More climate change Reality

More corrupt for-profit climate alarmism.

>>110737
Are you enjoying the corporatist kool-aid?

>>110736
AKA: Coal Industry became worried that they're too late to reverse the belief of Anthropogenic Climate Change and that they'll be forced out of business by an Angry Mob of Tree Huggers.

>>110736
>hey guys the world is going to END unless you bend over and accept the word and laws of the Democrats :^)

Convenient, isn't it?

>>110754
The Tree Huggers don't trust the Democrats either you moron; they want to Kill off economic growth to protect their puny little world filled with savages.

It's already too late and there are still people who can't come to terms with the realities of climate change. Atleast we'll be able to say we deserve it. It won't be some freak accident killing innocent people. We'll have it coming.

>>110757
>Atleast we'll be able to say we deserve it. It won't be some freak accident killing innocent people. We'll have it coming.

Why wait? You could kill yourself right now, and avoid having to deal with an existence full of preachy, smug and weepy anti-humanism.

Go to your safe space and touch your safe place if you don't wanna be rebuttled.

>>110757
Propaganda is just that, ten years ago Faggit face Gore told the world there world be two feet of sea level rise in the next ten years, well guess what... Its been 2 Milimeters, hardly worth Environmental austerity is it?

We can deal with storms being a little stronger.

You guys are racist for denying climate change.

>>110764
yeah. can anyone who makes these climate change apocalypse threads actually explain:

1. was al gore wrong? all the things he said were apparently backed up by the science at the time. is that not true? was he lying for profit?

2. has the science since been revised, and if so, does it now not predict the north pole being gone etc.? is the science more trustworthy than it was, and if so, how can it trusted in light of the legacy of completely incorrect assertions?

3. are all of the people that predicted all that stuff now pariahs, or all they still in the climate mainstream? how can one make "good-faith" predictions that are so disastrously incorrect and then maintain your reputation? is al gore's prediction just another one for the memory hole? do you think that being wrong in such a way is harmful to your cause, and the cause of environmentalism? why or why not?

>>110767
>You guys
you are transphobic/sexist for assuming my gender.
CHECK YOUR PRIVILEGE!

You are right, I realized that me even assuming your gender/identifyfraud/species is dangerous and could've gotten someone killed. Please accept my PC Apology

>>110773
Don't forget that ISIS does what it does because of climate change!

>>110752
>Anthropogenic Climate Change
You mean Catastrophic Anthroprogenic Climate Change. The catastrophic element of the theory is key and they never state it.

Liberals never call their policies what they actually are.

>>110807
No, It's just Anthropogenic Climate Change; as in Fossil Fuels destroys the Planet and therefore must be abolish immediately.

>>110886
B A I T
A
I
T

>>110887
thanks he almost got me

>>110777
Probably true. social unrest is a function of unreliable living conditions. And communities in the developing world are more sensitive to changes in climate. Most climate refugees will inevitably come from equatorial regions.

>>110767
>>110770
>>110773
Fuck all the way off with your concern trolling

>>110807
Or maybe it's because the media aimed at normies is intended to be simple and easy to understand, rather than conform to precise scientific standards. And there's no logical reason why leaving "catastrophic" out would benefit the liberal agenda, the catastrophic part is strongly implied anyway.

>>110907
>concern trolling
That's twice now I've seen someone virtue signal with this word incorrectly.

It's one thing to deal with lefty propagandists, but honestly can you be better?

We are constantly having to deal with your shitty tactics, it's so tiresome. Go learn how to shill so we can get down to business.

>>110913
>We
Fuck off idiot. This is not /pol/ and nobody else in this thread as big a partisan hack as you appear to be. Please take your concern trolling and your outrage over virtue signaling back to a board that cares.

inb4 not an argument. I don't give a shit about your petty arguments.

>>110915
nobody cares about your opinions dude in fact nobody cares about mine either.
tl;dr nobody cares.

>>110907
>Or maybe it's because the media aimed at normies is intended to be simple and easy to understand, rather than conform to precise scientific standards. And there's no logical reason why leaving "catastrophic" out would benefit the liberal agenda, the catastrophic part is strongly implied anyway.

