the scientific consensus just change the goalposts to 'muh bill nye' and 'muh armageddon'. The world will not end in 10 years, but it doesn't mean that global warming isn't going to be a catastrophe for human society if left unchecked.
>>
>>10641141
Funny way to spell China.
>>
>>10641146
>>10641158
Perhaps 95% is a bit of an exaggeration but if we want to have any meaningful impact on climate change those are the places we should target. The US may produce more net pollution than some random African country but it is also much larger and already has many environmental regulations in place.

Source: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/pm25-air-pollution
>>
>>10641131
The truth is America is a major polluter from our electricity sector alone. We have the highest total emissions in the world. Truth is, our emissions are even higher if you take into account the amount of industry that we sent to China.

People are scared, mainly because there's no forseen time period which our emissions will go to zero. If we continue on our current track to 2030, then what most likely will happen is a major "snowball" effect, ironically, which will drastically alter the landscape of the world. People figure that our economy should take a hit now, so we won't get destroyed later. It makes sense too, if we don't institute a green deal, or something, it will be much harder 10 years from now.
>>
>>10641194
Air pollution exposure =/= per capita emissions. Sorry pal, America still is the number 1 polluter.
>>
>>10641194
>The US may produce more net pollution than some random African country but it is also much larger and already has many environmental regulations in place.

Not just total population - we produce more CO2 per capita than most other countries

The only countries that do worse than the US are Arabian oil producers
>>
>>10641163
I can't understand. You're making too much sense.
>>
>>10641204
>>10641205
"Most carbon pollution" doesn't mean per capita. Try again, AOC.
>>
>>10641215
>"Most carbon pollution" doesn't mean per capita. Try again, AOC.

I'm confused - weren't you trying to appeal to the fact that the US is much larger? That means that you wanted me to account for differences in population size - which I did. The entire African continent produces far less CO2 per capita than the average American, probably an order of magnitude actually.
>>
>>10641194
>air pollution
meme chart, try one for CO2 emissions
>>
>>10641177
I never said climate change won't be a catastrophe for human society if left unchecked. Having non-scientist entertainers speak on behalf of the scientific community and exaggerate the issue is precisely the problem I wanted to address in this thread. Bill Nye poisons the well as much as a climate change denier by making any environmental regulations seem unreasonable to the average person.
>>
>>10641215
Wow, you really owned the libs with that post
>>
>>10641223
>non-scientist entertainers speak on behalf of the scientific community

Not the truth.

>Bill Nye poisons the well as much as a climate change denier by making any environmental regulations seem unreasonable to the average person

Then don't watch him? Is this a thread about climate change or Bill Nye?
>>
>>10641194
>population weighted
Did you even reed the link you posted?
>>
File: 1530623272780.jpg (11 KB, 251x242)
11 KB
11 KB JPG
>>10641223
>Having non-scientist entertainers speak on behalf of the scientific community
>on behalf of the scientific community
>>
So, what do we do now that the world's ending in 12 years?
>>
File: DyaJAn_XcAEV5HX[1].jpg (208 KB, 1200x823)
208 KB
208 KB JPG
>>10641131
It's a total scam. The main objectives of the scam are the following:

1) Make "green energy" companies make a shitload of money.

2) Halt the progress of developing countries.

3) Stop the funding of the Middle East for its oil.

4) Tax the shit out of the public.

Before you call me an "oil shill" - oil companies SUPPORT man-made climate change! They fund research on it! Why? Because they're the ones set to make a shit load of money from it. They're the ones invested in green energy.

You know they're full of shit when they have to parade around a fucking child to preach about the end times. GET A CLUE YOU FOOLS.
>>
>>10641240
Might as well use up all the resources
>>
>>10641131
>People either deny its existence or act like the entire world is about to collapse in the next ten years.
Burgers do everything that way. (((burger culture)))
>>
>>10641205
>>10641218
>>10641222
You do realize CO2 isn't the only pollutant that damages the environment and hastens climate change right?
>>
>>10641242
Where did you learn to be so realistic? I mean, I know that shit but you can actually convey it.
>>
>>10641249
I'm extremely smart and clever like Greta Thunberg.
>>
>>10641242
>1) Make "green energy" companies make a shitload of money.

So you weren't concerned about Halliburton making a 'shitload of money' by having their ex-chairman and current Vice President of the US shit all over environmental regulations and spread misinformation about established science?

>3) Stop the funding of the Middle East for its oil.

Great. Fuck the Saudis to hell.
>>
>>10641248
Still, that chart is pollution EXPOSURE, read the word exposure. Completely off-topic and unrelated.
>>
>>10641248
>You do realize CO2 isn't the only pollutant that damages the environment and hastens climate change right?

The rankings for overall greenhouse gas emissions per capita are roughly the same - mainly because CO2 is the most significant and abundant greenhouse gas.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions_per_capita
>>
>>10641236
You think the average American cares that Bill Nye isn't a real scientist? Most people only have a superficial view of science so when they see Bill Nye the Science Man they believe what he says.
>>
>>10641255
>So you weren't concerned about Halliburton making a 'shitload of money' by having their ex-chairman and current Vice President of the US shit all over environmental regulations and spread misinformation about established science?
They already make a shitload of money, and will make even more if the climate death cult have their way. Why don't they deny climate change? https://www.halliburton.com/en-US/ps/solutions/clean-energy/carbon-capture-storage/about-ccs/default.html
>about established science?
What established science? The kind where their shitty computer models keep getting everything wrong?
>Great. Fuck the Saudis to hell.
There's a better way to do that than scamming everyone.
>>
>>10641274
>They already make a shitload of money, and will make even more if the climate death cult have their way. Why don't they deny climate change? https://www.halliburton.com/en-US/ps/solutions/clean-energy/carbon-capture-storage/about-ccs/default.html

This is the most galaxy-brain interpretation of climate change denial I've ever seen.

For literal decades, the oil and petroleum industry spent billions lobbying politicians and newscasters to spread the myth that climate change wasn't real and that oil and gas were safe for the environment.

But the fact that Exxon-Mobil has recently made some investments in green energy means that climate change is suddenly a conspiracy /by/ the petroleum industry?

>What established science? The kind where their shitty computer models keep getting everything wrong?

You know literally nothing about climatology besides what youtube ideologues have told you to believe.
>>
>>10641274
please tell me this is a troll thread, right?
>>
>>10641263
I don't care what the average american thinks, they're brainwashed morons who will happily fight and die for the right of their corporate and jewish masters to make money. see >>10641274
>>
>>10641259
Exposure is a consequence of ambient pollution. I doubt many bootleg African oil refineries record their level of CO2 emissions.
>>
>>10641282
You just made yourself a retard for this lurker. The average American is pretty fucking free thinking.
>>
>>10641282
Then you're no better than (((them)))
>>
>>10641280
>For literal decades, the oil and petroleum industry spent billions lobbying politicians and newscasters to spread the myth that climate change wasn't real and that oil and gas were safe for the environment.
What a great job they did! Couldn't even bribe that saint Al Gore! Who by the way has made millions from this scam already. The oil industry are playing the bad guys in this scam, they'd be stupid not to be seen funding such things in the beginning, but now they're fully on board with climate change, even though they were to begin with.

>You know literally nothing about climatology besides what youtube ideologues have told you to believe.
Is Richard Lindzen a youtube ideologue?
>>
File: 1556269330431.png (375 KB, 1920x974)
375 KB
375 KB PNG
>>10641292
Well, if you want to assign blame
>>
>>10641281
Got no rebuttals kid?
>>
>>10641303
>The oil industry are playing the bad guys in this scam, they'd be stupid not to be seen funding such things in the beginning, but now they're fully on board with climate change, even though they were to begin with.

This makes zero sense if you think about it for more than five minutes.

>Couldn't even bribe that saint Al Gore! Who by the way has made millions from this scam already.

Al Gore is not a relevant figure in modern environmental science.
>>
>>10641305
>Green China
post sourcelink
>>
>>10641320
wikipedia, but it's only to 2000
>>
>>10641310
>This makes zero sense if you think about it for more than five minutes.
It makes perfect sense and I only needed to think about it for a few seconds. The oil industry have been playing the "bad guys" for a long time, they're good at spilling oil into the ocean too, we've all seen those photos of seagulls covered in oil. These aren't your regular street scammers, they're professionals and play their part accordingly.
>Al Gore is not a relevant figure in modern environmental science.
He's the saint that made it mainstream with his incredible documentary. He stuck a middle finger at the oil industry because he truly cares about the environment.

I need go and throw up now.
>>
>>10641177
>The world will not end in 10 years, but it doesn't mean that global warming isn't going to be a catastrophe for human society if left unchecked.
And when the armageddon comes?
>>
>>10641131
> From what I understand ~95% of the world's pollution comes from China, Africa, and India.

Nope.

>when they say we should completely destroy Western economies (Green New Deal) for the sake of climate change?

