It's complete bullshit. We don't know how much if at all how humans contribute to it anywhere close to be making big legislative decisions. That is all a scam for the rich to suck more money from the poor. We are technically coming out of an ice age so things should be getting warmer anyway.
>>61106792 >We don't know how much if at all how humans contribute to it Looking at just one greenhouse gas, CO2, humans caused an almost unfathomable change. How are you so sure it affects nothing?
How much actual change there will be is a very difficult question. But you just don't gamble with something like that. Sooner or later protecting the environment will become cheaper than keeping fucking it up.
It's called climate change now because the data was making the "warming" part false.
The climate is always changing and given that we're still on our way out of an ice age, it is not unexpected that the climate would be changing. The question is whether or not humans are the major reason the climate is changing, and the data is too small and limited to make any assertions. The problem is that warmist do a lot of cherry-picking and extrapolation.
Like they'll point to data showing the world is warming as say "SEE? HUMAN ACTIVITY IS DESTROYIG THE WORLD" when the actual data says nothing about whether humans are responsible or not.
>>61105267 Not real enough, I haven't been killed by acid rain yet. Sure the weather has been a bit off, but I think it will drive innovation to conquer nature and weaponise it to remove kuffar from the planet.
>>61108382 Dude this entire place is filled with manchildren whose only way to distract themselves from the fact that they're appalling failures is to believe in insane conspiracies and stupid shit.
It's the best way to think you're smarter/superior to others even when you've accomplished nothing in life. You can believe everyone else is a gullible moron and you've got everything figured out while doing nothing of consequence, ever.
>>61105267 Warming is disputable, but pollution/ecosystem destruction is not.
Something can be done about it, for sure, but funds need to be concentrated in R&D and finding efficient means of replacing our non-renewable resources rather than just dumping everything into unproven technologies and practices that hurt more than they help.
>>61108942 I didnt know albanians of all people were actual liberal redditors >>61108954 Watch these in order otherwise your pseudo intellectual personality will be triggered https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkdbSxyXftc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sgm3QOWt6Tc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDWEjSDYfxc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObvdSmPbdLg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49Teja5YNCo
I just want to know something. All of the CO2 locked up in fossil fuel deposits, plus what we've already pumped into the atmosphere, used to be in the atmosphere, say around 100 million years ago, during the time of the dinosaurs? And the climate the dinosaurs enjoyed was much warmer than it is now? So doesn't it stand to reason that if you suddenly put all that CO2 back into the atmosphere, you will quickly return the Earth to a Jurrasic-style climate? Isn't that just common sense?
>>61108347 They seem high because he's just viewing a percentage of the greenhouse gasses and not all gasses.
CO2 comprises 0.04% of the gases in entire atmosphere.
The CO2 boogie man is all about the presumed effects of a positive feedback cycle with water vapor. It was a nice theory, but satellite observations over the years showed that either they dramatically over estimated the strength of that positive feedback and we're making a big deal over nothing, or that strong natural forces were in play that overwhelmed human influence.
But alternative theories don't provide an excuse to milk people with carbon shekels, so they cling to it despite increasing evidence that it's fucking nothing.
>>61110087 >>61110087 "No controls" And where should we get another earth? "Computer Simulations" And where would you propose we get a better one? From your clearly superior brain? "Failure to predict with accuracy" Global Warming is getting worse, and you're salty over how scientists can't predict the exact change in average temperature?
>>61110133 >climate change scientists in the 60s say half the world will be underwater by 2000
No they didn't. The vast majority of predictions have come true. Some editorial resources most likely claimed some outrageous facts about climate change, but the vast majority have unfolded. Claiming sea level is not rising is a downright lie.
>al gores armageddon clock counts down and temperatures have changed less than 1 degree
How is a 1 degree rise in temperature over the course of several decades not a big deal? The global temperature is rising at a ridiculously fast rate on the timescale of the Earth.
