Big Denial

>Time is running out to protect Earth from the disastrous effects of climate change. An international team of eight researchers said we have just 10 years to save the planet. But their news isn’t all bad: they’ve come up with a model for balancing carbon dioxide emissions with carbon sinks, like forests, to keep temperatures from passing the 1.5 degree Celsius mark widely considered safe for life as we know it.

>Scientists say if the world actually intends to stick to the Paris agreement, the next decade will be critical. They say there are two ways to reduce carbon emissions: by slashing the emissions we humans produce and by restoring carbon sinks, and it’s time to take action on both. They detailed their plan in a Nature Communications study, published online yesterday.

>World Bank consultant Brian Walsh, who led the study while doing research for the Austria-based International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), said they scrutinized carbon emissions from fossil fuels, agriculture, food production, bioenergy, and land use. They also accounted for natural ecosystems taking in carbon emissions to determine where they originate and where they go.

>Here’s the recommendation: we must reduce fossil fuel use to the point where it’s under 25 percent of the global energy supply by 2100; it’s at 95 percent right now. And we need to reduce deforestation to attain a 42 percent decrease in emissions by 2100.

>Renewable energy is also part of the answer. The researchers considered four scenarios for energy development in the future. A high-renewable scenario would see wind, solar, and bioenergy use increase by five percent a year so emissions would peak by 2022. Even that pathway would lead to a 2.5 degrees Celsius temperature increase if we don’t also employ negative emissions technologies.

>IIASA Energy Program Director and co-author Keywan Riahi said, “Earlier work on mitigation strategies by IIASA has shown the importance of demand-side measures, including efficiency, conservation, and behavioral change. Success in these areas may explain the difference between reaching 1.5 degrees Celsius instead of 2 degrees Celsius.”

>Almost 75% of Japan's biggest coral reef has died from bleaching, says report

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/12/almost-75-of-japans-biggest-coral-reef-has-died-from-bleaching-says-report

Bunch of fear mongering liars.

>>132607
I'm with you on this. Much easier to keep our heads in the sand.

>>132607
Breitbart? Yes I would agree.

it's not the first time that they put out such blatant nonsense:

http://climatechangepredictions.org/categories/last_chance

>>132618
Which part of it do you think is nonsense?

>>132607
>opinion

Who are the biggest polluters on the planet? Oil companies? Mining companies?

Who has the most to gain from denying AGW is real?

>>132633
It's funny how people are killing the world for money. Everything must fade away. I have no qualms dying. There will be no need for money where we are going. I only hope those who did the most damage will realize what they did before they die.

>>132607
They need to raise hell in order to get $$$

I saw similar articles 10 years ago.

>>132607
>>132618
>>132648
Said the Fossil Fuel Shills.

>>132607
This.

Save earth from what? The great barrier reef dying? The greatest mass extinction at least since the kt extinction event? In case these fags have been living under a rock, that shit's already going down.

Were it not for small stretches of national park land and zoos, virtually all our african megafauna would be going extinct.

Our Ecosystems have been annihilated by industrialized civilization already, and we're not willing to make the drastic changes to the types and uses of technology that could change course, so I don't understand why we should be so optimistic as to assume we have the luxury of ten years to save what's left.

We're going to sacrifice the infinite complexity of our ecosystems for SUVs and suburbia, so let's just prepare for that to be all our children will ever hope to know first hand.

>>132654
>when extinctions occur, no new life or ecosystems are created
>because humans are around this time, it suddenly makes the change unnatural
Kys

>>132655
>Humans are part of nature, so they can't do anything wrong :^)

>>132655
they do if and when they have the chance to recover
if a period of relativity mass destruction is ongoing, that doesn't happen.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/aug/01/climatechange.carbonemissions

>Friday 1 August 2008
>We have only 100 months to avoid disaster.

OMG!!! WE ARE STILL ALIVE!!!

HURRY GUYS THE WORLD IS GONNA EXPLODE

>>132655
>I have millions of years to sit on my ass and wait for species radiation

PROTIP: if your argument includes fear mongering in any way it's disregardable. Try actually debating, morons, instead of making quippy one liners that look good for your le screencaps.

>>132650
>>132654
What do you guys suggest? Everyone just stops driving? Everyone just eats grass?

I've been hearing the end is near for decades. If you don't think the green industry has an axe to grind with establishment fuels and that there's incentive for these reports, you're duped. Not saying we shouldn't invest in clean tech, but the emotional outrage is naive and poorly placed energy.

You sound like idiot children when your only suggestion is for people to swallow every data bullet and every graph that's pumped out. Go make some shit actually happen and then people might care what you think.

>>132580
>sheitbart

What? The link just takes me to a 404 page.

>>132666
he's making fun of breitbart, silly.

>>132665
>What do you guys suggest? Everyone just stops driving? Everyone just eats grass?

Just focus on debunking that Fossil Fuel Dark Money Conspiracy Theories that the Liberals keep Blabbering about, and we'll stop calling you a fossil fuel shill.

>>132662
>We have only 100 months until we reach the point where we can no longer stop climate change from happening and will have to live with the consequences
We have, it's happening right now and all we can do is adapt and try to slow it down.

>>132688
Heartland Institute.
Heritage Foundation.

>>132655
>when extinctions occur, no new life or ecosystems are created
You idiot we created the new ecosystems and as a result drove species to extinction. The only species that will be allowed to live are the ones we say should live. Mainly the most important ones, Dog, Cat, because they are cute and Cow, Pig, Chicken, Because they are delicious. The deer can fucking die off as they are a pest to farmers.

>>132699
Not him but corporations are scary, Anon.

>>132607
jesus Christ people are retarded

>>132710
The greedy profit-minded corporations rely on saps like you who were gullible enough to question accepted science and do their dirty work for them.

>World Bank consultant Brian Walsh, who led the study
Gee I wonder who will rake in mad dosh from this.

>>132720
>>132710
>>132708
Koch Bros, or George Soros.

Which one have the most power over the Government.

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

>>132688
>fossil fuel shills
Doesn't need shilling, you probably wouldn't even be here on this ball of dirt without them and human population would have never rose much above a couple billion under the best of conditions. This is what the climate change meme is all about, control of what's left - about half with the easy stuff gone - by military police states and totalitarian militarized governments so 'they' in turn can stay in control. 'They' is jsut a psychopathic assemblage of corporations, churches and assorted power mongering entities and it all has absolutely nothing about 'saving earth' from some ravaging climate. Bottom line, it's carbon control because on this planet life is carbon based. Control carbon, control life.

>>132723
I still have hope that not all of the right are in the pocket of Big Denial.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/06/debbie-dooley-tea-party-solar-energy-florida-environment

>>132729
Debbie is one of the few right wingers that has seen the vested interests for what they are.

>>132729

>The Tea Party leader taking a stand for solar energy: 'I will do what's right'

>Debbie Dooley is a self-described ‘crusader’ for solar power in Florida, where she is up against major public power utilities. But she has already won a similar battle in Georgia, and she says her message is that of a true conservative

>>132728
Same to you tough guy.

>>132735
>another RINO
Such substance to that argument.
You should read about about her views and criticise those, instead of resorting to name calling at the first opportunity.

>>132735
Tell that to your Koch overlords.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CO2_is_Green

>Rise in CO2 has 'greened Planet Earth'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-36130346

>The authors note that the beneficial aspect of CO2 fertilisation have previously been cited by contrarians to argue that carbon emissions need not be reduced.
>Co-author Dr Philippe Ciais, from the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences in Gif-sur‑Yvette, France (also an IPCC author), said: "The fallacy of the contrarian argument is two-fold. First, the many negative aspects of climate change are not acknowledged.
>"Second, studies have shown that plants acclimatise to rising CO2 concentration and the fertilisation effect diminishes over time." Future growth is also limited by other factors, such as lack of water or nutrients.

>>132740
Happy pegan bunny day, you pretentous shit.

If it wasn't so crazy I would swear someone sponsors both sides of this trolling so the issues can't be discussed rationally.

>>132745
You pretty much confirmed your polarized views.

>>132745
>conservatives are discussing the issue rationally.
Can you point me to the post. I would love to reply to some rational argument.

>>132748
You're just as bad.


>Renewables' deep-sea mining conundrum
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-39347620

>British scientists exploring an underwater mountain in the Atlantic Ocean have discovered a treasure trove of rare minerals.
>Their investigation of a seamount more than 500km (300 miles) from the Canary Islands has revealed a crust of "astonishingly rich" rock.
>Samples brought back to the surface contain the scarce substance tellurium in concentrations 50,000 times higher than in deposits on land.
>Tellurium is used in a type of advanced solar panel, so the discovery raises a difficult question about whether the push for renewable energy may encourage mining of the seabed.
>The rocks also contain what are called rare earth elements that are used in wind turbines and electronics.