>There’s a riot going on. Is it okay if I loot a store and take a TV?
>>
>>10641141
>Most carbon pollution TOTAL comes from America alone
Not yearlly pollution, informationlet
>>
>>10641310
>This makes zero sense if you think about it for more than five minutes
That makes absolute sense and is the same old song and dance. I think theres a word for it.
>>
>>10641242
Why do climate scientists care about green energy companies making money? Why do oil companies fund deniers if they are the ones pushing climate change? Why can't you make a single argument against the science and instead go straight to making up motives?
>>
>>10641325
>It makes perfect sense and I only needed to think about it for a few seconds. The oil industry have been playing the "bad guys" for a long time, they're good at spilling oil into the ocean too, we've all seen those photos of seagulls covered in oil. These aren't your regular street scammers, they're professionals and play their part accordingly.

No, it makes zero sense. There is no economic future for Exxon-Mobil or Halliburton or any single-commodity firm if developed nations abandon coal and gas in favor of renewables.

Exxon-Mobil can make as many VC investments in green energy as they want, but tens of billions of dollars of their assets are locked up in infrastructure, technology, and employees who exist only to turn crude oil into a refined product. They will go bankrupt if modern society takes climate change seriously, and they know that. That's why they still lobby Republican politicians to further push the narrative that climate change is either non-existent or not a big deal.
>>
>>10641342
>That makes absolute sense and is the same old song and dance. I think theres a word for it.

here's your (you)
>>
>>10641163
Based and redpilled
>>
>>10641328
Depends on how you define armageddon. By 2050 the warming is believed to reduce agriculture yields by 1/4. By 2100, if we hit 4C warming, which we're on track to do, only Canada, Russia, and some other northern countries will really be hospitable.
>>
>>10641163
>it could lead to CO2 deficit in plants and cause famines
Oof and Yikes at the brainpower of this lad
>>
>>10641305
Fucking Malaysia is killing us AAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!
>>
>>10641347
>Why do climate scientists care about green energy companies making money?
Because they have shares in them themselves.
>Why do oil companies fund deniers if they are the ones pushing climate change?
Because that's exactly what you'd expect them to be doing if climate change was real. They are playing their part of the "bad guy", however the denial funding is simply theatre, as the majority of mainstream media is pro man-made climate change, as are all of the environmentalist groups who are funded privately.
>Why can't you make a single argument against the science and instead go straight to making up motives?
As far as the science goes, CO2 is an effect of temperature, not the other way around. There is not one peer reviewed paper that can show man-made CO2 changing the climate. There is not one climate computer model that can accurately simulate the climate, there are far too many variables involved.
>>
>>10641194
Reminder that dust getting kicked up in a dust storm counts as "air pollution"
>>
>>10641351
Aw, you didn't have to do that.
>>
>>10641374
>There is not one climate computer model that can accurately simulate the climate, there are far too many variables involved.

There are multiple models that accurately fit data up to 1900 and have tracked the changes in the past several decades.
>>
>>10641374
>Because they have shares in them themselves.

Any evidence for that? I can show that the petroleum industry lobbies for climate change denial, so the ball is in your court.
>>
>>10641349
>No, it makes zero sense. There is no economic future for Exxon-Mobil or Halliburton or any single-commodity firm if developed nations abandon coal and gas in favor of renewables.
You really think that? Whose economic future will it be?
>Exxon-Mobil can make as many VC investments in green energy as they want, but tens of billions of dollars of their assets are locked up in infrastructure, technology, and employees who exist only to turn crude oil into a refined product. They will go bankrupt if modern society takes climate change seriously, and they know that. That's why they still lobby Republican politicians to further push the narrative that climate change is either non-existent or not a big deal.
Providing energy is their gig - they are going to be the ones who control the new era of energy production and distribution because they're already doing it. They have the money, power and connections. If you think it's that easy to make these energy corporations go bankrupt then you are very naive, they're always 10 steps ahead.
>That's why they still lobby Republican politicians to further push the narrative that climate change is either non-existent or not a big deal.
Why don't they lobby democratic politicians? Are they just inherently better people who refuse bribes? Or is it just the oil companies and the republicans playing the "bad guys" to further the climate agenda? Yes, I think that's obvious.
>>
File: cmp_cmip3_sat_ann-1.png (506 KB, 2337x1891)
506 KB
506 KB PNG
>>10641374
>Because they have shares in them themselves.
How do you know?

>Because that's exactly what you'd expect them to be doing if climate change was real. They are playing their part of the "bad guy", however the denial funding is simply theatre, as the majority of mainstream media is pro man-made climate change, as are all of the environmentalist groups who are funded privately.
Why do they need a bad guy? If they wanted to convince everyone that climate change is real they would just say that it is. Your idiotic conspiracy theory has no evidence to support it and makes no sense. You sound mentally ill.

>As far as the science goes, CO2 is an effect of temperature, not the other way around.
That's empirically false. The greenhouse effect is directly observed and based on fundamental physics and chemistry.

>There is not one peer reviewed paper that can show man-made CO2 changing the climate.
That's a lie. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14240

>There is not one climate computer model that can accurately simulate the climate, there are far too many variables involved.
That's a lie. Pic related.

You already know these are lies, you have no integrity.
>>
>>10641390
>There are multiple models that accurately fit data up to 1900 and have tracked the changes in the past several decades.
Prove it.
>>
>>10641280
>A can't be bad because A was against B
>therefore A is good and B is bad
Holy shit anon the wolf and the shepherd are together in this one, don't be such a sheeplet.
>>
>>10641131
Global warming is 100% real and is man-made
Political solutions like the green new deal are shams. Scams meant to push money around to friends with zero intention or plotted path on actually solving the problem or making technology that would relieve the need for carbon fuels. Most 'green friendly' bills are political grandstanding with zero commitment to anything or restrictions so absurd and detached from reality as to be ignored by the people whom it is aimed at to change.

I'm glad people are worried about it, but this is a multi-sided front that is used for political scoring at this point than trying to develop real solutions. Research in nuclear technology has dropped like a stone in recent decades, attempts to address pollution of the oceans get buried under carbon emission funding (which, by comparison, fixing carbon emissions is like fixing a single car in a lot of wrecked cars compared to the needed resources to fix our plastic-polluted oceans. Which is a problem that is expanding at an exponential rate).

I'm not going to say that your left/right wing tendencies has anything to do with the message, but Bill Nye and John Oliver screaming a the top of their lungs for their cable audience not only doesn't help the problem, but further illustrates why propping up phony feel-good legislation is a roadblock unto itself in actually fixing the problem. By polarizing it, they just made enemies of people that they would normally be the best of friends with if it weren't for their attempt to politicize a rather straight forward scientific fact. They have only themselves to blame, but they don't share all of the blame. Just some of the blame that they share with politicians who have been riding this panic trolley for decades.
>>
>>10641425
The real naivety is believing that Exxon doesn't see climate change as a threat to their business. Just putting out the vague term "providing energy" to label them doesn't give them justice, they are fossil fuel producers, first and foremost.
>>
>>10641414
>Any evidence for that?
It's just logical. If they can make a lot of money from green energy why wouldn't they?
>I can show that the petroleum industry lobbies for climate change denial, so the ball is in your court.
Do you think they're doing that because they think it will work? As if everyone will deny man made climate change because the oil industry lobbied for it. Money well spent. They're not that dumb, it's simply symbolic to strengthen the pro-climate change side.
>>
>>10641349
>Exxon-Mobil can make as many VC investments in green energy as they want, but tens of billions of dollars of their assets are locked up in infrastructure, technology, and employees who exist only to turn crude oil into a refined product. They will go bankrupt if modern society takes climate change seriously, and they know that. That's why they still lobby Republican politicians to further push the narrative that climate change is either non-existent or not a big deal.
Not him but this is crazy, if they thought they could lock up the green energy market and have it owned solely by themselves, they would have done it.
The fact of the matter is that there just isn't as much money in green energy as there is in diesels and carbon emitting fuels because the need for them is still catastrophic. This is a problem across multiple industries that you can't just point to a single oil producer or even an industry of oil producers and say "THIS IS THE PROBLEM!".

No, the problem is that they haven't quite made an electric-powered backhoe yet. Or an electric semi-truck. Or even a way for an electric car to make it to some parts of the country.

Maybe a public works solution could fix this. Maybe restrictions would force them to change directions on what they think is more profitable, but you can't change society to prop up something that isn't realistic to solve all of its problems. Such thinking is naivety and creates the political problems we have now over it.
>>
>>10641452
But still, fossil fuels *should* have no place in our future, you can certainly point to them and say that they are A problem, probably not THE problem.
>>
>>10641449
The irony is you're showing its working by parroting their denier memes

>there is no research showing manmade CO2 causes warming
>the models are wrong

They don't need to convince everyone, they just need to convince enough people and provide enough excuses to keep a carbon tax from being instituted. And it's working, you gullible retard.
>>
>>10641242
what did he mean by this post?
>The climate lobby: a sectoral analysis of lobbying spending on climate change in the USA, 2000 to 2016
>>
>>10641468
He meant "I'm a mentally ill person who constantly lies and then runs away when my lies are disproven, please pay attention to me."
>>
>>10641357
Plants can't live with low levels of CO2.
>>
>>10641477
>plants went extinct for several million years when CO2 levels were stable at ~280PPM and only started growing again after the industrial revolution.
Here's your (you)
>>
>>10641242
>1) Make "green energy" companies make a shitload of money.
Good. What's the problem? Then I'll invest in those companies and make a shitload too. Survival of the fittest, baby. Why do you have such a hard-on for making your money off oil specifically? Everything in life is a self-interested con, if it's not one con, it's another. If not oil, then green. And someone is always making a buck. Who cares.

