We only have a 5 percent chance of avoiding ‘dangerous’ global

>>163065
That is honestly much higher then I thought. But does this jus mean we will slow the rate we reach these temperatures or that we can actually reverse the effects?

If global population is such a problem, we could just stop subsidizing the third world and let nature take her revenge. That would take care of a few 100 million people at least.

global warming is fake and dead, no one buys it anymore. You faggots need something new.

>>163073

If somehow we were about to stop it right now it would still go up for decades regardless.
In the article they say they hope in future somebody might invent something to reverse the effects buts that not helping right now.
Most likely nature will fuck shit up but it will be too late by then, you can expect drought, floods, famine, resource wars etc across the third world.
Problem is that its the industralised world that is causing it, so by the time The Reaping starts it will already be too late.
In fact, its already too late now and always was.

>entire artic polar ice melts in a couple of decades
>"just a normal fluctuation, climate change is not real"

>>163132
>what is sea ice

>>163134

The Arctic ocean will likely be free of summer sea ice before the year 2100, but many different dates have been projected. One study suggests 2060–2080,[44] another 2030,[45][46] and, yet another, 2016.[47][48] A 2013 study showed that simply extending summertime ice melting trends into the future in a straight line predicts an ice-free summertime Arctic as early as by 2020.[49][50]

>perfectly normal

>climate change

kek

>>163076
>Denial in the face of overwhelming evidence

Kek

>>163182

WHAT ABOUT THEM DUKE BOYS?

>>163065
>Wonder if the left ever considers it's the other way around, ie. Gov and foreign powers hiring scientists and propoganda to stifle our economy

>>163196

Is the left melting all the sea ice in the Arctic too? A sinister plot to send coal mining jobs to China perhaps? Sneak in a 1% carbon tax maybe?
Care to explain why the fuck that is supposed to make ANY sense to non retard?

>>163065
Another set of communist lies.

>>163197
>>>163196
>Is the left melting all the sea ice in the Arctic too? A sinister plot to send coal mining jobs to China perhaps? Sneak in a 1% carbon tax maybe?
>Care to explain why the fuck that is supposed to make ANY sense to non retard?
Since China and India are not required to follow any of the proposed accorded that is exactly what will happen, and CO levels will not change. Explain to me exactly how the Western world causes all these problems with global weather, but the expanding Asia won't.

>>163197
The South Pole is getting more ice and we've had the rainiest last few years in the US in 50 years or so (previously a drought)

We've had fewer, not more, massive storms in the last decade than the previous.

Co2 is on the decline (according to MIT atmospheric research) and has been for the last 20 years or so.

>>163227
Since China’s and India’s targets allow emissions to increase until 2030, while the U.S. has set absolute reduction targets, we’ve heard misleading claims that those two developing countries don’t have to do anything until 2030. But as we’ve explained, they do have to take steps to meet those 2030 goals, and both countries have said they’ll increase their share of non-fossil fuel energy.
China said it would boost non-fossil fuel energy to 20 percent by 2030 to meet its emission targets. The share was 11.2 percent in 2014. India has set a goal of increasing its share of non-fossil fuel installed capacity to 40 percent — that’s up from 30 percent in 2016.
India’s Central Electricity Authority expects the share of non-fossil fuel installed capacity to reach 46.8 percent by the end of 2022 and 56.5 percent by the end of 2027.
Those countries can’t hit such targets by relying on coal, experts told us.
Van Nostrand at West Virginia University told us that while China is committed to growing its economy, it has been willing to commit to reducing the intensity of carbon dioxide. (That’s the reduction as a ratio of GDP.) “You can’t get there if you continue to invest heavily in coal,” he said.
China is also building fewer coal plants than the country had planned because of air pollution. It canceled plans for 103 plants, some of which were under construction, in January of this year, and had announced other cancellations in 2016.
India, too, has a goal to reduce carbon intensity, and to meet that goal of 40 percent non-fossil fuel capacity. It’s “hard to keep adding more coal plants,” Van Nostrand notes, if the country is committed to that.

http://www.factcheck.org/2017/06/trump-china-india-coal/

>>163248
>Fact Check site
Kys

>>163230
Can you provide sources on some of these claims?