>>132752
Both me.

>>132756
>plants are actually going to be bad for the climate
No I didn't say that.

>>132758
No because.

> "The fallacy of the contrarian argument is two-fold. First, the many negative aspects of climate change are not acknowledged.
>"Second, studies have shown that plants acclimatise to rising CO2 concentration and the fertilisation effect diminishes over time." Future growth is also limited by other factors, such as lack of water or nutrients.

>>132580
it's cool there are ways of cooling down the earth easily, we got at-least a century before the preventative tactics can't hold greenhouse effect back anymore

>>132580
>Climate Scientists Spread Panic: ‘Ten Years’ to Save the Earth
Boy who cried wolf, anyone?
Not saying climate change isn't real, but if you say "we only have X years left to save the world" and then you keep saying it long after those 10 years have passed, you're not doing your credibility any favors.

threadly reminder

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u9meHJFGNA

>>132761
>we got at-least a century
Didn't read the article? Can't read a graph.?

>>132763
>So even though CO2 is greening the Earth, it actually isn't because of a few select studies?
No you're misrepresenting my argument.
>"Second, studies have shown that plants acclimatise to rising CO2 concentration and the fertilisation effect diminishes over time." Future growth is also limited by other factors, such as lack of water or nutrients.

My 90 year old grandpa could understand this is analogous to pouring chemical fertilizer on his tomatoes.
Keep pouring it on, more every day, and they die.

>>132766
>I didn't watch the film in question: the post
The first one was in 2006

>>132770
>hurr trump
>2006 film
get the fuck outta here

>>132770
You obviously don't know much about gardening.
Fertilizer is a classic example of the law of diminishing returns.

Pity the plants we have now are not dinosaur times plants. :(

The plants we have now are evolved to the current conditions.
It took millions of years of gradual change.

>Get educated about a basic concept in dynamic systems.
http://study.com/academy/lesson/law-of-diminishing-returns-definition-examples-quiz.html

>This cannabis grower on a mission to find the optimum CO2 level has researched various scientific papers that list some of the deleterious effects too much can have.
https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=221893

>>132778
The only people who give a fuck about Easter are shitty slavs in bumfuck nowhere. It's not even Easter anymore.

>>132783
>a pegan spring sex holiday, hijack by Christians to flex their superiority over the natives.

>>132767
>Didn't read the article? Can't read a graph.?
skimmed the articles just now, and i can't read the graph, but they're talking about natural sinks, you can have boats spraying ocean water into the air to reflect sunlight, paint roofs white, some other atmosphere manipulation type stuff, we good chill lol

>>132778
>I literally garden as a hobby so stop. The analogy doesn't work.
Bullshit. You know if you pour on too much fertilizer it will kill your plants.

>I skimmed the page
And ignored all the negative effects of too much CO2 it seems.
Each study found the same thing.

>Super-optimal CO2 levels did not reduce vegetative growth, but decreased seed set and thus yield.

>maximum yields occurred near 0.10 and 0.12% CO2 and decreased significantly thereafter.

>These results suggest that super-optimal CO2 inhibits some process that occurs near the time of seed set resulting in decreased seed set, seed mass, and yield.

You 'misunderstand' how finely tuned plants are to our current environment and how poorly they can do when conditions aren't just right.
Don't forget the maximum high temperature will increase by a lot more than the global average.
CO2 isn't the only thing that's being increased unnaturally.

>>132787
>we good chill lol
You claimed we have 'at least a century' which is not what is being reported.
Pretending everything is good while Trump calls climate change hoax and pulls the US out of plans to tackle it is naive

>>132789
You should really try to stop using the word liberal until you can use it properly.

>>132798
This is the same conversation you had for a year now.

It's like Trump enable you to be an asshole.

if you don't redirect this post five times to another board a ghost will kill you in your sleep

>>132801
You: I'm a regular guy
/news/: kay, you're here for an arguement then?
You: no, I'm here to free the planet of you loser liberals now that the conservative is in power for centuries to come.
/news/: yeh, and why that?
You: you don't fucking get it! We won! We don't have to listen to your communist lies anymore!
/news/: but....
You: fuck you, you have no proof! You LiberFags are losers, you can't handle the truth!
/news/: you do realized this isn't /pol/.
You: Fuck you, I can post here whenever I want. the Mods are dead. Climate Change is a Lie, DemoCrats contribute nothing but Pain and Misery. Fuck you hippie niggers faggots and your fuck parents attitudes! If you're stuck in the middle east, then you'll die the moment you're born.
/news/:....You're just made that GamerGate is dead.
You: GAMERGATE WILL NEVER DIE!!!!!

>>132803
Very amusing anon!

>>132801
You're just mad that the BernieBros invaded /pol/ at full force and now stuck there for all eternity.

>>132808
>this paranoid

Damn, It's like the Lefty /pol/ invasion pushed you to your very limit.

It's time to stop posting Anon.

>>132808
No I'm another lurker this thread is hilarious! Keep up the good work anons very entertaining to watch you all go at it!

>>132809
And I wish you Pegan Bunny Rape Day.

>>132813
Damn, you're really are paranoid!

You believe it's all one butthurt person, when the majority of /news/ is sick of your shit.

>>132813
You can believe what you want anon the person you were arguing with posted 11 seconds before me though.

>>132789
>It's just eggs and candy for the kids.
Tell that to the Christfags
>>132798
Please stop the political party shit posting it's never constructive and always detracts from the thread

>>132818
let him be; BernieBros ruined /pol/ so it make sense that he ruins /news/.

>>132821
>Every single thread they come in they(you) are cramming liberal bullshit where it doesn't belong.
Climate Change and Environmental Concern, along with LGBT and Abortions, are Liberal Territory.

What do you fucking expect?

I thought we were past the point of no return.

>>132646
How's high school?

>>132607
Nobody's lying, you just aren't capable of interpreting data.

>>132699
>bad thing isn't bad because I distract myself from bad thing

>>132727
It would have objectively been a good thing if human population didn't pass 500 million.

>>132833
Then give me a source for this "made up data" you keep shitting your pants over.

>>132837
There are over seven fucking billion of us and we destroy entire biospheres for fucking palm oil. We are fucking monsters.

>>132844

I know you're probably trolling but think about the resources required just to build the iphone you're posting from.

>>132833
I don't know who told you Science was "common sense" but they were lying.
Science is anything but, and you need to think outside the box to get further than preliminary observations.

>>132613
>>132615
>>132630
>>132647
>>132650
>>132717
lol
I was trolling. I can't believe you guys actually fell for it. Hahaha
But seriously in recent years all the early crops blooming right now have had their flowers destroyed by sudden frost. I won't say it's climate change but this didn't used to happen regularly. Now this happens every year.

>>132852
the question is whether we're actually replacing what we're destroying and consuming at a proportional rate.

Protip: we aren't.

>>132852
It isn't "liberals" you disagree with about AGW. It isn't a partisan issue. There is only oil companies and then everyone else.

>>132886
Climate change is real.

If you don't believe come up to Alaska

every year the iditarod moves a little further north because every other year there's actually no fucking snow

last year not a single ski joint opened up in southern alaska because there was literally no snow

meanwhile the east coast was getting fucking raped by blizzards

t. climate change

Doesn't matter if CC is real or not. The overwhelming number of the public believe. Now is time to go into renewable energy business and cash in.

I think the main problem with stupid people, is that because it is snowing massively in one place, doesn't mean there is no climate change, a better name for it is climate chaos, there is a lot more energy in the air which means more extreme weather. Just because you're not hungry doesn't mean there isn't world hunger. think deeper.

>>132952
Anecdotal evidence plus global statistics. Global stats overwhelmingly show a warming trend that has an uncanny fit to increasing CO2 emissions. Anecdotal evidence is kind of tricky, as climate change manifests itself in different ways in different places.

Before you screech "correlation =/= causation", get me a reliable source showing no correlation between heat and carbon emissions.

>>132958
>hy mobody gives a crap about this theory

*slow clap*

>>132952
>>132958
>>132962
>>132964

Give up.

You're only obsessed with liberal because the GOP won the Government.

Nothing will change, they will not force liberals to acknowledge that Climate change is a fraud.

No matter what the only thing you can do is to mock this thread and /sci/ for supporting this "communist lies".

plus: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/watts-up-with-that/

You lost, all you contribute to this discussion is Ranting that we're all liberals, and glorify that Scott Puritt will eliminate Climate Change from the Federal Policy.