>2) Halt the progress of developing countries.
Developing countries can suck my dick. The less power they have, the better.

>3) Stop the funding of the Middle East for its oil.
Fuck those sub-human, sub-saharan admixturites and their global geo-political influence. Big time.

>4) Tax the shit out of the public.
Not necessarily. No doubt some will try, however, but that's an easier battle to fight.

I'm in agreement with green, or greener energy simply because it's a better long-term strategy. Finite resources run out. Short-term strategies always lose because the moment is already the past. Putting eggs into the oil/coal/gas basket will just make it that much harder to quit down the line, which I emphasize is an inevitability. Renewable energy is the only answer. Now, obviously we have very big energy needs now, which is why I'm in favor of nuclear energy until we can manage an even longer-term resource than that, like dyson spheres or whatever the fuck.
>>
>>10641426
>How do you know?
Because climate scientists are humans beings too who would prefer to have more money than less.
>Why do they need a bad guy? If they wanted to convince everyone that climate change is real they would just say that it is. Your idiotic conspiracy theory has no evidence to support it and makes no sense. You sound mentally ill.
The scam works better if there is an enemy to hate. The whole scam is based on emotion, from loving the planet and environment, to hating the fossil fuel industry that destroys the environment and will kill us all in a few years.

The climate death cult are the mentally ill ones. You believe there is a conspiracy by the oil industry to spread misinformation about the climate so they don't go bankrupt - I believe the conspiracy is much smarter than that.
>That's empirically false. The greenhouse effect is directly observed and based on fundamental physics and chemistry.
CO2 lags behind temperature. The majority of CO2 comes out of the ocean when heated by the sun.
>That's a lie. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14240
Pic related. The temp fell about 4 degrees during 2000 - 2010 in Alaska.
>That's a lie. Pic related.
Is that before or after they've been fudged?
>>
>>10641449
>Do you think they're doing that because they think it will work? As if everyone will deny man made climate change because the oil industry lobbied for it. Money well spent. They're not that dumb, it's simply symbolic to strengthen the pro-climate change side.

Did you happen to represent South Carolina in the 2007 Miss Teen USA pageant?
>>
>>10641494
>bruh just trust me maaaaaan I don't have any proof but is like totally makes sense!!!111
>>
>>10641484
See what happens at 150ppm.
>>
>>10641509
Good luck getting there, I'd love to hear your genius solution to getting back to 280 first though.
>>
>>10641444
What if their business is also green energy?
>>
>>10641494
>Because climate scientists are humans beings too who would prefer to have more money than less.
Ah so then because you are a human I can just assume that you are being paid to lie to me in this thread. So everything you say can be ignored.
>>
>>10641520
If an oil company was in the process of converting their entire business to renewable energy everyone would know. You don't just piss away billions of dollars in assets.
>>
>>10641494
>climate scientists are humans
Climate scientists are not fucking human!! They are reptilian (((kikes))) sent from the mothership to destroy freedom and devour our souls.
>>
>>10641494
>The scam works better if there is an enemy to hate.
If fossil fuel companies were not lobbying and funding a misinformation campaign to stop a carbon tax from being enacted, it would have happened by now. And the fossil fuel industry is still the major source of the problem regardless of whether it fights back or not. So nothing your babbling about makes any sense.

>You believe there is a conspiracy by the oil industry to spread misinformation about the climate so they don't go bankrupt - I believe the conspiracy is much smarter than that.
I don't simply believe it, it's proven. Your conspiracy makes no logical sense so it's not "smart" at all.

>CO2 lags behind temperature.
Not currently. Also this does not respond to what you're quoting. Try again.

>The majority of CO2 comes out of the ocean when heated by the sun.
The majority of the change in CO2 is due to man: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/

>Pic related. The temp fell about 4 degrees during 2000 - 2010 in Alaska.
No pic was posted and how does the temperature in Alaska refute the paper?

>Is that before or after they've been fudged?
What was fudged?
>>
>>10641459
If the science was as strong as you think it is, we'd have the climate scientists who are doing the studies in the public eye explaining it.

Instead, you have Greta Thunberg and Bill Nye. You have the hysterical media trying to get clicks.

Where are the actual climate scientists doing these studies? Are they hiding? Why? Why aren't they debating this issue publicly? If we are doomed, why do we need a little girl to preach about it? Let's get it from the horse's mouth.
>>
>>10641556
>If the science was as strong as you think it is, we'd have the climate scientists who are doing the studies in the public eye explaining it.
Some of them are, not that one has anything to do with the other. You're grasping at straws.

>Instead, you have Greta Thunberg and Bill Nye.
LOL you mean that you ignore actual scientists and focus only on celebrities because they're an easier target. You're pathetic.
>>
>>10641556
If the science is as weak as you think it is why is every denier including yourself proven wrong every time they open their mouth?
>>
>it is real
>it is slight majority caused by humans/animal activities in the short term scale (0-100 years)
>it is far majority not caused by humans/animal activities in the long term scale (milankovitch)
>methane emissions are negligible to real scientists and only vegans use them to promote their dogma
>the concern is mostly because of our tendency to build communities in coastal regions (first to go as the waters rise)
>if we move most of our grid power to run off low-carbon emitting sources, we can throttle the rate of heating the earth to give us more time (on 100's of years scale) to push people into leaving coastal communities
>only real/long term solution is to restrict the worlds population of humans/animals (what an interesting coincidence the largest recent movie series introduces that idea :^))
>>
>>10641589
>it is slight majority caused by humans/animal activities in the short term scale (0-100 years)
Most of the change is since 1950 and this is wholly due to man. It actually would be worse if natural sinks were not absorbing a significant fraction of our emissions.

>it is far majority not caused by humans/animal activities in the long term scale (milankovitch)
No one said it was.

>methane emissions are negligible to real scientists and only vegans use them to promote their dogma
A quarter of the radiative forcing is hardly negligible.

>>only real/long term solution is to restrict the worlds population of humans/animals (what an interesting coincidence the largest recent movie series introduces that idea :^))
Replacing our power sources would fix the problem permanently.
>>
>>10641131

Nye is based and Breadpilled.
All you have to do is keep up the "discussion"

The rest of us will save the planet
>>
>>10641131
>People either deny its existence or act like the entire world is about to collapse
L0Lno fgt pls
>>
>>10641131
Even if your facts are true,

it still doesn't exempt the US from cleaning up their act and since we live in the US were gonna focus on the US
>>
Who reports on chinese emissions? The chinese.

And much like everything else from there their reports are fake.
>>
We're fucked. Conservatives don't want to admit it's even happening, let alone admit it's our fault.
It will be decades before serious action is taken in America due to politics.
Even if we did manage to get our shit together, there's China, India, Southeast Asia, Africa, and South America still that will continue dumping trash into the ocean and destroying ecosystems
>>
>>10641813
in a few generations people won't even be educated enough to know climate change is even a thing.
>>
>>10641162
He went full retard.
>>
>>10641177
>None of these things are true, but they're easier for you to argue against.
They're also what the perceived left and climate lobby loudly spouts to the American public, which is part of OP's point.
>>
File: 1521913021530.png (1011 KB, 935x717)
1011 KB
1011 KB PNG
Climate change is happening.
It is caused by humans.
Life on Earth will flourish if it kills humans.
It is not certain to kill humans.
The problems with climate change are more extreme weather (due to more energy in the atmosphere) and corner-stone species such as the honey bee going extinct, both of which have the potential to cause mass death
Among other effects, hypothesized and unknown
Everyone wants put their own sensationalized spin on the subject, and almost everyone with an opinion has no fucking clue what we're talking about at the end of the day.
>>
>>10641263
>Bill Nye the Science Man
lol
>>
File: 1525825141019.png (323 KB, 740x840)
323 KB
323 KB PNG
>>10641813
>>10641833
This shit doesn't matter anyway. Not as long as there aren't any contingency plans in place to ensure civilization after an INEVITABLE event such as a solar flare, CME, meteor impact, etc. It's happened before, it's hampered civilization and the climate before, and it will happen again----and when it does, any effort you've put into reducing the negative effects of human industry looking out for long-term habitation will amount to big fat bupkis.
>>
>>10641452
The technology could be developed if there was an interest in it. As it stands, it's economically safer to continue to bet in fossil fuels, (the devil you know) from the perspective of companies already established in the field, and with the infrastructure to deal with it, than attempt to pivot into a pretty different take on the energy industry.
>>
>>10641849
Photonic computing will be a thing by then.
>>
>>10641855
not when it happens a month from now
>>
>>10641357
I think what he was getting at is that if we suddenly and sharply drop CO2 levels in the atmosphere the sudden change could cause an acute reaction in plants. Depends on how fragile the environment is.
>>
File: 1524637856431.gif (1.73 MB, 400x225)
1.73 MB
1.73 MB GIF
>>10641855
also photonic computing means nothing when something like a meteor or comet impact will send us into an ice age or a heat age or otherwise disrupt everything, because then we're talking about food and I suppose potentially some kind of a water crisis.
>>
>>10641162
https://is2.4chan.org/wsg/1557771902630.webm
>>
>>10641652
you really have no clue what you're talking about lol
>>
>>10641943
He's not an actual climate scientist (he's admitted as much before).
>>
>>10641652
You've said you're not a climate scientist, and you've emphatically denied that you're a shill. So what is your actual profession? Politician? Journalist? I'm genuinely curious.
>>
File: spooky howard.jpg (75 KB, 500x500)
75 KB
75 KB JPG
>>10641200
Unfortunately people will deny climate change and the solution will ultimately boil down to some of the most brutal and intense violence you will ever see in human history, instead of sensible, peaceful solutions because "muh climate hoax" astroturfing by oil and coal execs.