>now that faggot got bill nye to spread word that "the earth will be uninhabitable in 30 years"
That's an exaggeration. I don't care if Nye actually said that or if you made it up. Climate change is going to be a pain in the ass to deal with, but it's not going to drive humanity extinct.
>>61105267 i'm a republican but i feel so ostracized from the party line because i fully believe global warming is a reality. i'm basically green party when it comes to environmentalism in general. feelsbadman but i'm confident that my current political view will be the standard republican viewpoint in the near future
>>61105267 Global warming? 100% real, been happening for a few decades (though not much recently). Global cooking happens too. In fact we are on something like a 10,000 year trend of decreasing average temperatures, headed for the next ice age, with short, intermittent spikes of higher temperatures- like now. Or the medieval warm period, roman warm period, or Minoan warm period.
Is recent warming created and accelerated by man made co2 emissions? Is that what you're asking? The answer there is likely no, and no. Zero evidence supports this hypothesis. Lots of evidence counters it. I will find a graph for you real quick.
>>61110902 That shold be global *cooling* not cooking, heh.
Anyway here is the big picture. You can see how natural variability far outweighs any possible influence man has on global climates or temperatures. I wish we had our finger on the thermostat. Warmer temperatures equal more food, less severe weather, and more habitable areas. Unfortunately man has zero control. Carbon dioxide emissions are, practically speaking, nearly insignificant. Such a small influence as to be immeasurable.
>>61110668 The predictions made by the models that used the positive feedback were all incorrect. The predictions were all far too warm. When experimental observations contradict your hypothesis, then your hypothesis is wrong. This is scientific method 101. The only reason it is clung to is because it is a political issue, not a scientific one.
When the predictions failed to become true, we knew that either the feedback effect wasn't as strong as initially expected or some other unaccounted forces were overpowering the effect. That's the only way the observed data can be reconciled with the predictions.
global warming is the mechanism by which the traitorous socialist politicians of the west have schemed to transfer the wealth of their own constituents to poorer countries to facility windfall profits for banks.
>>61113441 delhi has poorer air quality then any city in china, things are going to get a lot worse in the next 10 years especially in africa with their population boom, maybe the west can start selling canned air
CO2 increases plant growth rates. This means: more animals, higher crop yields, more biodiversity.
Remember, oil is compressed biomass. All the Carbon that's sitting underground USED to be in the air. By burning oil, we are releasing Carbon that's sitting unproductively underground back into the environment where it can once again be used in the Carbon cycle
Animals love warmer environments. The tropics are teeming with life, while the polar regions are deserted wastelands. The thing you should really fear is colder temperatures, you'll see higher death tolls, lower crop output, species dying off....etc.
The one argument that the alarmists have that could potentially make sense, is that past a certain point of Carbon emissions, the ocean will acidify. This will trigger a chain reaction with devastating consequences. The thing is, there isn't really any evidence for this. CO2 levels have been 5 or 6 times higher in the past, if we really were on the precipice of a permanent change in ocean acidification, why hasn't it happened already? There are plenty of explanations, not much evidence to back them up. The truth is, from all observations it seems that the Earth is a very homeostatic environment. Meaning that it's stable against perturbations such as an injection of CO2.
Much of the "evidence" for global warming comes out of computer models. It's simple, magnify all positive feedbacks, ignore all negative feedbacks, and you've got yourself a runaway warming trend. Our science isn't good enough to predict what will happen with the weather, it doesn't matter how good your computer models are. Garbage in, garbage out.
>>61114322 Ocean acidification is a meme. There have been some studies showing that in the supposedly most delicate areas like coral reefs, local pH varies daily by up to a few points(!) and organisms get by just fine. Life is a lot more durable and adaptable than people give it credit.
Have you seen some of the latest inconvenient data? Iceberg calving in the Antarctic serves a net carbon SINK. Minerals released from millennially frozen water spurs massive algae blooms that persist after the berg is gone. RIP alarmists lol.