>>132970
What does this have to do with anything?

>>132964
>CO2 follows heat.

Provide me a model of how this process works.

>warming before we started burning fuel

Yeah, we were exiting an ice age and still are. This doesn't dismiss that we accelerate it beyond what nature can tolerate.

>>132978
They were forced to overreach the models, that's why they don't work, there's no model for the global weather, it's to unpredictable.

>>132977
>The fact that you would post that garbage mediabiasfactcheck as evidence AFTER I've called out your liberal tactics shows how far you've got your heas up your ass.

Which is why you believe in InfoWars and other Far Right websites; you don't trust anyone who caters to the Tumblrettes.

>Every day the world laughs at you people more and more. Did you catch that Berkeley rally? People are openly harrassing you insane college kids and its beautiful.

Those are NeoLiberals. if you want to see a true liberal, check out Democracy Now and Real News Network.

>Did you miss Lady Ghostbusters? Amy schumer sspecial? Those 2 liberal mtv shows? Dead before they had a chance.

Then again, South Park, The Simpsons, and Family Guy are all liberal shows that mock both sides. And that's because they know how to be subtle about it.

>This is the future now. Liberals lost the culture.

The NeoLiberals are alive as long as NeoReactionaries, such as yourself, exist. And you're as much of a shill as everyone else who live in this capitalistic society.

Your own rage against the SJW is so fucking obvious, that it's laughable.

If you wanted to kill all liberal thoughts, then make your own damn blog.

Otherwise, we'll laugh at you for all eternity for every time you open you god damn mouth.

>>132978
>https://skepticalscience.com/

LOL!

>>132998
Oh, we're are, right behind your back.

>>132999
...My bad.

But that because this site said so: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/skeptical-science/

>>132996
So?

All it proves is the NeoLiberal actions of a NeoLiberal Society.

>>132744
it's not crazy at all

>>133009
You sure?

Cause the MSM disagree, especially Fox News.

It's so Sad that you keep believing that Liberals are dying when in reality they're getting stronger the more shit Trump pulled out of his ass.

>>133011
Oh I vote, and so does everyone else.

>>132984
>The NeoLiberals are alive as long as NeoReactionaries, such as yourself, exist. And you're as much of a shill as everyone else who live in this capitalistic society.
is that supposed to be the response of a Liberal? hating capitalism?

Man, does Space Fag lose it.

Now he's talking to himself while framing Liberals as a collective hivemind of degenerates as opposed to having a well though out debate about the important of GeoEngineering and Clean Energy. It as If he wanted to Laugh at Liberals for what they done to VideoGames, Anime, Cartoons, and other trivial matters that have no bearing on humanity what so ever. All because of the SJW boogey men that make fun of dude bros and traditionalism.

Does he do this every day? Because it seems like something that belongs in /pol/ yet somehow I get the impression that it's been filled with Socialists ever since Trump became President.

To get back on topic, this has been discussed before: http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2016/03/ten-degrees-warmer-in-a-decade.html

Though this have more to do with the Methane Bomb than everything else.

Fuck I'm hoping they'll be correct I'd love to see all major cities built at sea level turned into coral reefs

>>133026
The ocean wouldn't rise far enough to submerge every coastal city even if all glacial ice was melted.

>>133026
Oh, they will be flooded; but I'm afraid there will be no coral reefs: >>130877

>>133014
>there is an entire culture growing that is devoted to mocking liberals. This is why your bullshit keeps failing before it starts.
What the hell are you talking about, Cletus? Do you get this shit from The Daily Stormer or therightstuff.biz? Your "growing movement" A, isn't growing and B. doesn't exist off the internet. It's like you think far right extremists like yourself are in some kind of majority somewhere, while denying that liberals are half the country.

>>133033

>Go on youtube and search something like "liberal btfo" or "feminist compilation" and observe the millions of people mocking you as a hobby.

So new guy jumping into this argument just to say this is not good evidence. You could type the same terms but politically reversed and you'd also get a similar number of videos mocking conservatives. YouTube videos are hardly a strong scientific calculation for what political group is in the majority, since the number of videos is irrelevant (you can artificially inflate the number by cranking out videos) and the view count is hard to truly qualify, since it is impossible to tell (from our end, I'm sure YouTube itself knows) how many unique viewers are spread across all the videos. For instance, you could have a dozen videos with 100 views, but all dozen videos could have been seen by the same 100 people or up to 1,200 unique individuals (and this disparity gets worse as you increase the number of videos or viewers). This doesn't even take into account that some political groups are more active on some platforms than others, for instance if you were to only use /pol/ as your reference, you'd believe that fascists and communists make up a sizeable portion of the US political spectrum, when they are both tiny unpopular minorities magnified by the anonymous factor of 4chan.

>Libs aren't even close to half. You mean Democrats.

And what are Democrats if not liberal? Moderate? Moderate left? Few Democrats would label themselves as conservative, if any. This is all splitting hairs over terms and is actually poking holes into your own argument, since from >>132998 you claim "all leftists are human garbage," which then follows that all democrats are the same garbage, therefore leftist garbage makes up half the country and is hardly dying.

>>133059
So let me get this straight: You think because there are more search results for "Liberals BTFO" than there are for "Conservatives BTFO", you think that somehow this means fewer people are liberal because they were exposed to "the truth"?

Wow, with brilliant critical thinking skills like that, no wonder you're a wingnut.

>>132607
>Yeah! Fucking climate freaks. No way there's reality or consensus behind this.

Even IF "omg 10 years" were an exaggeration and this isn't the exact tipping point, you will 100%, undeniably live with serious effects of climate change within your lifetime and know you were wrong. That's all.
-OR-
You're simply too old to give a shit.
Either way, clock's ticking.

But yeah, stick it to those scientists and other eggheads--the fuck do they know 'mirite?

Inb4 another "libshit conspiracy" everyone is certain I haven't heard before

>>133079
...source plz.

>>133078
LOL.

what a Newfag.

>>133083
LOL!

Spewing the same shit over and over again resorting to memes and insult.

Your narrative is getting old, It's like you're desperate to tell the entire world that Liberals have no values.

>>133086
Hah and so does you!

You keep up spreading that narrative you dipshit poster. Keep on announcing that Feminists and BLMs are the scourge of the earth!

>>133086
And I will tire you out because its that fun to annoy you.

>>133086
Face it, you can never win.

>>133086
not as long as liberals exist.

>>133086
Do you honestly believe in the fallacies from Brietbart and InfoWars?

>>133086
Not even Fox News can touch them with a ten foot pool, and they're the most conservative out of all of the MSM.

>>133086
you could call us all Liberalshit, and claim that this thread is liberal propaganda.

>>133086
You belong in /pol/

>>133086
Hell, you got any links that shows how fucking destructive Liberals Are?

>>133086
Post Blogs, Sites, Anything that explain your though on this shit.

>>133086
NB4:
>"Do you fucking expect me to spoon feed you?You Liberals are the fucking scum of the Earth!" "I can't go on with my fucking life without you faggots kissing Sarkessian's feet, It destroyed all my trust on you!!!"

>"I'm glad that Trump and the GOP won the Nation, cause that means that Hipster bullshit will fucking die off!!! Same with this Special SnowFlake Autism, LGBT, Feminist Crap that you guys keep shoving down my Fucking Throat!!!"

>"That's why I Post in /news/, because of pretentious dipshit like you spreading this anti-american filth like the fucking sore loser you are!!!"

>"So Take your CLimate Alarmnism and SHOVE IT!!!"

Next thing Conservatard said is:

>I got yah good, did I.

>It prove that Liberals are incapable of having any for of discussions.

>That's why Liberals have no future.

He didn't know what Liberal is.

Anthropomorphic Climate DIstruption is a Fact and will cause a Mass Extinction as long as Coal will be burned.

You're Climate Change Denial will only prove you to be a Fossil Shill.

NB4:

>At least I have a healthy career, and a functional family, as oppose to you basement dwelling shit tards.

> and why the fuck are you're posting on 4chan?

If we really wanted to make a difference in climate change we'd start regulating the fucking ridiculous agricultural situation in America, they're producing over 6% of the world's excess greenhouse gases with all their livestock.
You people can help stop AGW by just not eating beef, switch to chicken or pork or locusts or literally anything else. Anything's better than enabling farmers to pump more methane into the atmosphere.
Fuck, I am so mad that nobody ever brings this shit up.

>>133107
That's because Conservatard continues his tirade on the "liberal propaganda"

>>133109
Then why the fuck do you denounce Anthropomorphic Climate Disruption, you tard?

>>133113
>Did you really think everyone who doesnt support AGW is a farmer from kansas?