People are deluded and think things will be okay for them, that they'll get through this, etc. We're all trapped in a nose-spiraling airplane and we're all high off of our own optimism, hope, and propaganda, myself included. We truly don't know how bad things really are, but when the average normie finally wakes out of their stupor, becomes "climate woke", and realizes that shit is crashing hard, be very, very scared for the direction the world will take.

All morals, all beliefs, all justice, all values, will be off the table. Every tool and technology available will be exploited to their maximum potential. We will genetically engineer to the extreme, we will automate to the extreme, we will engage in extreme AI research to desperately solve our problems, we will engage in extreme and uncertain atmospheric engineering, we will engage in vicious war and annihilate anyone we deem a danger. Fear is the most powerful human emotion.

People are starting to wake up and smell the smoke. Be scared, because I sure as fuck am. We're entering a scary new world, and all bets are off.
>>
>>10641917
>that wojak edit
Holy shit I fucking lost it.
>>
>>10641965
>sensible, peaceful solutions
unfortunately solutions that will definitely work are incompatible with the current system. Blame oil and coal execs if you want, but the real problem is those (the vast majority of people) who support the current system.
>>
>>10641965
What a puss
>>
>>10641131
>>
>>10642030
He never actually said that. It’s a fake subtitle.
>>
>>10641131
>>10641242
it's a very real thing obviously but they are using it and selling it as a scam
>>
>>10641960
You don't even need to be, not him but you can dismantle any denier argument by reading studies for like 30 minutes. Their arguments are all that pathetic.
>>
>>10641860
How would that happen though?
>>
>>10641943
Wow, what a counterargument.
>>
>>10641964
>You've said you're not a climate scientist
Where did I do that?
>>
>>10641849
>>10641866
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Asteroid_Redirection_Test
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Synoptic_Survey_Telescope
>>
I have a "let it crash and burn " philosophy. Either climate change is real or not. If it isn't then nothing's going to happen. If it is real, then that's good, because I'm happy that your kids are not going to have the pleasure of living in the same comfortable environment as me.
>>
>>10642237
have sex
>>
>>10641833
How so? Insects are all tropical animals, ice age is killing them.
>>
>>10641146
t. pajeet or chink.
>>
>>10641516
Holy shit, fuck off Rajesh.
>>
>>10642342
>>10642344
what's wrong fatty, did someone spit on your hamburger?
>>
>>10641355
>only Canada, Russia, and some other northern countries will really be hospitable.
It's our turn to be geopolitically privileged, kek.
>>
>>10641516
>Good luck getting there
Should I be interested?
>>
Isn't nuclear winter theoretically a way to decelerate or reverse global warming, not only by reducing industrial carbon use but by blocking out exterior sunlight?
>>
>>10641357
"oof" "yikes" "lad"
end yourself
>>
>>10642237
>nihilist opinion dismissed.
>>
>>10641131
>when they say we should completely destroy Western economies (Green New Deal)
the green new deal is explicitly designed to boost the economy, not destroy it
>>
>>10641163
>In my opinion stopping carbon dioxide emissions can be good but if the climate is really fragile as some think, it could lead to CO2 deficit in plants and cause famines
Yes, because as we all know plants couldn't survive before the industrial revolution
>>
>>10641141
who is China and India?
>>
>>10642870
Y-y-yikesy, wikesy! We have a Big Oofer in our midst!
>>
>>10643091
Anything that doesn't have a carbon tax and nuclear is a joke.
>>
>>10643211
the GND has no explicit policy proposals, it's just an outline of goals. i support the GND but with nuclear added in.

carbon taxes whatever, i'm skeptical unless someone can convince me they don't just fuck consumers
>>
>>10643256
Most of the goals have nothing to do with global warming and are just standard welfare goals without any suggestion of how they will be paid for. None of this is economical. The only thing the GND does is serve as a useless distraction for liberals and an easy target for conservatives.
>>
>>10641355
>only northern countries will really be hospitable.
meanwhile southern hemisphere will be paradise. Burguers seething.
>>
>>10641204
> per capita emissions
Why does this matter? Environmental effects are a function of absolute amounts.
>>
>>10643277
by taxing the fuck out of the uber-rich, obviously. there's more than enough money sitting around not doing anything useful for society.
>>
>>10641228
>non-scientist entertainers speak on behalf of the scientific community
>Not the truth.

Not that anon, just joining this conversation. But who OP thinks speaks for the scientific community is irrelevant to the problem. What matters is who is heard for the scientific community.
>>
>>10643390
LOL do you think money sits in a bank vault waiting for Scrooge McDuck to jump in? You're an idiot. And you will never get such a plan passed.
>>
>>10643351
>a billionare flying around the world in a private jet is the same as 10,000 Cambodians trying to survive.

Action needs to be taken against the Cambodians first because the entire country emits more than one billionaire.
>>
>>10643351
you can’t actually be this dumb
>>
>>10641917
We're going to endure another dark age because vocal people who believed in the problem decided to virtue signal instead of convincing the other side

At least humans always get what is deserved
>>
>>10643424
When the other side ignores all reasearch scientific evidence and chooses to instead beleive what their leaders tell them to no matter how obvious the lies. Who's really to blame?
>>
>>10643091
>the green new deal is explicitly designed to boost the economy, not destroy it

You're supposed to use keynesian economics during recessions, you're also supposed to keep the national debt under control. Capitol Hill has never figured this out, but you still can.
>>
>>10643435
Which is why the current administration is doing everything in their power to increase the deficit.
>>
>>10643256
>it's just an outline of goals. i support the GND

What does it even mean to support goals? Most goals are good. What could you support as an alternative? Who supports net positive carbon emissions? Who supports finite sources of energy?
>>
File: 1556315205835.jpg (112 KB, 1200x889)
112 KB
112 KB JPG
I think the term "Climate Change" is a diversionary tactic used to distract us from the real problem: POLLUTION. It doesn't really fucking matter whether it gets colder or hotter or whether the climate changes at all, pollution would STILL be a huge problem that hardly anyone is doing anything to address. We could just switch over to nuclear energy and hydrogen fuel cells if the rich bastards who CLAIM to care about the environment would actually use some of THEIR money to fund such endeavors. People like Bill Gates love to talk about stuff like this, but since he wouldn't be able to get a return on his investment he isn't willing to pay for something like building a bunch of new-model nuclear power plants. Some of these top-tier rich guys have the capitol to basically save the planet by themselves, but there isn't any way the MAKE MORE MONEY doing it, only SPEND MONEY doing it, so it isn't seen by them as something they could actually afford to do. They aren't willing to give up a cushy lifestyle to stand up for their supposed ideals.
>>
>>10643449
The GOP? Did you sleep through 2016?
>>
>>10643390
Why didn't I think of that? Planet earth has plenty of paper with presidents on it and numbers recorded in electronic bank accounts. We can just convert those into things like magic.
>>
>>10643452
>climate change isn't harmful
Wrong idiot.
And one nuclear plant costs about 9 billion dollars Bill Gates could spend his entire fortune and it would only be a drop in the bucket. The only way for nuclear to be viable in the US is if we socialize our entire grid.
>>
>>10643453
The only people in either party who support finite sources of energy are those being paid by big oil lobbies. Most people on both sides love the IDEA of clean renewable energy, and love the IDEA of reducing carbon emissions, bu where you lose their support is when you show them how you want to ACHIEVE THE IDEA. They also would like to save the planet, they just aren't willing to PAY for doing so.
>>
>>10643470
So the entire GOP is being paid by oil lobbies got it.
>>
>>10643463
I didn't say climate change wasn't a problem, retard. I said that even IF it isn't (not saying it isn't, posing a hypothetical) WE STILL NEED TO ADDRESS THE POLLUTION PROBLEM. If somebody tells you they don't believe in climate change it's hard to argue. But you can't NOT BELIEVE in pollution.

Also, no, you're grossly exaggerating the costs of nuclear energy and the depths of Gate's coffers. 9 Billion is a drop in the bucket to him., You think all his money is visible to the government?
>>
>>10643426
That's not quite the problem. Conservatives never see the evidence. And in the few fleeting moments of their lives when people like Bill Nye have their attention he completely fucks it up.

What conservatives are guilty of, in this one particular instance, is not trusting experts on matters of expert fields because they were pre-empted with a conspiracy narrative from non-experts, and lies that there is a scientific "debate" about anthropogenic climate change.

Basically the same problem with evolution and intelligent design.
>>
>>10643487
His net worth is 99 Billion, anything else is just you talking out of your ass.
>>
>>10643453
No. The GOP supports cheap energy.

GND is just "clean air" and "clean water" packaged in Roosevelt nastolgia. Everyone supports clean air and water, but not what you have to sacrifice to get it.
>>
>>10643390
Taxing the rich is terrible idea. They'll just LEAVE, you dummy. They're rich enough to pack up and go to a place that WON'T tax them.