No, it's because when crazy ideas are expressed accurately every one can see how crazy the are.

>>110915
You're virtue signaling soooo hard lol.

Go learn what concern trolling is you commie shit

>>110915
>This is not /pol/ and nobody else in this thread as big a partisan hack as you appear to be.

>says this while on the heart of the new alt-right movement

Concern trolling? Wtf. That's about as gay as safe space. Either way I'm getting a reaction so mission accomplished :) good job gang! A new gay liberal term was used on us today. I would count that as a win.

Anybody wanna crush some puss???

>>110922
>>110923

>i was just pretending to be retarded

classic prank

>>110736
>Catastrophic weather events are destroying infrastructure, and there's only so much money to rebuild again and again (Haiti, Syria...).
Syria wasn't destroyed by a weather event nothing has gone to rebuilding it and you can't rebuild Haiti, it wasn't built to begin with.

I'll crush some poon, anon.

>>110919
>No, it's because when crazy ideas are expressed accurately every one can see how crazy the are.
So "manmade climate change" sounds reasonable to people, but if you say "catastrophic manmade climate change" people will suddenly think it's absurd? Even though the catastrophic element is constantly heavily emphasized by context? The only one peddling crazy ideas here is you.

>>110922
>lol i trole'd u

>>111011
Yes.

Climate Change is a thing and it happens every second.

>do you believe in Climate Change
Of course.

>do you believe in Man Made Climate Destruction

This is a much more specific question.

>>110736
It's nuclear or bust. Coal sucks, and someone is going to point out that nuclear melt down over in France that happened a couple of days ago. No body got hurt and no nuclear material had leaked.

>>111035
>It's nuclear or bust.

If only we didn't have to wait for everyone alive to remember Chernobyl to die out.

>>110754
>conservatives don't care about the environment

Love this meme the nu-nazis have been forcing as of late, in complete defiance to their own movement's history as always.

Socialists support heavy industry because it ferments unionism and syndicalism. People who support the free market believe in adaptability to challenging circumstances and it is why capitalism has spread to all continents and the vast majority of people's on this earth.

ITT: People who never took rudimentary science classes

wew lads fuck science amirite? haha fucKINg nERDS

>>111017
>This is a much more specific question.

answer it faggot

How do tree huggers expect us to stop china and India from causing 90% of this? The US causes maybe 3% tops.

>>111100
>this is what rightwingers actually believe
>b-but it's worst in other places! Tell them to stop so I can keep living in blessed convenience! Change is something only "third world" countries need to do!

>>111112
so, do you have a solution for china and india just ignoring all the environmental regulations we set, outcompeting us and then conquering 3/4 of asia-pacific while our environmental regulations strangle our ability to compete, or

not

>>111083
>b-but science is settled!
How can someone make such an unscientific remark is beyond me. Nonetheless, it makes them lose any and all credibility they might've had, not to mention that such attitude is counterproductive since it only leads to less people believing it.

>>111114
Actually the US is second on co2 emissions, that said China produces as much as the US, Russia (3rd place), and India(4th place) combined

>>111116
second place considering we are a nation of 300+ million people that controls 75% of the planet is not bad, just so you know

granted what place we're in is pretty meaningless to the environment. still, it's bad practice to decide to hand hegemony of the planet over to china, who have demonstrated an absolute contempt for the planet.

the actual superenvironmentalist types forget that their are other things to consider re: the environment. that includes by the way, not ushering in an era of absurd human suffering by voluntarily collapsing your own industry and allowing the "bad guys" to plunge half the world into a perpetual internecine war. and if you think that the status quo is bad for the planet, you just wait until pakistan and india decide that actually, it's nuke time and decide to set off 500 MT inside our only biosphere.

>>110736
Why not post Salon while at it?

>>111095
No. Do you?

>Humans causing climate to change
I can agree to this because it's true to the day we cut the first and dug the first well.

We need power and we need fuel. We need lots of it.