I expect them to be either a Fossil Fuel Shill, or a Alt-right Nut Job that believe in the Soros Conspiracy as opposed to the Kochs'.

>>133124
Which reminds me,

Why do you clump them all in one term like you did here >>132998

Do they really annoy you that much?

And I'm asking you, not all of humanity, just you.

>>133128
Including the Democrats?

Didn't you say they're neutral >>133045

Also didn't the Past Republicans before the Obama era agree with Climate Change "Alarmists"? Hell, some GOP members either suggest a carbon tax, wanted Government to leave Big Business Alone, or give no shits whats so ever.

>>133131
No I was serious, It seems like you're concern about what happened back at Gamergate.

You know, were you fought against the Tumblrettes and SJWs over the Culture of the Western World?

I'm saying that you're confusing pretentious liberal college hipsters, that spend their entire lives nagging on with "Conflict Theory" in which everyone's is constantly oppressed, with those who's really concerned about their children's future; something that both conservatives and liberals agreed on, but wanted two different results.

>>133132
You should know you're talking to /news/'s resident /pol/tard who sees communist boogeymen everywhere. Good luck trying to get through to him. He's already labeled you a liberal so your opportunity to have a rational conversation has already expired.

>>133132
>muh assumptions

Liberals are such a bore

>>133136
>it's another liberals did everything I don't like post

You are such a bore.
>inb4 no u

>>133134
>He's already labeled you a liberal so your opportunity to have a rational conversation has already expired.
I don't label liberals. They reveal themselves.

I'm being perfectly rational right now. Your definition of a rational concersation is "a conversation where liberal bullshit is treated like an argument."

That's not how it works. And insulting you does not automatically make me wrong, you pussy. That's just what happens
to assholes, get used to it.

>>133138
then why didn't you try to convert them then?

>>133138
>implying the word liberal is a pejorative as you use the term
You're talking about half the country, not some obscure twitter group.

>>133137
But you did "no u"

Haven't you heard me criticising libs for doing this?

Surely you have, but you cannot help your self. Ill remind you the cause: communism crushes the imagination.

>>133150
and you did too.

like >>133147 said, you label half the nation as liberalfags.

Unfortunately, you don't have a map that proves that only city dwellers are liberals.

Jesus this thread is terrible, it's just insults and people (or maybe just one guy, my samefag detector is shit) acting retarded.

>>133059
You completely ignored the points that I made after that, which were
1. The number of videos is irrelevant, because it is very easy to mass produce videos to inflate certain results.
2. The view count is poor data (from the user end, admins would know more) because we don't know anything about unique viewers, so as far as we know the same people are viewing every video (thus you cannot multiply the number of videos by views to determine audience size without greatly overestimating the total audience size).
3. YouTube, despite it's large size, is only a single slice of the media. And despite your dismissal of TV, viewership of that medium is still substantial, at over 100 million Americans.

You know what? Let's use some actual numbers instead of shitty unscientific research.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/201152/conservative-liberal-gap-continues-narrow-tuesday.aspx

Last year, when given 3 choices, liberal, moderate, and conservative, people responded with 25, 34, and 36 percent, respectively. From this, we can see that liberals are a smaller group than conservatives. However, based on trends, the idea that liberals are shrinking in number is absurd as they are the only group to have a consistent, statistically significant growth over the past 25 years (conservatives have remained stable between 36-40% while moderates have been shifting towards liberalism).

Using this data, we can also see that your point in >>133045 is wrong, when given the same three choices above the Democratic party is now liberal, followed by a nearly equal group of moderate with a tiny slice of conservative (for comparison, the Republicans are proportionally stronger conservatives with an even smaller liberal slice). Again, liberals are on an upward trend within the Democrats as well. None of your claimed trends are happening, in fact it's the opposite.

So, as someone who believes in global warming and subscribes to every big factor of this, I've never seen these articles ANYWHERE.

Pretty sure these where made by cuckservitives to confuse and distort cuckservitives.

Y'all falling for some dumb shit.

>Breitbart is shit
>Breitbart is sheit
>Sheit
>Sheitbart
>Sheitbart.com/big-government/2017/04/15/climate-scientists-spread-panic-ten-years-to-save-earth/

>>133184

Oh boy are the goalposts moving
>liberals are dying!
>they're growing?
>oh they're not actually growing they're importing people!

Your argument is defeated yet again by the data, if liberals were disproportionately importing new liberals, you would see a drop in both conservatives and moderates. Instead, you only see a drop in moderates, indicating a shift of existing moderates to liberalism.

And before you argue that "the moderates are shifting conservative," if that were true the conservative group would also be growing at the expense of the moderates and not holding steady. These are all conclusions reached by Gallup itself, and they have far better statistical understanding than I do (and most certainly you, Mr. "YouTube is a Good Measure of Political Affiliation").

Furthermore, forcing a political shift via immigration would require all immigrants to be either purely liberal or heavily skewered towards liberal, and immigration waves (both historic and current) have too much of a moderate and conservative element to be able to shift the needle, regardless of numbers. To explain further, if you dilute a 50/50 solution with 55/45, no matter how much of the new solution you add you can never quite reach 55/45, and that requires you to absolutely overwhelm the original solution with many times the original quantity. This is impossible via immigration since despite rhetoric, the US does not let in many times its own population in immigrants (no nation on earth has immigration rates that high). Even adjusting the solution to a higher ratio like 60/40 would still take unprecedented immigration rates that would double the US population purely through immigration.

Also why the FUCK are we arguing about political shifts in a thread that should be about climate change? Why the fuck does climate change bring out the worst posts on this board, beyond even what dedicated political/news/ and Russia v. Ukraine can dredge up?

>>133196
Because he believes the only people who believes in climate changes are hipster commies.
>>133211
Nice counter argument, TinHat.

>>133214
What's so wrong with having a compelling arguement?

Global warming is a lie.
Emission trading is cancer.
I support trump and the theory of global cooling.
First of all, Americans should stop Harvard 's ionospheric chemtrail spreading experiment.
There is a high possibility that accelerating the cooling will accelerate by causing the extreme climate of several stages higher than now.

>>133223
Or they mistake you for a /pol/tard due to Trump's presidency.

>>133223
Show me ITT where the "alarmists" got BTFO. (protip: you can't because they didn't)

>>133225
We should all be happy you aren't in a position of power to make decisions that affect anyone except yourself.

>>133211

>No amount of TLDR posting can change the undeniable fact that immigration has made America more leftist.

And here I had prepared a full mathematical argument using the actual population and immigration numbers (they even rounded nicely for some fairly clean math, though obviously simplified) to counter what you'd say next, but clearly you won't read any of it and dismiss it as "tl;dr liberal obfuscation." I don't know why I bother doing research and trying to make a well written argument when every reply I get is the same "you're just using big words to confuse me!" every fucking time and doesn't even address the actual argument made. And if I make a short reply, it's some other statement of similar value, ex "your just angry" (god remember when "u mad" was the big craze?) which has nothing to further build an argument over and just devolves into name-calling and irrelevant shitposting, as can be seen in this thread.

>>133280
>stevegoddard.com
God, not you again. Do you even bother to check your sources?

>>133279
Common sense don't always work.

That why we have scientific studies: it's way more complicated than that.

>>133211
Only because the Right has been anti-immmigration.

And no, Left had made america more leftist itself, when they made a 180° turn to switch from anti-black to pro-black. It' the Right's fault if they decided to go with the opposite stance.

>>133287
I'm more worried about the other people in the thread who might take you seriously for a moment.

>>133293
You lack critical thinking skills.

Nature should all be razed anyway and pollution is a non issue.

Can we ever have a discussion without it becoming some left vs right nonsense?
Literally barely discussing OP at this point

>>133293
You mad?

>>133301
Not as long as /pol/tard is here.

>>133304
>This is what liberals do.
I just see a sea of shit posting. If you wanted to leave 'dogma' out of it you'd attack the information about the posts without latching the 'liberals always do x' on to your replies. You are part of the problem. Please stop.
>>133303
It seems like it's mostly just two/three paragraphs for an insult that it just <political party is dumb because I don't like them>, either if they're attacking the left or right they should be discarded and the responses should also be treated as shitposters

>>133304
Because Steve Goddard is literally just some blogger, whose headline is from Richard Feynman "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts". Why would you expect to take someone seriously about scientific information when he apparently doesn't believe in science.
Also attacking a source is completely valid btw, I mean look at all the people who go
>muh CNN muh MSNBC muh Fox news
Bias is bad, Anonkun.

>>133311
Not with that attitude.

>>133317
That's the fucking point.

Of course we'll discredit you as long as you generalize and bash liberal for supporting environmental and humam rights issues.

