where can I find objective writings on climate change? i still

File: 1475312219276.png (160KB, 500x375px)

160KB, 500x375px

>>>/sci/

also anthropic climate change has a high probability of reality, based on lab experiments demonstrating the greenhouse effect, greenhouse gas ppm records correlating with global temperature increase and rising sea levels. Even if you "can't know", it makes so little sense to disbelieve in it, because anyone with a brain can see that it's quite possible and that in that case, we would literally all be doomed. Whereas curbing carbon emissions would merely be switching off coal/gas/oil electricity and engines, which the tech already exists for.

>>8886589
Climate change is objectively happening, the relevant questions now are what's going to happen and how can humans minimize damage to the things they value. Some people try to keep the debate alive with 'it's big oils fault' and 'big oil dindu nuffin' but really, whodunnit isn't the relevant issue anymore, it's 'how to make things suck less as things warm up'


honestly anon you kinda missed the boat on this being an argument with 'sides' for political shitflinging, which given the way you phrased your question, seems to be what you wanted. Inconvenient Truth shitposting was over a decade ago.

>>8886594
I agree with you RE: AGW

>curbing carbon emissions would merely be switching off coal/gas/oil

That isn't as simple as you just phrased it. In fact, doing what you state is quite complicated as it involves completely changing a large amount of energy and electricity infrastructure. Unless of course you are one of the radical people who expects both developed and third world countries to de-industrialise, dramatically reducing average living standards which have unquestionably increased over the industrial revolution.

Renewables like solar and wind have shown good improvement over the last decade or so. However, they simple can't produce the reliable baseload power required to keep the grid running in an industrial nation (barring an incredible improvement in battery tech). Just look at Germany for example, they have dramatically increased their wind power but they are continuing to increase carbon emissions. After fukushima, Germany decommissioned all their nuclear plants which produced high quality baseload power with no CO2. The amount of power produced by wind is highly variable and can’t meet the baseload required, so Germany has to keep their grid running from French nuclear and are now building more coal fired power plants, the opposite of what they should be doing.

I agree to some degree that we do have most of the ‘tech’ to replace fossil fuels with alternatives, especially for electricity and energy production. The key tech we should be turning to is nuclear power, especially fourth generation reactors and advanced breeder reactors as well as molten salt reactors. Most of these technologies have been used before and worked but it is still going to take lots of work to refine them for safe and efficient use on a mass scale. In addition if we really want to curb carbon emissions the new technologies need be able to economically undercut coal and other fossil fuels so they can be taken up by the third world.

Really a zero-net emissions grid/country is going to require a diversity of different energy technologies to be able to fully replace the gap left by fossil fuels. Not only does that offer good energy security but the different technologies can compete to offer the cheapest price to consumers.

Having said that for some uses like transportation it is very difficult to see fossil fuels being replaced. They offer very high energy per unit mass, while being cheap and are still rather easy to obtain. The few synfuels I have looked at fail to meet the energy per unit mass numbers of petroleum even if they were produced completely carbon free by say a nuclear plant. Hydrogen is too low density and takes up too much space to be used for transportation. So transportation is still a real issue in any post fossil fuel world.

>objective
>>>/x/

Start with the IPCC summary for policy makers, from their try to read academic papers directly if you can to decide for yourself.

I also suggest watching potholer54 on youtube particularly his climate change series:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP

Most prominent public 'skeptics' and deniers are shills from the heartland institute. However not all, some are just honest people who question the status quo.

>>8886688
Noice, I'm going to start using this for stirnerposting

>>8886589
Do you want a proof to believe it? Nothing could be easier: the water level in Venice is rising every year.
No need of scientific researches.

Have people just given up on the idea of global warming and just gone with climate change instead?

Read 'The Merchants of Doubt' by Oerskes. It describes the science a little bit, but is more focused on the media campaign waged by oil companies to make people like you doubt.

The quick version is that they took a page out of the cigarette industry's playbook and didn't bother to try to disprove something that was patently obvious. Instead they bought off scientists to publicly make statements about global warming being false so as to create the illusion of doubt in the scientific community. Whereas >95% of scientists agree, many Americans still think there is controversy because from their perspective all they hear is how scientists are still arguing.

>>8886608 I agree it's a bit silly at this point to keep trying to point fingers when it no longer matters, but make no mistake that the oil companies have probably doomed our future generations.

Really, I think every American needs to read this book. It's actually my favourite nonfiction.