>mit
Has claimed that CO2 emissions are going down thanks to heavier reliance on natural gas...assuming you're talking about this article: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601415/carbon-dioxide-emissions-keep-falling-in-the-us/amp/

That doesn't mean the actual CO2 levels in the atmosphere have properly stabilized nor does it prove AGW is a non issue, that's never stated in the article. All it says is "we're doing something" but we don't know if we're doing enough or if we need to do anything at all. I'll leave it to climate deniers to misread articles and angrily spout garbage on anime imageboards though lmao

>>163248

>Trust us goy
>China and India will hold up their end of this pinky swear
>Now pay your carbon taxes

>>163258
>>163263
Got any actual arguments or just memes?

>>163270
The argument is theirs nothing binding anyone else from their commitments, and when the US dropped everyone had a conniption fit

>>163270
The argument is that whole environmental bullshit is created to kill capitalism with regulations.

>>163272
So you have rock solid proof of this claim then?

>>163272
You've failed to prove it's bullshit, so now you force the capitalist angle?

I'm really curious, why are you people so desperate? It's obvious it's not China or India, since there are clear plans and regulations on their end and you guys have only started crying recently en masse about it. Is it an inferiority complex? Anti-intellectualism? Or dare I say...corporate shilling for oil and gas giants? But haha, we're the shills, right anon?

>predicting 83 years into the future

This shit is retarded. There is no way to know what is going to be happening in ten years, much less eighty. Treating this as anything but wild speculation would be beyond foolish, even if the factors they had used were the perfect predictors of global climate change.

>>163291
There's literally nothing binding anyone to anything, it was a butthole symbolic agreement that only stood to make the US a sacrificial lamb / scapegoat for the world's contributions to global pollution

>>163065
Blah blah blah, Are there any idiots that still buy into this global warming hysteria?

>>163132
>>163141
Still believing the nonsense.

>>163186
Zero science actually. Just wild predictions, that have never been true.

>>163197
No ice is melting.
Either way REEEE all you want. the adults are in charge and your carbon tax schemes are dead.

>>163304
>I don't understand it so it isn't happening

>>163318
>I don't understand it so it must be cow farts

>>163076
I can tell just by your insolent, childish, shallow tone that you will 100% be around to suffer the worst of anthropogenic climate change. There is no doubt about it–put it in the back of your mind and feel special for a few decades. But neither the atmosphere nor the fossil fuel industry give the slightest shit about you or your family.

>>163322
>Insolent child!
You sound like a Disney villian lol. Btw man made global warming is a meme and you can't prove shit mate

>>163323
>Australian or shitposting
HA
Nevermind. Carry on. God, I almost feel bad for you. And by the way, what can YOU prove that hasn't already been tested, reviewed and put through a scientific process acclaimed for 100s of years, on which 98% of climatologists agree?
Don't bother answering. Just catch some waves before tens of millions of Filipino refugees are forced to boat over to your country and need your fresh water.

BTW here you go:
https://www.walgreens.com/store/c/banana-boat-sport-performance-ultramist-continuous-spray-sunscreen-spf-100/ID=prod6057753-product?ext=gooPLA_-_Beauty&ext=gooPLA_-_Personal_Care&pla&adtype=pla&kpid=sku6234772&sst=40f5b52c-cfff-4668-a6c6-c6b9963721db
I hope Walgreens delivers there

>>163328
Dude, don't even bother with him, he's not going to produce any articles, all he knows how to do is to greentext, shitpost, and shill like his oil masters told him.

>>163065
Plant growth will increase with CO2 levels. The biosphere went from surviving mass Extinction because of a big rock to surviving an Ice Age. Nothing is going to happen, humans will adapt.

>>163335
Plants have an upper limit on their ability to process CO2 with increased levels of CO2 having no effect on plant growth while increased temperatures having a negative effect on growth.

http://www.pnas.org/content/113/38/10589.full.pdf

It's not as simple as CO2 = plant food.