The longer you went on said tirade, the more apparent that you're not interested in a debate. You're just here to make fun of liberals and their ideology.

>>133322
And I'm not alone to think that you're a /pol/tard who derails threads with liberal bashing.

>>133324
Nope you aren't

>>133329
It's time for you to go back to /pol/ now.

>>133333
Explain why we went into an ice age despite 10x current CO2 levels, pussy.

>>132580
Before I discuss this alarming topic, allow me to address that the conversation on Climate change is too complicated for both sides of the issue are willing to discuss unless they’re on /sci/. Also, the Political stance on said climate change have both social and economic effect on their nations, and that addressing one over the other will prove futile; it’s better discuss in /pol/.

Now with that out of the way, It seems too alarmist in my taste. Granted, I do believe that, in a broad way, that Consumerism and Capitalism are responsible for the accelerating change in the Earth Climate, but I don’t think that we have 10 years left at this rate (with or without the United States). Then Again, >>130877 doesn’t look like a good sign.

>>133334
I assure you, >>133331is not >>133324.

>>133336
For one thing, it's takes thousands of years to "go into an ice age". We're still emerging from the last one. For another, the levels of carbon dioxide you are talking about were relased over the course of a very short time (weeks or months, at the longest decades) due to volcanic eruptions. humans have been continuously pumping out increasing amounts of CO2 through burning coal and oil and natural gas (and the production of those) for at least 200 years. Consider the time differential.

>>133342
This is /news/, not /sci/.

>>133345
Too much CO2 release within a century will cause a feedback loop. Back then, it took eons to get there.

But if it weren't for your rude language, you almost have a compelling arguement.

>>133346
So basically, you're against environmentals since they're against economic growth and rather have social welfare as opposed to defense.

>>133352
Well that's all I need to know.

Thanks for sharing with us; may Trump have the right mind to outright exit the UN and NATO.

>>133279

>"For every complex problem, there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
>H.L. Mencken

>>133293

>Liberal explanation:
>a bunch of factors I didn't even mention because you are literally making my argument stupid so you can beat on a strawman

Fine let me try and break it down for you, as simply as possible:
You have a cup of juice, 50% orange and 50% pineapple.
I have a cup of juice, 70% orange and 30% pineapple.
If we combine our juice cups, you get 60% orange and 40% pineapple, but now we have twice the juice to make such a dramatic 10 point change.

The US population in the time frame being discussed only increased 25% (from ~256 million to ~320 million, a difference of 64 million), not 100% as in the juice example.

Even if we assume that literally all that growth is from immigration and that every single immigrant is a liberal (and starting from a 50/50 split for the sake of simplicity) the number of liberals shifts only 10 points from 50% to 60%. That's barely enough to make up the real change, but like I just mentioned this assumes that literally ALL the growth is immigrants and ALL of them are liberal, which is impossible since the number of immigrants to enter the US in that time is only 23.5 million and not all of them are liberal (demographically impossible). Now doing the same experiment again using actual immigration growth while making the same unrealistic assumptions that all immigrants are liberals and further assuming all natural-born citizens are 50/50, we find that liberals only make up 53.7%. That's not enough growth, and these calculations are generously in your favor.

This has all been pure math using real demographic data.

There is no wish-washy SJW shit about triggers or microaggressions (just mentioning that shit is causing me physical pain because of how stupid it is).

This is pure statistical probability, which you will promptly dismiss with a short reply of "tl;dr liberals trying to confuse the truth."

>>133361
MAGA

>>133361
>muh victory

Means shit once you thought about it; Trump didn't care about you, and neither do the GOP.

>>133361
>muh culture war

The same shit brought to you from Gamergate.

>>133365
>Trumptard alert.
>Trumptard alert.

Thanks for revealing yourself.

>>133367
>Nobody
Who do you think this is exactly?

>>133361

>This is a pathetic attempt to hide the fact that Americas demographics are changing because of immigration.

This was never your argument. Your argument was:
>liberalism is stagnating/shrinking (refuted by Gallup)
>conservatism is growing (refuted by Gallup)
>liberals are ONLY growing because if immigration (refuted by math and demographics, even in the most generous case)
>all immigrants are liberals (refuted by common sense and demographic research)

I acknowledge that immigrants skew liberal (and did so in my original post on the matter of immigration), but my refutation was your absurd claim that ALL immigrants are liberal, and all liberal growth comes from immigration. Pure statistics show that this is impossible, and now you're just shifting your position to a more moderate stance to pretend like you didn't make any absurd claims.

You don't even refute the math or the central argument, you're just expressing distaste for the argument method. There's a reason refuting the central point is at the top of the argument pyramid, and so far you've never even addressed the argument, only the method it has been brought to you. You don't even bring your own evidence to the table, just "do this YouTube search" (fun fact: because YouTube tailors search results, everyone will get different "facts" by doing this) . Your "argument" has failed to convince me you even understood my posts beyond the most shallow understanding, indeed it consists entirely of ad hominem attacks (and I'm sure me using this will cause you to shit on me for using pretentious words) and tl;dr.

Anyway, I'm fucking done. I was only here to say your methods and statistics (rather lack thereof) were shit, and that you should try harder. Hell, by using the more complicated, non-simplified math you might have proven my analysis wrong. But you won't, because you would be contradicting your own argument that using long arguments with numbers is liberal nonsense used to obfuscate the truth.

>>133373
>I only answer to Trump.
Thx, kys.

>>133310
You linked one post that could be considered a point and your source was discredited, so if you wanted to sincerely continue that point you could find another source with the same information.

Your unwillingness to have critical thinking isn't the fault of anyone but yourself. Please stop L vs R baiting. It's kind of pathetic, like a really bad parody of /pol/. Your posts would seem a lot more constructive without it.
(Which is a general issue the board suffers from. It doesn't matter who starts the shit flinging.)

I don't know how you inferred I was on about a specific political side's hurt feelings. Just that adding a political side then throwing in comments like "Here is what they do" or "Classic X" doesn't do anything but make your post into bait that. All the while not being productive in the slightest.

I'm pretty sure I'm responding to bait. So I'm saging my response.

>>133077
Scientists are liberals and liberals are liars.

https://www.infowars.com/fake-science-pushers-claim-infowars-is-fake-news/

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/10/28/hear-scientist-talk-peer-review-reach-browning/

>>133390
....No one takes Infowars and Breitbart seriously these days.

Post an article from Fox.

>>133390
>Scientists are liberals and liberals are liars.
Wrong.

>>133338
>I don't think we have 10 years left

This is the kind of thinking that discredits climatology. It's scientific to say some of the earths oceans warming are causing different climates in different parts of the world to be altered, however, it's extremely unscientific to start speculating the downfall of mankind due to events that you personally view as catastrophic.

>>133395
Not him but he's exactly right. Go back to >>>/pol/ with your shit sources now thanks.

>>133558
The funny part is outside of the US and the UK, everybody laughs at denialists.Those are the only places they exist. The richest and poorest, the communist and the capitalist all agree, except half the Anglosphere.

>>133390
But infowars IS fake news. Just like Limbaugh, it's simply entertainment that certain people take far too seriously.

>>132760

http://www.co2science.org/about/position/globalwarming.php

>>133385
Do you just like the (you)'s?

Science is apolitical. I blame Yotsuba B.

>>133590
I take it you just like the (you)s

>>133604
You've already linked that post a lot.
I think you're just on /news/ for the easy responses. I get it. It's cool.
Not everything has to be so agressive, Anon.

Also if I read the reply chain correctly at one point you stated someone else could post opposing scientific facts but they'd still be wrong. So there's no argument to be had with you.

>>133606
Anon's argument goes like this:
>Fuck your god damn "if we change our culture now, then we'll avert the ends of time" Bullshit. I get the whole liberal point of Climate Change: Our way of life will lead to extinction.

>I been through all of the goddamn liberal arguments, and they all lead to the same solution. Same with BLM, anti-war, feminism, and all that shit! That what you fucking liberals want; complete and total harmony with the universe and nature. Guess what, there's is no Harmony, only pain!

>We're going to pump out oil and coal because we can, we're going to kill all muslims because we can, we're going to be assholes because we can! You're no going to silence us because we have a right to be whatever we fucking want! The true civilization is on the rise, wiping out those welfare queens that mooch on our defense funds need to kill off our enemies.

> No matter what argument you bring, you can't deny the fact that you lost! History! Extinct! Your Socialist Propaganda is Dead, and soon we will overthrow those pansy ass nanny states. Liberals are Dead, as they should be!!!

>So go back to your shit schools and your shit welfare apartments while the real civilians work on making mankind great again!