>>61114778 It is the literal stated purpose of agenda 21 to achieve control over nations by fear of climate change, with the eventual goal of massive depopulation of earth. Fucking Malthusians want to kill BILLIONS of people in the name of Gaia. This is why Obama's plan "necessarily skyrockets energy prices".
Doesn't have to be real to be used to push an agenda. Y'all cowards are being divide and rule'd :^)
Whether you do it to align with some moral code or to protect your sovereignty, investment in your own nation's energy infrastructure with the goals of self-sustainability and the health of your nation's people is a good idea. People on both sides of this 'debate' will most likely agree that national self-sufficiency is a good, unless they've been suckered into the whole 'nationalism is evil' scheme. From an economic standpoint, knowing that you can't find sustainability nor price stability in the export of raw material over an indefinite term is pretty fundamental.
Nuclear and geothermal are the ideal way to go. Geothermal costs the least per kilowatt-hour, but since the initial investment is all up-front, all jobs are involved with the construction of the facility and minor oversight after the fact (instead of constant operation), and therefore the idea doesn't appeal to many.
It's a shame that 'pro-enviro' Sanders is against nuclear, and that most other candidates who stand a chance from both the dems and the gop haven't said much about environmental issues. Trump's said some things about less reliance of foreign oil, but I'd like to see something more solid on power generation from his campaign for sure.
The problem with this argument is (from my experience with it) that people who don't think global warming isn't real aren't really all that passionate about the environment, being more concerned with aspects of politics like foreign affairs that are 'big deals'. and those who do think that it's real aren't really passionate about other aspects of politics that are necessary for a nation to move to renewables, like foreign affairs. It's like people have found the only common ground they have, and then argue on it instead. People who are pro-renewables should talk more about the immediate health effects than the intangible longer term. They should call on things like fracking and how it poisons water, and how combustion plants release dangerously high amounts of particulate matter to the immediate environment. Things like direct pollution of river water and ocean acidifcation.
At the same time, people who don't believe in anthropomorphic climate change shouldn't spend so much time looking for the types of graphs that prove their views, and should share why they were inspired to go looking in the first place! Corruption at governmental levels, the fighting of proxy wars for oil; why they became suspicious of it in the first place. If it wasn't any of those things, they could talk instead about real the evidence of media subversion - they should be teaching that you just can't trust the msm on other matters and therefore why should you on this one? These people often have a more enlightened view when it comes to the scope of corruption and conspiracy that surrounds things like the price and production of oil, and the entire military-industrial interventionist behavior that perpetuates things like destabilization in the first place.
all of this discussion - what kind of action can be taken?
>>61116828 Nuclear energy is so much better than most people have any idea. It is the MOST reliable, the LEAST "polluting", the SAFEST, and it would also be the CHEAPEST if not for certain regulations (that require payment to store future waste essentially in perpetuity, when modern designs can handle it so differently.
Nuclear energy research had a choice back in the day to continue developing either heavy water or light water reactors. Light water being the choice we made because it was easier to weaponise products from it (this was one main reason at least). Heavy water reactors being safer with less nasty byproducts. Stupid choice but the Cold War resulted in a lot of decisions that need revisiting. Anyway.
Nuclear power was actually so cheap that other energy industries lobbied against it as they were afraid of going out of business. They were pretty successful (unfortunately). Source: a decade of US energy industry experience AMA. (P.S. I used to be a greenie too but the truth is too easy to research and understand).
>>61118076 >Light water being the choice we made because it was easier to weaponise products from it (this was one main reason at least)
this is why we will never switch to thorium ;-;
>Source: a decade of US energy industry experience AMA.
nice! Do you know anything about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traveling_wave_reactor? I can't make much sense of them but from what I've read, but they seem perfect. Which is why ofc I'm looking for more info.
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.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at [email protected] with the post's information.