No, it''s A-OKAY for rich people to not want to pay to save the planet, HOWEVER, if a rich person acts all holier-than-thou about how we need to change society or something to fix these problems, that person should be SHAMED until THEY give up all their wealth to PUT THEIR MONEY WHERE THEIR MOUTH IS. Same for all these fuckers that want to tax everybody to solve the worlds' problems. YOU should give up what YOU have first before you start demanding that others give up what is theirs.
>>
>>10643511
Then why does the party leader deny climate change. While also campaigning for fossile fuels regardless of cost.
>>
>>10643514
Trump is the party leader"? Do you not remember how in 2016 basically EVERY republican already in office HATED Trump and didn't want him to win? You know why? Cause up until he ran for president he was known for being a New York socialite who hung out with democrats all the time.
>>
>>10643407
obviously not. but we can tax capital gains much higher, personal income much higher, etc.
>>
>>10643513
>YOU should give up what YOU have first before you start demanding that others give up what is theirs.
i have nothing. i have negative net worth. everything i own is student loan payment.

however, there's people out there with more money than some entire countries. we need to eat the rich.
>>
>>10643487
>WE STILL NEED TO ADDRESS THE POLLUTION PROBLEM.

How much? Pollution is bad for ecosystems, kills a statistical amount of people indirectly every year. But you should probably ignore some degree of it because economic prosperity improves standard of living and also saves lives.
>>
>>10643504
I know drug dealers who have a negative net worth (in debt) and they buy a new mustang every year, with cash. Lives in a 5-bedroom house. None of his money is on-the-books, so he doesn't pay taxes either. Are you seriously telling me that you think Bill fucking Gates doesn't have a massive amount of wealth that is hidden using illegal means in order to avoid the governments of various countries trying to tax it, and in order to safeguard against keeping "all his eggs in one basket" as it were? The ultra-wealthy don't care about laws, and if you're naive enough to think they don't break them then you have my sympathy.
>>
>>10643514
>Then why does the party leader deny climate change.

What does this have to do with anything? Even if you deny climate change, renewable energy and low emissions are positive benefits in the abstract.

>While also campaigning for fossile fuels regardless of cost.

No, and I know for sure because this isn't a real topic. Fossil fuels are cheaper. One day when they aren't, then you can accuse people of that.
>>
>>10643530
So people like you that didn't manage money well, need to commandeer the money from people who do manage it well
>>
Can we stop talking shit like Bill Gates needs to do something with his money.

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

Bill gates is already invested in experimental traveling wave reactors for your sake. As well as probably hundreds of other philanthropic pursuits I've never googled. And I don't care who it is, everyone invests their money. It's always doing something somewhere.

Even you NEETs that are too stupid to open a brokerage account to replace your bank account, your bank is investing your money and reaping the returns.

What's left? If it's under a mattress, inflation slowly returns it to the banking cartel.

There is no such thing as idle money.
>>
>>10643589
Yep, real estate and the stock market are really what rich people need to focus on. After all the stock market is eternal and can grow exponentially without any limit. Who needs to worry about silly little things like societal collapse?
>>
>>10643607
What do you think the stock market is?

Nothing you said makes any sense. So long as the economy is growing as a trend, the market grows as a trend. It's not a race towards a cliff. And investing does not cause societal collapse. If you want some examples of societal collapse, look at countries where no one is investing.

If I had to pick a narrative that your words fit, you seem to think malinvestment followed by stock market crashes are what the stock market is for. Because maybe that's the only time you pay attention to it.
>>
>>10642179
>standard non-response from the slime
>>
the right wants to ignore the problem
the left thinks "massive investment" in "green energy" is the solution
both totally focused on "growing the economy"

humanity hasn't got a chance as long as these "deep thinkers" are in control
>>
>>10643671
>standard non-response
You mean like >>10641964 ?
>>
>>10643524
Why though? Just have a carbon tax and your will solve most of the problem.
>>
File: 1552651945656.jpg (5 KB, 206x250)
5 KB
5 KB JPG
>>10641141
>Most carbon pollution comes from America alone
>op literally just said vast majority comes from china+India
>>
>>10641141
Found the first retard
>>
>>10643653
>Imagine being so retarded that you thought a finite system could experience exponential growth indefinitely
>Imagine being so delusional that you believe the market always makes the best decisions and isn't influenced or manipulated for short-term profit
I might have more faith in economic "science" if they could keep their toys from breaking under normal use
>>
>>10644205
His point is still solid. The people screaming its ending sometime where always around. But they have been wrong for hundreds of yours now. And there are even aspects of the economy that do not use a whole lot of ressources.

The market also doesnt always makes the best decisions. He never said that. Its always depending and would have to bring an alternative that makes better decision than the market on average does.

ANd with the common markets - its really difficult for anyone to have a big impact alone. The manipulations you speak of are far more commen in smaller markets like small-cap stock companies. But they are only a tiny fraction of the overall stock market.
>>
>>10644205
Why don't you actually answer for your stupid statements instead of immediately greentexting into topics no one is talking about

How should people invest? I'm all ears.
>>
>>10644205
>Imagine being so retarded that you thought a finite system could experience exponential growth indefinitely

Your wife's son will solve fusion power and mine the first asteroid
>>
>>10644250
Not him, but I'm personally skeptical of the narrative "climate change is an innovation problem" that the gop are pushing. It just doesn't sit well.
>>
>>10644261
I agree. Innovation doesnt come automatically. But there are a few good signs. For example this:

Costs for solar energy production are going down. And soon it would be an economically bad idea to use coal instead of solar.

https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ise/de/documents/publications/studies/AgoraEnergiewende_Current_and_Future_Cost_of_PV_Feb2015_web.pdf
>>
>>10644235
>>10644245
>>10644250
3 triggered market worshippers
lol
>>
>>10644261
>"climate change is an innovation problem" that the gop are pushing
and what do you think the dems are pushing?
the gnd is essentially an innovation
the lunatics on both sides are about as different as white rats and black rats
>>
>>10644245
It's not simply a question of how to invest. There are bad actors that need to be purged from the economy or made impotent. For example every power company: net metering schemes harm the solar industry and prevent the establishment of small solar power providers. Care to guess how much they've spent writing and enacting those laws? The justification they use is that they own the power lines and therefore they get to decide what goes through it.

My solution: cut them a check and tell them to fuck off. Infrastructure as ubiquitous and essential as power lines really needs to be controlled by the government.
>>
>>10644284
That climate change is a consumption problem, essentially. Obviously they're not against renewables, but they think that its completely unfeasible to slow climate change by just saying "lmao let the market do the work". Still, I can see arguments for both sides.
>>
>>10644261
It's a response to economic growth not being sustainable. Technology reduces energy requirements and increases the availability of resources.
>>
>>10644301
>climate change is a consumption problem
yes, and a "massive investment" (in green technology) is consumption
>lmao let the market do the work
people who say that don't really care about climate change

both schools of thought are ridiculous imo
>>
>>10644303
>Technology reduces energy requirements and increases the availability of resources.
There is a point of diminishing returns - net gains have been slowing for decades
>>
>>10644312
yeah well that's the only thing the gop has said about it, "just let the market do its work". For me it comes down to a choice between action and essentially no action, there is no third party or option at this point.
>>
>>10644295
>It's not simply a question of how to invest.

Yes it is. I know because I asked the retard that very question.

Someone bitched that rich people hoard money. That's not true. They reinvest their money back into the market. Then someone bitched again because the stock market and real estate market apparently don't do anything important, and it's going to cause a societal collapse or something.
>>
>>10644320
>there is no third party
because people prefer the bullshit over the uncomfortable truth: there is no easy way out of this
>>
>>10643522
That's the whole point of elections. The republican base made it clear Trump represents them better than any other republican in America.
>>
>>10644322
Alright, then invest in lobbists so you can change the laws that were established to make renewables less competitive
>>
>>10644329
>there is no easy way out of this

Why can't we go mostly nuclear again? What makes us different than a country like france?
>>
>>10644347
If we wanted to plan out our economy we would travel back in time to soviet Russia, because that's the only way that's happening.
>>
>>10644347
It would require the socialization of power generation in the US. I'm all for it but good luck making it happen.
>>
>>10644347
Because France can distribute its energy to the rest of the EU, making it a great back up for shitty days that fail to power their eco generators.

In all honesty, the best conversation I had with an environmentalist about the pollution problem was where he said we had to do something about it one breath and then said that nuclear power would probably see us through that transition the fastest in the other.

Also lol at the per capita. I remember the first day I landed in Beijing and there was a dust storm the color of old pennies. Hurt to breathe and I dug black rocks out of my nose for the next two years I lived there. That only used to happen in the US in the 70's. Before we started putting air filters whole sale in our metropolitan areas.

Don't be sheep, China is a bigger polluter than the rest and they even turn off their factories when they host that stupid pollution convention. A government holiday to keep things a little nicer to look at. Once that week is over you're back to smelling burning iron and seeing an ominous haze. I think that was what struck me the weirdest of all: How quickly it all changed and cleared once the industrial districts shut down. It happened so quickly.