>>133609
lol'd hard

>>133610
>I won, gtfo you commie hippie.

>>133611
But it's true and that what it all boils down too.

There's no need to be a brainiac to know what those commies want: so fuck their scientific studies that advocates state interventions.

If it leads to "more regulations" then kys. End of story. I don't need studies such as >>133587 to know that you liberals wanted to kill capitalism. Human Climate Change: another Communist Propaganda.

KYS marxists.

>>133618
That's right! We have conquered /news/ and next /LGBT/, /sci/, and /his/!

We don't need those "studies" to prove that liberals are ingrained to the nanny state.

This coming from the minds that view INFOWARS as legit news and CNN as fake. Our reptilian Marxist overlords laugh at you...

Here's a list of industries liberalfags wanted to kill off:

Chemical
Agriculture
Mining
Fossil Fuels
Clothing
Make up
Sanitation
Transportation
Entertainment
Computer
Toys
Tools

They seek to take those away from us to protect those "unfortunate children"; it's now our fault that we're so advance that we can wipe out the competition with a press of a button.

>>133624
>"Studies" are why I know the Earth's climate is perfectly normal, despite pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.
No, studies aren't required to tell the world that we shouldn't rely on new tech when fossil fuels are good enough.

>Commies ignore all science contrary to AGW
AGW is a lie created by commies to destroy the industrial revolution for "labor rights".

>Science is on maga side. Computer models are on HER side.
Science are for the creation of new ways to make our industries great, computer models are for the growth of our great industries. Those nerds misused them for their autistic shit such as animals and nature.

>>133628
Science is for understanding things. Are you trying to imply that republicans hate nature or something?

You can fuck off with the liberals. Pretty sure you're just false flagging badly anyway.

So in other words this was a round about way of saying
>youre immoral

As predicted. >>133587
Damn this is getting boring.

1. Orange POTUS
2. Orange Europe
3. Orange Skies

Climate Change!

>>133634

Then why do you need to post anymore.

Just spam >>133587 and leave it at that.

inb4 stevengoddard.wordpress.com

>>133636
>>133621
Nope: >>133587
read this shit and gtfo you liberfags.

>>133638
>outdated site.
you lost.

>>133587
I won, thread over.

Liberalfags will alway defend their AGW myths.

>>133638
This is what the 4th or 5th time you've bitched about that guy.

>still no comment on the geological record totally BTFO climate alarmists

>>133637
You're so deflated

>>133645
The joke's on you. Steven Goddard was a pseudonym of a guy who trolled denialists like you by writing shit like that link you always post and then recanting it all later. He even posted all the fan mail he got from Heartland Institute shills wanting him on their payroll.

You should really try to check your sources if you're going to post on this board, or else others will for you.

Seems some of the fossil giants caves in: >>133648

>>133666
You got BTFO in this thread so you had to make another, you even used your 'Alarmist' buzzword in the headline.

Typical wrong-wing ideological hang ups. Everything is a W/L proposition. Why is climate change so implausible? The data's been there for decades. Do you deny the last ice age? Wake up, don't be a shill. Oil independence will save the environment AND defund the Arabs who sponsor state-side violence. This isn't rocket surgery, boot-licker. Pull your head out of Der Trump's bung.

>NB4 no civilization and industrialization during the ICE age.
>NB4 asteroid theory.
>NB4 other gases besides CO2 contribute to AGW, namely methane.

>>133672
>Oil independence
It doesn't even have to be independence, science just needs to find a way to harness and repurpose the 'harmful' byproducts of petroleum production and consumption. Not enough resources are devoted to the problem, and are instead devoted to PR campaigns denying there is even a problem in the first place.

>>133670
Is for
>>133667

>>133679
Is for
>>133677

>>133682
It seems like it.
And it seems that you deleted it.

Way to leave yourself open to more scrutiny.

>31 new posts since post 300
>One new poster
Abandon thread

>>132647

Meanwhile the fossil fuels lobby gets far more in subsidies.

lmao what an an idiot

- Oh, i'm so scared about global warming and co2 emissions.
*drives gasoline car, buys and then throws out plastic bottles*

>>132633
Everyone that keeps giving them money. You.

What hubris man must possess to believe they could throw billion-year geothermal and celestial cycles into flux with only 100 years of fossil fuel consumption.

Even more so that they honestly believe they could reverse such a trend, be it warming or cooling (maybe they will agree someday), in a single decade.

>>135755
Who are you quoting?

>>132647
>Oil and coal industries have been well documented to have introduced "skepticism" about climate change to protect their business model, and pay people to advocate for them
>But the scientists who are observing these changes and say what's happening, those are the REAL shills

Here's hoping they get suicidal in 2027 and kill themselves.

>>132580

big cock

>>135947
Isn't China's air bucked up though?

>>132960

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjxR0cnvapA

>>136096
another one of these stupid videos... if you want to prove anthropogenic global warming is not real, why don't you use credible sources instead of random conspiracy theorists?

m-muh corporations muh oil muh dirty coal

You fags gonna go to war with China and India over your 'climate change'? Because they're never going to bow down to your ridiculous plans of killing industry for the planet.

>>136174
He's back everybody.

>>136182
>everyone I disagree with is my boogeyman

>>136174
China is hauling ass to do better than the states in terms of climate change, and much like with everything else, it won't take long before they manage to do it. India's a shithole that can't even figure out public electricity.
They are the countries that would suffer most from it, so they have more incentive than anyone to do something about it.

>>135947
Watch the tsar bomba video and rethink your post.

>>135947
If you've ever chopped a tree down you've done the work of hundreds of years in a few hours. If you've ever dug a ditch you've done thousands of years worth of work in a similar time.
Mankind can outpace natural forces in almost every aspect, don't even think for a second that we couldn't ruin the planeet ourselves just because it's happening so fast.

>>132646
they won't though
their kids will perhaps...

>>136127

>>>/sci/8868802

>>136189
>China is hauling ass to do better than the states in terms of climate change
Source

>>136316
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpF48b6Lsbo&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP&index=19 [Embed]

"CO2 as a primary driver of Phanerozoic climate" -- D. Royer et al, GSA Today, March 2004

Ah yes, this Monckton talking point. Except it only compares CO2 levels and temperatures. Geologists, who know to account for more parameters, came to the opposite conclusion. In fact, one of Monckton's own sources that he used to create that graph said the opposite in the source that Monckton took one of his graphs from.
>>136335
http://www.publicfinanceinternational.org/news/2016/03/china-worlds-largest-investor-renewable-energy

>>132633
https://www.google.se/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/20/90-companies-man-made-global-warming-emissions-climate-change

Check it

only 10 years, order of magnitude in error

>>132875
hahahahahaha good troll, they all thought you were stupid, got em

>listen we're gonna ignore Earth's history because CO2 has been 20x current before haha weird right
>also let's ignore how miniscule of an effect human CO2 emmissions have on temperature. Don't be so closed minded.
>fuck all that shit
>its the RATE guys its super scary the RATE of change (we're all gonna die)
>yes the Earth is always changing but its never changed so fast! It's over republicans!

That's the depth of bill nyes argument. And ppl wonder why nobody believes this hoax.

>>137778
They believe it because it isn't a hoax and actual scientists not named Bill Nye or Al Gore confirm that with their findings.

>>137778 #
>listen we're gonna ignore Earth's history because CO2 has been 20x current before haha weird right

The average climatic temperature has been higher at times across Earth's geological history. The rate of change of temperature is what is extremely alarming and unprecedented. The only variable with any explanatory power is human contribution to that.
The same increase across a geological timescale would cause some destruction but still provide our ecosystems time to adapt.

>>also let's ignore how miniscule of an effect human CO2 emmissions have on temperature.

Humans have had a relatively small effect on atmospheric temperature because most of the energy has been absorbed via thermal heat transfer this far because water is cooler. The predictions regarding thermal expansion of ocean waters and catastrophic effects on ocean life are observably already coming to fruition. Once oceans approach thermal equlibriu. with warmer air, is when we will see an even more catastrophic increase in surface temperatures.

>Don't be so closed minded.
So in one corner we have oversimplifications from Sheitbart and Big Oil. In the other corner we have decades of data collected globally across multiple domains of research that the vast majority of scientists have analyzed and concluded that their results corroborate significant anthropogenic climate change. Which side to believe in order to not be closed minded?

I am left wondering, what is it about climate change that conservative laypeople have suddenly collectovely decided they need to take issue with scientific consensus? Why not consensus on causes of heart disease, string theory, cold fusion, GMO?

>>137790
Strawman. Conservatives do continue to take issue with evolution and vaccines.