>>110764
This, accurately predict the effects in a years time

>>110769
You don’t need to dwell on Al Gore. Try this guy…
https://guymcpherson.com/climate-chaos/climate-change-summary-and-update/

Or, to get more concerned, this:
https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2017/02/2017-ushers-in-record-low-extent/

>>111035
Wasn't even a meltdown, just a turbine overheating (and Flamanville 1 is a PWR, so there wasn't even any radioactive material in the turbine in the first place).

>>111057
Lolno, in the West at least, the leftists are environmentalists, are far more opposed to heavy industry than the right is. At the very least they favor taxing industries for externalities (and thus making them pay for the effects of pollution and other environmental damage) while the right opposes such taxes. The Soviet Union and China are pretty big on heavy, "dirty" industry, but the American left is much more influenced by environmentalism than industrial Marxism.

>>111100
Nuclear weapons

fuck future generations, they will all be inmigrantes anyway

>>110913
>>110915
>>110919
>it's another "people saying things I don't like is virtue signalling" thread

>>112360
You really shouldn't post about things you don't understand. It so obvious you aint from around these parts.

>>110807
>Catastrophic Anthroprogenic Climate Change
>liberal policy

wut

>>110777
the uprising in Egypt had a foundation on the increased prices of potato exports that hurt egyptian farmers. The increased prices were caused by droughts. Droughts. In Egypt. The land of the river-god.

>>112708
Not so good with words?

>>112711
If it was propaganda, why would you leave the word Catastrophic out? Aren't liberals supposed to be trying to convince you that the climate is changing with dire effects on humans? Isn't that their "theory"?

so that would be you who isn't good with words

>>112713
So your argument is, "i don't get it."

Good one.

>>112715
explain then, please

>>112716
>>112716
Everyone believes in "climate change." It changes every day.

Most people even believe in "anthroprogenic climate change."
We do a lot, it probably affects the weather, sure.

But that's not the theory.

The point of the theory is that its going to be catastrophic. We are all going to go extinct. But when you make that clear and start digging into the details the more unbelievable it is.

Maybe they thought the weather was reallly going to get deadly when they decided to play the doomsday card. But the alarmists are looking more foolish every day.

Climate change is like #16 on people's concern, statistically. Obviously people arent buying it. Best to keep to innuendo, and the vagueness of the term climate change.

>>112718
first of all, you don't seem to grasp the differences between climate and weather, if you say that it changes every day and use the word "weather" interchangeably.
Number two, I don't think you believe in climate change if you put it in quotation marks.

>Climate change is like #16 on people's concern, statistically. Obviously people arent buying it

according to what survey? and how would keeping it vague help to draw attention to the cause?
But let's say you are right, and they are trying to cinvince us subliminally;
The notion of Anthropogenic Climate Change in itself contains the declaration that climate is changing due to human intervention. With all the movies, news pieces, articles etc. that have been released, if somebody mentioned that the climate is changing due to human intervention, how would you perceive it? Positively or negatively? What have your references been so far? Would you think that the "liberals" need the word Catastrophic added to the definition?
And are you sure that the term couldn't be used in both ways, with and without Catastrophic in front of it? Are you sure they are ommiting it on purpose?

>>112723
>you don't seem to grasp the differences between climate and weather
*stops reading*

>>112724
did you ever start?

>>112725
Yep. And I never stopped, that's why I'm not worried about the climate anymore. Maybe something will change, who knows.

When you grow up (at least 25) you ought to go back and read some of the stuff you read in high school.

>>112728
I don't think you know the difference between climate and weather. I also don't think you read serious literature (if at all) or understand the function of the English language. George Orwell would be ashamed of you.

weath·er
ˈweT͟Hər
noun
the state of the atmosphere at a place and time as regards heat, dryness, sunshine, wind, rain, etc.
"if the weather's good, we can go for a walk"

cli·mate
ˈklīmit
noun
the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period.
"our cold, wet climate"

>>111624
All the past generations were immigrants as well.

>>112806
Those were just examples of what people think.

btw nice job copying post from another thread you fuckin' FAGGOT

>>112807
Legal immigrants. Big difference fuck face.