Fills me with doubt about a great many things, Anons.
>>
>>10643497
"Trusting experts" is the single worst reason to believe something. If you can't explain why the Earth is round without relying on experts, you might as well be a flat earther: it's more intellectually honest.
>>
File: 1557528279518.jpg (925 KB, 1529x1142)
925 KB
925 KB JPG
>>10644466
Can't forget that the scientific "community" even preaches that if 9/10 scientists agree on something, it's the 10ths duty to prove them wrong. Or is that mentality nonexistent?
>>
>>10644466
>"Trusting experts" is the single worst reason to believe something.

No it's not. There's every other logical fallacy that's not appeal to authority, including straight up appeal to authority. You also can't function in daily life without making decisions that trust experts. Let's imagine that. You can't fly in planes. You can't go to the the doctor. You can't trust computers (that's true either way). Researching topics is useless, the entire acquired body of scientific knowledge is wasted on you. Are you going to double check and test every claim from your text books in your back yard? How the fuck do you have a world view? What is life like if you only trust direct observation?

Your example of baby tier geodesy is cute. Expert fields typically require dedication on the level of career choice to enter. And you're not fit to judge the validity of any claim coming out of an expert field, especially ones in contention, unless you're also an expert. Unfortunately we have to make decisions for the human race as a collective without the time for everyone to be an expert and practice scientific rigor.
>>
>>10644507
But if you're not a scientist, it's stupid to play the game of guessing which scientist in the minority opinion could be right.

If you trust scientific consensus, consensus will eventually be corrected even when the minority view is correct. If that doesn't happen, that means scientists are no longer persuaded by evidence, and science has failed as an institution anyway and you'd best start stockpiling for the dark ages.
>>
>>10644522
At the same time, these fields are dictated to by committees and delegations that own their funding.

The most depressing thing I ever learned was that the field of archaeology is more or less interest groups trying to hide or claim artifacts. This idea that those whose spirit animal is Indiana Jones are out to bring these great relics to museums is merely a pipe dream. The same can be said of the scientific community. After all, I watched a documentary with black science jesus where he said in one breath that big business used PhD's and big words and nice statistics to dupe the populace for their own interests and then told me trust big numbers and PhD's and big words in the other. It's a lot like the "lol your source" argument where you sweep everyone's feet out from under them, including your own.
>>
File: Beakie_has_a_soda.jpg (142 KB, 533x688)
142 KB
142 KB JPG
>>10644530
>Implying I haven't been stockpiling for the dark ages

This is why I think centrism works. It doesn't matter how or why the apocalypse comes, so long as you're ready for it and can sober up when it happens. Until then we can all play this fun game of who's truth is more true.
>>
>>10641141
Summferfags have arrived early this year.
>>
>>10643422
>>10643411
So.. you guys think that Luxembourg, with it's half a million people is a bigger problem than China with it's 1.386 billion since Luxembourg has a higher CO2 output per capita?
Please tell me you guys are just trolling and not actually this retarded.
>>
>>10644871
not really. that said,
>since Luxembourg has a higher CO2 output per capita?
how do you even justify that? luxembourgs CO2 output should be close to 0. or at the very least lower per capita than fucking china
>>
>>10643530
>this is the average brainlet on /sci/
embarassing
>>
>>10641131
is there a person that looks more like a pedophile than this guy?
>>
>>10641194
USA is the easiest fucking place to reduce emissions, because US citizens have one of the largest carbon footprints in the world and everything to do with energy is inefficient as fuck in the US. Also a shitton of energy in the US is wasted in ludicrous ways.
Step up your god damn game, America. You are sitting on this mountain of CO2 you claim for yourself and demand that dozens of chinese peasants reduce the emissions from their fireplace so you can keep climatising your windy wood shacks and giga malls to 0 degrees fahrenheit.
>>
>>10645110
The US has been reducing emissions at an almost exponential rate since the 1970s. If you honestly think the smog covering the cities of China is caused by peasants burning wood in their fireplaces you're a fucking idiot.
>>
How many of u on here actually smart. Seriously if this is more of a nissesity to figure out than war nd wales can use not find a solution together to solve tht shit on the side at least cause than we just talkin bout how long we got left on shit
>>
>>10644893
The point is that it doesn't matter what Luxembourg does, because they're tiny. Per capita is meaningless when we're talking about who's actually causing damage here. Only absolute numbers count.
>>
>>10643125
>we have the same plants as before the industrial revolution
>>
>>10645578
embarrassing post. imagine being this stupid.
>>
What a scientific thread
>>
>>10645243
US actually has reduced emissions, mainly through de industrialization though. American goods made by American companies for American consumers are just made in china Indonesia etc. And even ignoring that most of China's emissions are directly caused by the US their per capita emissions are still much much lower.
>>
>>10641131
The majority of climatologists can’t say for sure if recent climate change is produced by humans. That’s all you need to know about climate change.
>>
>>10641162
Realised people caught on to him being an asshole, so he is just dropping the act now
>>
>>10646135
>source: my ass
>>
>>10645622
the retardation never stops
>>
>>10646968
Gonna need some citations on that claim
>>
>>10646972
Sure let me get your name and address so I can scientifically prove you're a retard
>>
>>10641131
>From what I understand ~95% of the world's pollution comes from China, Africa, and India.
Then you don't understand much. 23% of global CO2 emissions come from the US and the EU combined and they are respectively the 2nd and the 3rd largest pollutants in that regard. China's emission is still larger at 29% so yet, it is a problem, but pretending that the West doesn't pollute it's simply a lie.
>when they say we should completely destroy Western economies
No one wants to "completely destroy Western economies", that's false, but yes, measures we propose will likely hinder economic growth. That's what's must be done though, Earth is a finite resource and can't sustain an infinite growth. By the way, Western economies are very highly developed, instead of asking why should we suffer economically better ask why should poor China or India, which by the way both pollute less per capita than the US.
>>
>>10646135
Why does every denier lie?
>>
>>10645578
If only absolute numbers count then why does the country matter? Every individual should reduce their demand and consumption for GHG-emissions. Some individuals consume much more than others and so have much more responsibility to reduce their emissions.
>>
>>10646054
Then we should pull the factories out of China and put them back in the US where we actually give a fuck to regulate and innovate them.
>>
>>10641376
Reminder that dust storms alone don't account for the data in the graphic.
Nice try
>>
>>10647250
I agree but good luck convincing the crony capitalists who control the US of that.
>>
>>10641141
wrong.
>>
Climate change is a lie
>>
>>10647048
>denier
You mean a person actually knows the science.
alarmists are emotional morons.
>>
>>10641131

Africa, China, & India actually produce ~39.26% of the world's CO2 emissions. People like Bill Nye believe in the importance of the GND & combating climate change because they believe that climate change is an emergency & that grassroots energy is not fungible. By the way, I don't believe that the GND would completely destroy Western economies.

Also, Western civilisation produces ~35.94% of the world's CO2 emissions which is quite significant.
>>
Sensationalism x Paranoia x Political voting x Economic reform x Mass Media Influence x International relations x BIG Money
Most of (if not all) the points and issues raised follow a golden rule of fuckery & subversion with modern civilization to direct your vote and get you to buy X-car.
This stuff never comes off as being different from current wave rad fems complaining about womyn issues here, and avoiding the issues 3rd world shithole women suffer from.
If you care about the environment over here maybe start concerning yourself with all the trash and landfills where we're preserving garbage for hundreds of years to be a future generations problem, either that or some cheaper universal energy source.
>>
File: 1555367524656.jpg (19 KB, 361x480)
19 KB
19 KB JPG
>>10641131
There's plenty of real, serious discussion about this subject. The issue is that *you* find it too politically incoright to suck up your pride, accept the reality if the situation, and come on board with everyone else already brain storming solutions. The idea that finding, and funding alternative sources of technology is "destroying western" economies is already proof you have not bothered reading into actual arguments and are simply a mindless lip piece to the oil corps and their political cronies who peddle the same political denialist garbage.
>>
>>10644871
Do you understand disparate impact? Doing something Luxemburg would have a bigger impact because a) it's a smaller population where changes are easier to change and b) because of their higher per capita contribution will have a greater impact. Of course everyone else is part of the problem too, but address the major offenders first is more effective than tracking every little minion in the world.
>>
>>10641131
>completely destroy Western economies (Green New Deal)
>implying
>>
>>10647297
The real issue is that China is allowed to treat its people even more like slaves than we are in the US and therefore present the more promising price tag for production. We can't compete with a nation that doesn't even give a fuck about the safety and well being of its people. We might not have free health care in the US, but holy shit lawyers have worked very hard to make companies and industries operate within very specific parameters in order to keep safety very high. Albeit to keep the company safe from damaging lawsuits, but what can you do...
>>
>>10647995
Green New Deal != finding alternative sources of technology
Read the thread before posting, you clearly have no understanding of the purpose of this thread or any of the opinions posted here.
>>
>>10647047
Read the thread your first point has already been addressed multiple times. CO2 emissions do not account for all pollution.