>>137790
Why is it bad for the climate to change quickly

Is it even changing quickly? Just because the Co2 is changing at an unusual rate does not mean the temperature will change to match.

I aint scared.

>>137790
Also there isn't actually a scientific consensus on this, it's just something Bill Nye says over and over and over

>>132589

If this is a life/death situation, then why do they need an overwhelming public majority to agree on it. Surely, of this was truly critical, then world leaders would be leaping on this for the future of our existence.

>>132650
>Said the Fossil Fuel Shills.

You know, it's funny. I remember The Sierra Club used to rant about immigration and how bad it was for the environment. And then, one day, some billionaire comes along and gives them 100 million if they promise never to talk about immigration again.

And guess what? They didn't! Funny, it's almost as if this, like everything else, is an industry unto itself, hell bent on eternal self-perpetuation for the sake of money and you're no better than the oil shills, save the fact that you're so stupid you aren't even aware of your useful idiocy.

Oh and, don't look now, but your models are failing. I mean *have* failed. All of them. Forever. Even at retrodiction.

Please gtfo out of the way so the people who care about actual pollution can get on with the business of protecting the environment, without having their cause tainted by anti-science hacks.

>>137885
so you don't care about polar bears, fuckin' dick

>>132654

Are you fucking stupid? Satellite measurements show the Earth is GREENER than it was decades ago.

>>137892
in some areas, it's greener; everywhere else are flooded or burning to the ground.

>>137885
People who spend a decade getting a degree in the sciences to become a climatologist are not part of a global conspiracy to get rich quick by applying for grant money.

This is by far the most convoluted excuse from the right.
And even so, what's with the focus on climate change? Scientists across many domains of research receive grant money, and that has catalyzed innovation we wouldn't otherwise enjoy the fruits of today. Why aren't conservatives concerned with conflict of interests among scientists that conduct research in any of a myriad of other fields? So why are conservatives suddenly so concerned with this one area of research? This one area where a multi-hundred-billion-USD extractive resource industry has poured money through dark money conduits to support right wing causes and candidates while peddling actual propaganda?

>>137897
you obviously don't know anything about the Earth's greening, you're just making up some bullshit that sounds like an argument.

If the Earth is greening, it's greening.

>>137904
And the forests are burning.

KYS corporate shill.

Also, CO2Science is a shill site.

>>137906
>OUR FORRESTS ARE ON FIRE WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE

really. this planet is pretty big. at any given time something is on fire and something is frozen.

your fear mongering is laughable.

>>137911
you really are naive.

>>137914
you are utterly deflated

all you can do is try and scare people, when that doesn't work you have nothing.

>>137915
This entire thread is fear mongering bullshit created to submit to the liberal communist overlords.

>>133390
This post is truth :^)

Go here to BTFO: >>>/sci/8893279

>>137897


http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090731-green-sahara.html

>>137925
I heard from a commie that greening is mostly from small plants which are actually bad for the environment LOL

>>137904
felled forests don’t show as getting browner, because they are typically replaced by pastures and crops, although this change has profound effects on ecosystems.

>>137911
Who gives a fuck if forests are burning. I'm more worried about greenhouse gasses and ocean pollution

>>137944
wow that random bullshit really almost seemed like an argument
>>137947

>greenhouse gasses
Why are you worried about this? Earth's history shows 30x the CO2 of current levels, and the plants loved it.

This planet is too cold, and cold weather is more dangerous that hot weather (death rates)

We've been burning fuel for 200 years now and only raised that planet 1.5 degrees (that's the climate alarmists estimate, not mine)

>ocean pollution
Yes this is bad but we're never going to do anything about it because faggots won't stfu about carbon emissions and polar beans

>>133392
not sure if b8

>>137950
>only raised that planet 1.5 degrees
What do you think that means? Do you think average temperature rising by this much means that each day only saw exactly 1.5 degree rise? That that's how averages work?

>>138804
What a pointless post.

It really gives the appearance of an argument. Gj. Somebody almost became a racist! Thank god you were there to act like you had a refutation!!

>>132646
Go fucking read "The Road" you piece of uneducated shit. And remember, that's the kind of suffering that will arise out of using a car instead of a bike.

>>138878
>omg ur uneducated
>u need 2 read this post-apocalyptic fiction book (or just watch the movie like I did lol)

When did liberals become such pseudo-intellectuals? What this always the case?

>>138850
Anyway, the point is that an average temperature is produced by the hot days and cold days, so a raise in temperature on average means there were more and/or hotter days in the year than cold ones. The terrifying thing is that climate change is about temperature destabilization, this means that we can have more and colder days, but the hot days will be so plentiful and extreme, we will still see an average rise despite the cold days. So yeah, 1.5 degree rise is a pretty big deal, when you think about how cold some days get, and how much hotter other days must get to accommodate. Look at the Australian outback for example, which might as well have been on first last summer. The frustrating thing is that people don't apply critical thought to these statistics, and try to take advantage of people who don't take the time to educate themselves, or reason why that statistic is the way it is.

>>138898
>The terrifying thing
...is nothing.
You're just saying a bunch of shit to give the appearance if an argument, again.

There's nothing scary about the climate. The notion that "IF IT CHANGES TOO FAST WE'RE SLL GONNA DIE" is laughable.

Haha.

>The frustrating thing is that people don't apply critical thought to these statistics, and try to take advantage of people who don't take the time to educate themselves

He says as he parrots bill nye talking points. It's nothing but fear mongering and virtue signaling. I don't give a fuck about either so try making an actual argument.

>>138906
Capitalism ho!

>>133077
Why does government legislation have to be the only way to solve the climate? Why does government have to be given sweeping powers in violation of the US constitution in order to settle climate change?
Why is it that everyone else isn't given the inkling of a chance to make contributions? I don't drive a car, it's healthy and I burn less fossil fuels. I've been doing this my whole life.
If everyone drove less, we'd make a big step towards mitigating our footprint, and not everyone even has to make the same change.
So why do we need sweeping legislation that affects commerce policy to solve the issue of global warming?

>>138878
>Read this fictional book in lieu of an actual argument

>>138909
Anyone else notice they've been doing this since Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle"? They treat it like empirical fact or journalism on the horrors of the factory, when it was a fictional fucking book.

>>138907
Was this supposed to be an argument?

You just revealed your dumbass communist ideals. No wonder you don't have the capacity to make a coherent point.

>>138910
Intellectuals are not intelligent

>>138908
In case you haven't noticed, people have been trying to encourage others to do just what you're doing, but because one half of the American government is making anti-environmentalism one of it's core policies, these people are derided for making the effort, and chastised for trying, by their actions, to claim that man has any effect on the environment around them. So we fall back on regulations, to try and force businesses that produce the most CO2 and waste to fall in line, a catch-22 I guess.

>>138913
>Was this supposed to be an argument? I don't think this was an argument. It wasn't an argument was it?! This isn't an argument everybody, no arguments here!

"Resources exist to be consumed. And consumed they will be, if not by this generation then by some future. By what right does this forgotten future seek to deny us our birthright? None I say! Let us take what is ours, chew and eat our fill."
CEO Nwabudike Morgan "The Ethics of Greed"

>>138917
So you're not even going to try.

Good cuck.

>>132633
Animal agriculture companies, not even joking, the UN actually disclosed that

>>140026

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Farm_Bureau_Federation#Climate_change

>>132665
Use cars that don't use gas?

>>132762
Every 10 years the generation shifts enough that a new one picks it up so that it is always new news.

Target the high school kids just as they are getting into college, only the educated ones can understand it and further push it, and the environmental industry continues pumping a cash flow revenue as big as the two largest oil companies combined.

>>138906
>My edgy anti eco virtue signalling is clearly better than their virtue signalling

As for arguments, "Haha" doesn't top the top ten list sister. Or is all you have stale Molyneux memes and bitching at /leftypol/?

>>140502
I am virtue signaling if "being rational" is a virtue

You're drawing a false equivalency between [freaking out about nothing] and [being calm about nothing]

Funny how false equivalence is only made to defend leftism

Just another pretend argument by a liberal. Just memes and and aura of pretentious fart sniffing

>>140506
Welcome back.

Be glad that /pol/ dominated 4chan by having more posters than any other boards.

So, the Liberal menace will be annihilated.

Trump should've abandon the UNFCCC altogether and bankrupt it so that it won't harm the fossil fuel industry.

>>132875

>hahaha I was only pretending to be retarded.

>>132580

Who would've thought that unlocking carbon that has been stored the past hundred million years. and releasing it all in an instant in relative geologic time was a good idea?

Incase you didn't know, but most of the prior extinctions were from (natural) carbon release.

We are literally going to create our own extinction.

God damn humans are dumb.

>>140598
I honestly would never make posts like that if they would talk like normal people

>>137613
>chose to eat half as much meat.

Smart economic policy would be to end the types of farm subsidies that encourage factory-scale plots and discourage rotation, put carbon taxes on beef, and tweak corporate law to encourage the profit motive of long-term investors over the growth motive (i.e. stock value), the latter of which has been unsustainable and bad for the product in practice.

Also critical is creating credible a check on the political power of multinational corporations. Since NATO can't really threaten Exxon with missile strikes or invasion when they subvert diplomatic negotiations on weapons procurement in Chad, they or the UN has to be able to enforce effective boycotts so that in the future they can make credible threats.

>>137613
>chose to eat half as much meat.

Smart economic policy would be to end the types of farm subsidies that encourage factory-scale plots and discourage rotation, put carbon taxes on beef, and tweak corporate law to encourage the profit motive of long-term investors over the growth motive (i.e. stock value), the latter of which has been unsustainable and bad for the product in practice.

Also critical is creating credible a check on the political power of multinational corporations. Since NATO can't really threaten Exxon with missile strikes or invasion when they subvert diplomatic negotiations on weapons procurement in Chad, they or the UN has to be able to enforce effective boycotts so that in the future they can make credible threats.

>>140308
I 'm with you, but aren't they mad expensive?

>>140714
Isn't electricity made from gas? Lol

Whatever makes you feel better though.

>>140612
>Incase you didn't know, but most of the prior extinctions were from (natural) carbon release.
Source?

>>132580
Sweat! I can't wait until it's ended!

>>140777
I hope you weren't holding your breath

>>140822
>>140777

>I hope you weren't holding your breath
you might have to.

I'm a geologist, and the sources are all around you.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0195667185900485

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/15/6555.full

I don't have all day to explain oceanic acidification and how our carbonate buffer system works.

but just take my word for it. You're fucked if you release sequestered carbon at the rate we are.

It's not rocket science.

>>132580
Oh noes, a bunch of third-worlders will starve to death or get shot in some war or someshit.

Whoop de fucking doo, none of this will affect places that actually matter in a serious way.

>>140909

>we don't live on the same planet.

can't tell if american educated, or trolling.

>>140911

>American
>Educated

Choose one, and only one.

>>140911
>>Implying the wealthy and technologically advanced countries won't be able buy or invent their way out of any trouble related to this.
Fearmongering is still fearmongering, no matter how you dress it up.

>>140916

>calls facts, fear mongering.

Do you call your thumb your dick?

>>140916

What technology you dumb fuck?

you are assuming out of your own crusty smelly asshole.

It's not just one country. It's the entire industrializing fucking world you stupid retarded cunt.

YOU ARE TAKING MATTER FROM DEEP UNDER THE GROUND AND PUTTING IN THE SURFACE.

Yes developed nations spend billions on catching the waste product, but that is a fucking fraction relative to the entire world, like china, india, russia, and africa who don't give a fuck because of shit for brains like you who don't even have the self respect to complete junior college.

You expect people to hand feed you information, when you knowingly know you're a fucking retard who can't even comprehend simple logic.

You are so pathetic that you know won't accomplish anything in your life, so you try to waste peoples time with your self-aware retardation.

fucking drink bleach you dumb mother

f
u
c
k
e
r

>>132665
>What do you guys suggest? Everyone just stops driving? Everyone just eats grass?

Do you not realize that this is the end result of all these policies?

Yes, stop driving. And yes, eat grass. But mostly, fewer "everyone."

Consider the agenda items being pushed:
- war: a direct reduction of populations
- third-world immigration: reduce the demand for resources by replacing Western lifestyles with cultures who find such bare subsistence acceptable
- inflation: a mechanism which removes the ability to access resources from anyone without the wealth to invest ahead of the rate
- etc.

>>140716
No actually it isn't
THis post is a joke right?

>>140631
Society is getting fed up with liberals. /pol/ says that they'll be a day of the rope soon, and /pol/ is never wrong.

>>132588
>eight researchers
All eight of them?

>>140922
Cry more retard, none of this will touch people in wealthy countries and we'll be busy watching obnoxious mystery meat refugees getting shot live on cnn while you are crying about it in your cuckshed.

>>141327

lmao, ignorance will just mean you'll be the first to die.

>>141000
Yes it is dumbass. A significant portion of electricity cones from burning oil.

Like HALF comes from coal hahaha.

>>141004
/pol/ is silly. Day of the rope is what communists do when ever they do communism.

>hates coal burners
>wants to burn coal themselves
An impetus for reflection...

>>132580

they don't have 10 years

ww3 soon

>>137846
On the other hand 97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is a real issue.
What's the counterargument against that?
I'm not trying to stir the pot btw I'm genuinely asking because I don't know

>>144789
>climate change is a real issue
What does that even mean

This 97% figure is bullshit. Did they precisely define "climate change" for these scientists when they were polled? Jk i know they weren't actually polled.

>>132749
>>Renewables' deep-sea mining conundrum
>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-39347620
>>British scientists exploring an underwater mountain in the Atlantic Ocean have discovered a treasure trove of rare minerals.
>>Their investigation of a seamount more than 500km (300 miles) from the Canary Islands has revealed a crust of "astonishingly rich" rock.
>>Samples brought back to the surface contain the scarce substance tellurium in concentrations 50,000 times higher than in deposits on land.
>>Tellurium is used in a type of advanced solar panel, so the discovery raises a difficult question about whether the push for renewable energy may encourage mining of the seabed.
>>The rocks also contain what are called rare earth elements that are used in wind turbines and electronics.
Lmfao mother nature is the greatest troll of all

>>135764
This. Blaming just "the big corporations" or "the elites" for such issues is childish. Everyone who spends money is voting with their money - and, whether they realize it or not, are also responsible for the consequences.

>>144800
i'm too lazy to do the investigative journalism tbh

>>132580
climate change is already happening. just look at whats going on around the world. more heat. more rains. more quakes.

>>144822
Doubt Paris agreement will solve it, so why bother? Apparently it's also filled to the brim with sjw shit too

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/03/29/trumps-climate-change-shift-is-really-about-killing-the-international-order/?utm_term=.aa1c182aa3fc

>“Climate change is a highly inconvenient truth for nationalism, as it is unsolvable at the national level and requires collective action between states and between different national and local communities. Populist nationalism therefore tends to reject the science of climate change however strong the evidence.”

Hail Tom DeWeese, our lord and savior:
https://americanpolicy.org/about-us/

>>141538
>>141004
Dude: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Turner_Diaries

It's White Supremacist battle cry.

>>144839
White supremacy is the pinacle of human development.

>>144822
First that's called weather.

Second, manmade climate change is a. Ugh and unproven. The c!imate is always changing.

>>144822
Bullshit communist lies.

We need no fucking regulations, only freedom.

Take your liberal propaganda and shove it up your asses.

>>144841

you're an idiot.

cut off your testacles immediately.

the world can only take so many retards.

>>144837
Isn't the real question weather to usher in a global totalitarian carbon rationing fossil fuel hording militarized global police state theocracy to possibly "save the world" from a highly questionable runaway climate theory? Religions always wear the same mask, submit to save yourselves or else!

>>144955
That is the real question: Global threats doesn't exist, only National ones.

>>132662
Buddy, you are acting as though just because we aren't dead yet, there must be no climate change or pollution. Clearly we cant estimate what is going to happen, and we are constantly approaching the point of no return with our environment. When you watch environmental signs theres no way you just go "eh. i mean we arent dead yet"

>>132741
>By some estimates, as of 2010 Quintana had the second largest amount of coal reserves in the United States, with only the federal government having bigger reserves.[3]
No conflict of interest there

>>147086
>No conflict of interest there

If I showed you the huge diagram with all the links you would laugh at my crazy conspiracy theory.

>>144875
No, white supremacy gave us the most advanced human civilization.

This must be one of the longest running threads ever now.

Whether or not any of you faggots think man made climate change is real or not, you're idiots if you think we shouldn't move toward renewable energy anyway. We WILL run out of fossil fuels, and we will soon. As in within a hundred years. We've been relying on oil imported from the unstable mid east for way too long. We need to move toward renewable energy as quickly as possible so that future generations don't suffer.

Backing out of the Paris Agreement was one of the dumbest things that orange cunt has done in office. Why does this man want to focus on coal and oil so much instead of wind, solar, geothermal, and hydro? The sooner we begin, the sooner costs come down. The sooner we begin, the more likely American businesses are to be at the forefront of a whole new industry. Find me one good reason we should stick with coal