The Green Deal is fairytale utopian nonsense and an unreasonable response to climate change. It wants 100% renewable 0 emissions energy by 2030 along with a bunch of ancillary racial politics bullshit. You've said nothing that 100% of people in this thread don't already understand.
>>
>>10641242
>Make "green energy" companies make a shitload of money
lol do you know the amount of money the fossil fuel industry gets in government subsidies right now? It's absurd.
>>
>>10648091
Who the fuck cares about Green New Deal? You realize that your country =/= world?
>>
>>10648407
If you're not even going to bother reading the thread topic why bother posting in the thread?
>>
>>10648456
ask yourself why do YOU bother posting in the thread that legislation failed in your Senate who cares so why still moan about it?
>>
>>10641131
Climate change isn't real
First it was global cooling
Then global warming
Now oh it's just changing
Fuck off, it hasn't been above 10 degrees all month it's fucking cold, we used to say April showers bring May flowers when I was a kid now there's no fucking flowers of leaves yet
>>
>>10648091
>CO2 emissions do not account for all pollution.
Stop posting in such threads, stop trying to get people to subscribe to your agenda, you're clearly unknowledgeable and mistaken.

First of all, we're not talking about 'pollution', we're talking about climate changes hence greenhouse gases. CO2 dominates radiative forcing so it makes sense for people to focus on that one. But whatever, let's leave that for a second and look at combined emissions.

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

All these gases account for 90%+ of radiative forcing. And again we can see that the EU + the US alone account for 23% of world emissions. So yes, the West is in huge part responsible for this, and green policies in the West can significantly reduce the global output.

Everything you /pol/turds say is lies and misinformation.
>>
>>10647995
image=good way to get a brain tumor
>>
>>10648487
I created this thread specifically because I'm sick of agenda driven discussion on climate change. Read the thread topic it states clearly pollution not CO2 emissions.
You're arguing against positions no one in this thread holds. The EU and US account for 23% of the world's emissions but they both have environmental regulations in place that have drastically reduced emissions over the last 50 years. Places like China, Africa, and India do not have any of these regulations in place, that's why I singled them out.
>>
>>10648643
So are we talking about some unspecified "pollution" or the pollution that's related to climate change - greenhouse emissions? Thread topic states "Climate change".
>The EU and US account for 23% of the world's emissions but they both have environmental regulations in place that have drastically reduced emissions over the last 50 years.
And both can do way, way more, it's not unfeasible that in a few decades a developed economy can reach carbon neutrality. Especially the United States, who pollute on per capita way more than Europe or China(which is on Europe in that regard). So you're saying that an average American can pollute much more than an average Chinese and should not be required to reduce their emissions. Are first world people somehow privileged?
>>
>>10648473
Global warming was first predicted by svante arrhenius back in 1896 and has been supported by the evidence since then. Just because 3 scientists wrongly predicted an ice age in the 80s and the media ran with it isn't a valid argument against science.
And like a typical retard you confuse weather with climate. Fuck off if you're only capable of listening to propaganda and incapable of thinking for yourself.
>>
>>10641131
>completely destroy Western economies
This is moron talk. The long term economic benefits obviously outweigh any upfront costs. "Conservatives", in the classic sense, always oppose change, and have been repeatedly wrong throughout history. You are the a-hole yelling at doctors to not wash their hands because germs are fantasy created by libtards who are secretly beholden to Big Soap.
>>
>>10641305
>Canada and Germany.

why is it always canada and germany?
>>
>>10643513
then I'd seize their intellectual property as well as their other assets,
>>
>>10648724
Wrong predictions and the media running with them are exactly the issue though. This is why people are disillusioned. They keep making exaggerated or plain incorrect claims, changing them, then bemoaning that people don't immediately jump on board with the new settled science. It isn't hard to see how even experts could be at a loss in a field as chaotic, long term in scale, and relatively unobserved. Screaming at people for being skeptical at this point is only making it worse.

>>10649591
If you think the green new deal will have long term economic benefits that outweigh the upfront costs you are as delusional and manipulated as any firm climate change denier.
>>
>>10641305
>per capita
>less than 1 million people in Guyana
>3 billion people in China
C'mon senpai
>>
>>10643513
They play society's game of economics they abide by our rules. They deserve to get taxed as payment for allowing them to make money. Also, they move, kick up an international conflict and take your money.
>>
>>10649780
>If you think the green new deal will have long term economic benefits that outweigh the upfront costs you are as delusional and manipulated as any firm climate change denier.
oh nos well have to give unfair subsidies to greenies instead of Rich Texan
>>
File: 1557693560522.jpg (58 KB, 661x671)
58 KB
58 KB JPG
>>10641236
>scientific
>community
>>
>>10649847
Nice shifting the goal posts.
Here was the original "goal"
>The long term economic benefits obviously outweigh any upfront costs.
>>
Liberals have no solution to climate change outside more gibs and taxes. All macroengineering efforts are met with handwringing and spouting of “well we don’t know what that will doooo” because the truth is the same science that is used to concoct the engineering solution is the same science that is telling us how horrible climate change is, that being flimsy as fuck.
>>
>>10649780
>Wrong predictions
Such as?
>>
>>10649867
Why is a carbon tax bad?
>>
>>10648017
You'll still have to tackle every little minion in the world though, there's no dodging that.
>>
>>10648702
They should be required, but it's not enough, emissions will have to also go down drastically in China, India, Africa, and South America.
>>
>>10649939
Look at the yellow vests. The carbon taxes that would be needed will cause major civil unrest, likely resulting in the government that implements them being voted out.
>>
>>10649996
That's in France. The people there have been getting the shaft from their corporate backed government for decades.

I doubt a carbon tax in most other countries will have the same effect.
>>
>>10649996
The yellow vests are unique to France and haven't actually gotten anyone in government out or reversed the fuel tax. Try again.
>>
>>10650041
(not him)
So you don't think your "optimal" carbon tax will cause civil unrest? Why or why not?
>>
So how do we stop climate change then?
>>
>>10650060
Well for starters, even in the US polls show that a majority supports instituting a carbon tax.

Second, governments all over the world tax things without people freaking out. And the carbon tax is clearly justified both environmentally and economically.
>>
>>10650067
Carbon tax and nuclear power.
>>
>>10650067
I have no fucking clue. Since carbon taxes don't seem acceptable to the public, and rejection of "economic/population growth" doesn't seem acceptable either.... those are really the only 2 options.
>>
Step 1: nuclear subsidies
Step 2: re-target us military industrial machine to uranium rich countries
Step 3: establish the uranium dollar instead of the petro dollar
Step 4: continue as normal
>>
>>10650073
>US polls show
that's before they realize how muchmore they'll be paying for everything.
You seem to lack a basic understanding of the of the human psyche. Adversity makes people irrational, and taxes create adversity.
>>
>>10650080
Uranium is abundant and cheap. It can even be successfully farmed from seawater anywhere in the world, which would provide us with enough uranium to power the world for tens of thousands of years since the water is constantly being replenished with uranium from the sea floor.
>>
>>10650076
>>10650080
>nuclear power.
for developing countries as well (who make up more than half of emissions I think)?
>>
>>10649937
The IPCC report
Al Gore's hyperbole
AOC's "12 years" hyperbole
James Hansen's predictions
Kenneth Watt and the new ice age claim
Google the first earth day and all the claims that were made there are too many to list

None of these aren't mired in controversy, mainly with people pointing out that the facts the predictions are based on are real anyways, even if the conclusions turned out to have been incorrect, or that the errors don't really count. The earth and its climate are complex, chaotic, and it is easy to see what you want to see in the data. It is a lot like psychology and the human mind in that way.
>>
>>10650082
>that's before they realize how muchmore they'll be paying for everything.
They'll only be paying a lot more for everything if they and the market don't adapt to renewable and nuclear power. Which they will, because of the carbon tax.

>You seem to lack a basic understanding of the of the human psyche. Adversity makes people irrational, and taxes create adversity.
Yes, it's a shame that this prevents any significant tax from being instituted. If only governments could exist.
>>
>>10650080
>nuclear subsidies
Wrong. It is immoral for the government to subsidise any industry.
>>
>>10650099
>government/taxes
You seem to lack a basic understanding of the concept of diminishing returns as well

and are determined to learn about that concept the hard way. whatever
>>
>>10650102
It's immoral for GHGs to be emitted into the atmosphere without paying for the damage this causes. I'm glad you agree to the carbon tax.
>>
>>10650107
You seem to be devolving into vague accusations instead of responding to the argument. You failed to convince anyone that the carbon tax will be the end of the world with your alarmist rhetoric.
>>
>>10650114
Im trying to say that there is an optimal taxation level beyond which the costs to society of increased adversity are too great. diminishing returns. I'm disappointed that you're either too stupid to understand that or simply unwilling to debate honestly.

Now come back at me with some abrasive sarcastic non-statement intended only to distract and irritate me. That's your debate style.
>>
>>10650110
>I'm glad you agree to the carbon tax.
No, you communist idiot. This green house gas meme is getting really tiresome. Where is the ice age? Why is there still snow on Mt Fiji? Those ice caps didn't quite go the way you people said they would. So now it's 'climate change', so that when you are yet again wrong in your predictions, it's easier for you to backpeddle and continue demanding more money. You're literally worse than televangelists screaming about how the rapture is coming in X years so make sure you donate today!
>>
>>10650096
>The IPCC report
Which one? Can you be more specific? Which prediction did the IPCC get wrong?

>Al Gore's hyperbole
Al Gore is not a climatologist.

>AOC's "12 years" hyperbole
AOC is not a climatologist.

>James Hansen's predictions
Which ones?

>Kenneth Watt and the new ice age claim
Who?

Blaming climatologists for what non-climatologists say is retarded.
>>
>>10650123
>Im trying to say that there is an optimal taxation level
Correct: 0%.
>>
>>10650124
>No, you communist idiot.
So then you don't actually care about what's immoral. Thanks for refuting your prior argument.

>Where is the ice age?
We're in one.

>Why is there still snow on Mt Fiji?
Why wouldn't there be?

>Those ice caps didn't quite go the way you people said they would.
Who?

>So now it's 'climate change', so that when you are yet again wrong in your predictions, it's easier for you to backpeddle and continue demanding more money
I don't understand this meme, why can't it be both global warming and climate change? Global warming is a change in the climate. It's not like one replaced the other, they are and have always been used interchangeably.

>You're literally worse than televangelists screaming about how the rapture is coming in X years so make sure you donate today!
But the only one lying to people and freaking out about nothing is you.
>>
>>10650133
I'm not on your side either, dickwad
>>
>>10650123
>Im trying to say that there is an optimal taxation level beyond which the costs to society of increased adversity are too great.
What adversity? The point of the carbon tax is not to raise revenue but to replace fossil fuels with renewables and nuclear. It benefits the economy by trading the tax for the more costly externalities of global warming. The only one arguing that society should face more adversity are those stopping the carbon tax from being instituted.
>>
>>10650137
>So then you don't actually care about what's immoral
>calling out evil and stupidity is wrong
Lol
>But the only one lying to people and freaking out about nothing is you.
Now you're just being dishonest.
>GUYS THE WORLDS GONNA END IN 10 YEARS LISTEN TO ME OK
>but we're not freaking out here
>>
>>10649939
Because that money just goes to academics who ask for more gibs and taxes. If that tax was levied as part of a holistic closed hydrocarbon energy cycle, then I could see it as reasonable.
>>
>>10650125
My original post stated that people are being disillusioned, public figures speaking for the climatologists to the people play a large role in that. Al Gore and AOC clearly consulted with climatologists. You can google the specifics of each claim if you would like I don't see the point in just copy pasting it, my goal isn't to directly refute them and I lack the expertise to do so.
>>
>>10650155
>>calling out evil and stupidity is wrong
Who are you quoting?

>Now you're just being dishonest.
You're projecting.
>>
>>10650157
>Because that money just goes to academics
Why are you just making shit up?
>>
>>10650165
>My original post stated that people are being disillusioned, public figures speaking for the climatologists to the people play a large role in that.
Which is ironic since you just attempted to misrepresent the IPCC and James Hansen. I suppose that's their fault too?

>Al Gore and AOC clearly consulted with climatologists.
I don't think it's clear.

>You can google the specifics of each claim
You didn't even give me one claim.
>>
>>10650165
People are indeed being disillusioned, by deniers that make shit up like "hurr all the predictions are wrong" and then have their bullshit parroted by retards like you. Ever heard of a self-fulfilling prophecy?
>>
>>10650179
I suggested they have not always been correct on their climate predictions, that is not misrepresenting them unless you are irrational. That being the case there is no point copy pasting specifics because you will ignore and deny them.

>>10650186
And people make shit up like "all climate change predictions are correct" and then have their bullshit parroted by retards like you. Ever heard of a self-fulfilling prophecy?

(I never claimed they are all false)
>>
>>10649863
Same deal. Even if Dr. Windmill is a nefarious supervillain slurping subsidies with his secret plan to kill birds, the net result is both beneficial to the climate and economically viable. Certainly no worse than the current state (ie, no "destroying the economy" and obviously a winner in the long term).

Not sure why anyone even argues this point.

Or is the beef with the social stuff in the GND? Because the energy stuff is a slam dunk.
>>
>>10650229
>I suggested they have not always been correct on their climate predictions
How is "not always being correct" a problem? If it was we would have to say that the public will become disillusioned with any science. Oh well I guess we should just give the entire enterprise up. I really have no clue what you're arguing at this point since you've backtracked so much.
>>
>>10650229
>And people make shit up like "all climate change predictions are correct"
The negation of "all predictions are wrong" is not "all prediction are right" retard.
>>
People claiming the apocalypse isn't right around the corner are correct in that the apocalypse (or some more reasonably-phrased catastrophic event) is already here. Rising sea levels costing billions to manage, coral die-offs, etc.

It's just a really slow apocalypse. A genocide takes a while too, but "Well, they've only killed 15% of them so far, maybe things will turn around, these things go in cycles." is not a reasonable response.
>>
>>10650150
You're assuming that eroei (energy return on energy invested) is higher for nuclear/renewables than for fossil fuels. You're wrong. If that were the case then a carbon tax wouldn't be needed to shift over to those sources, it would just happen naturally.

How can you claim that society going to a lower eroei energy source won't lead to adversity?
>>
>>10650253
>You're assuming that eroei (energy return on energy invested) is lower for nuclear/renewables than for fossil fuels.
No... I'm not. Try reading my post again.

>How can you claim that society going to a lower eroei energy source won't lead to adversity?
Because adversity is not solely a function of EROEI, are you really this slow?
>>
>>10650258
you sure are something nasty.... baka

so nasty in fact that you're actually bad for the team
>>
>>10650262
>waaaaaaaaaaah
Concern trolling, the last resort of the BTFO.
>>
>>10650256
imagine thinking EROEI is the only factor in profitability of an energy source.
>>
>>10650255
Climate won't kill you, human reactions to that climate will.
>>
>>10650274
Don't be such an alarmist.
>>
>>10650267
Your slimy stench trail that you leave across the internet is quite distinctive. If I were your boss, I'd hire someone less adversarial and abrasive than you. I think the effect of (You) on the public discourse is actually the opposite of what's intended.

Seriously. No one fucking likes you, man. Just fuck off already.
>>
>>10650281
Nah I think I'll stick around, spanking retards like you and then watching the tantrum that ensues is just too fun.
>>
>>10650287
well at least try not treating everyone who has a slight difference of opinion as if they are literally the anti-christ. You're not fucking omniscient - quit acting like it. I think you'll get better results, and as a bonus you might not die young of an aneuriym from "debating" 14 year olds on a fucking Kyrgyzstani koi fish breeding forum.
>>
The climate change it's a reality but not only from anthropogenic sources and I'm not talking about the forestall fires [that are increasing in number because of the elevation of the temperature of the earth, which are associated with the down of humidity in the air so the plants die, losses his own water getting dray and susceptible to burn], neither the one coming from thea sea volcanos

INTRODUCTION

You may not be able to modelate the entire variables of the air and climate in the word [it would be a greatest job for understanding our home planet and maybe find something new for good of humanity and its planet], but for that is what you can study a single phenomena and watch what it does, with which stuff iteractuates an how it does it and over everything where i can find it because thats the explanation of why the fuck is it working in that way, so you can predict his behavior in the future or even in the past.

REMEMBER science in general it's based on the fact of probability for something to happen. This is calculated studying the things that are capable too been seen or measured in some way and in this way we can estimate that it happens again
Also that the nature of the universe it ttends thermodynamicly to a kind of balance always
>>
WHERE IM TRYING TO MAKE MY POINT

If you see the 2 common isotopes (018 and O16) of oxygen that comes from the water, having in consideration that you need more heat/energy to lift an heavier object and seen in particularly the ones from the Antarctica, where the ice its nothing more than the sediments from thousands of years in earth life), you will see that they come from the water cicle, so to have more concetration of heavier water the planet would have to had more temperature and the opposite way for more concentration of the lighter one. Each stratum in the ice from there comes from different kinds of rains that are dated from almost 10000 years. In this way we are capable of knowing how it variates the temperature over the years, contrasting this with the amount of CO2 stored in the non continental plaques of ice when the temperatures are low (that represents the biggest proportion Of global CO2) and his liberation in the maximum temperature peak and the meaning this the beginning of a new ice cold war (if the conditions where the same as 2000 years which are not).
For more information about this I recommend to read Parica's paper from isotopes of oxygen and the other from Antarctica and search for the formation of the plaques
>>
>>10650319
Where did I do that retard? I simply called a retard a retard. Funny how you pretend to give advice yet don't see that your constant whining as a substitute for an argument is not endearing.
>>
>>10650332
Pack it up boys the schitzos are here threads over
>>
File: just stalker things.jpg (269 KB, 1483x972)
269 KB
269 KB JPG
>>10641131
Get off the internet- most don't it's echo chamber bs- people don't have the time to build their lives around political hyperbole.

Yes we cause climate change.

No we don't have a full account of its effect or causes.

We should probably do something now that we are aware.

We have tentative measures to mitigate but their effects are based off models.

>We could always do better, but our nature dictates growth and expansion- like any other creature- we just have the capacity to understand it. Fin.
>>
>>10650894
What world do you live in? The people in charge of making these policies, in the US particularly, all exist in their own respective echo chambers, climate change denialists (republicans) or climate change exaggerators (democrats). There is very little substantive discussion going on between policymakers.
>>
>>10647084
>why does the country matter
What happens to the carbon output of a person moving from rural Africa to the US?
>>
>>10645919
Take your projection elsewhere.
>>
>>10648017
This is such nonsense. Do you understand how huge the numbers involved are? Making a TINY impact in China will do much MUCH more than making all of Luxembourg carbon negative.



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.