>>163335
>humans will adapt.
Even if this was a guarantee, who is going to compensate the developing countries with very low historic contributions to CO2 which will lose their agricultural productivity?

What about the loss of biological complexity and the suffering of non-human living things?

Do these things deserve no consideration because they don't have the vote?

>>163335
>YFW the oil masters refuse you from entering the eternal oil heaven in the next life

>Fears that the temperature will rise 2°C
>That's 3.6°F
>Diurnal temperature variation can be as low as 4°C and up to 50°C, depending on location.
>That's not factoring the temperature difference between seasons.

So you're trying to tell me that +2°C will destabilize global biodiversity over 100 years, despite the fact that most living organisms having to deal with that same problem on a daily and yearly basis?

>>163471
Diurnal temperatures aren't random.

>>163471
you are clearly retarded.
2 degrees of change is for the average of the whole planet. this means, some place may warm up by 10 degrees even, some might cool down. and what that 2 degrees of extra average will do, and does right now, is like throwing a little fire in a mass of gunpowder. as the ice caps are melting the reflective surface of the earth will shrink, instead dark oceans will absorb so much more heat. ice caps are melting meaning that trapped green house gasses will be freed, and contribute more to the green house effect.
yes, you better not use your car and warn others to not use it, because its us doing it, day by day, living in luxury. consuming products is consuming our world.

Global warming is a thing, yes.
The climate is changing and it will have consequences, but it has been happening since the beginning of time. This is nothing exceptional and it will not end the human race. The problem is the doomsday prophets who go around telling people they will get swallowed by a tsunami any minute.
The actual repercussions of this are many decades away. Lets just learn from our mistakes and try to work towards more environmentally friendly alternatives, without trying to invoke mass hysteria.
Jesus I hate this sensationalism.

>>163328
>on which 98% of climatologists agree
Science isn't religion.

>>164632
>it has been happening since the beginning of time
That's an important but often ignored point. People tend to assume that the earth is a static environment, but it could not be any less so. I live 5000 ft above sea level in the middle of the continent, but my house is built on shale that was deposited at the bottom of an ocean. Below that are rocks that formed from desert sand dunes, and below that more ocean.

That process hasn't stopped. Even if humans had no effect on climate whatsoever, it would still change dramatically. It might not change at the same rate or in the same way, but it would still change, ecosystems would still be disrupted, species would still go extinct, and humans would still be impacted. Sea levels naturally fluctuate and coastal cities are doomed no matter what. Continental areas become more or less arable and we have to adapt just like we have been for the last 200,000 years of human history.

Rather than wrecking world economies trying to reverse one aspect of a much broader process, especially when there is no consensus on the severity of damage humans have done and whether it's possible to undo it, we should recognize that changes to our environment are inevitable and learn to live with them.

Why does nobody ever post links?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-change-isnt-the-end-of-the-world-1501446277

>>164653
I agree with this so wholeheartedly. The brunt of negative impacts will be felt by the poor nations with insufficient stability to deal with mass migration, drought, and the spread of diseases like malaria. When their crops start failing they'll only have their low work ethics to blame.

Meanwhile it's quite apparent that using government money to subsidize the switch to clean energy like nuclear power will wreck the economy. Just look at the utter economic devistation that France suffered in the 80s and 90s when they switched to nuclear power. Meanwhile, subsidizing Tesla's is the chief source of our spiralling debt, and the chief reason American manifacturing has failed.

>>164632

You're a fucking idiot. Posting something on the Internet doesn't make it "sensationalist". Hell, talking about something doesn't make it "sensationalist". What makes something sensationalist is someone calling it that (you) and then a bunch of people talking about it in a way that makes it polarizing (which entails someone denying whatever is being said).

Fucking lazy conservatives drive me nuts.

>>164746
So you're saying instead of debating whether it's real or not we should talk about it in a constructive manner? I'm dubious, that might mean we'll come to a compromise between minimizing the economic impact of changing our energy infrastructure and minimizing the climate impact. They say that in a compromise everyone loses.

>>164749

Stop speaking for me, asshole. What I'm saying is that when people talk about things, whether they are truths, speculations or falsehoods, that talking about how we're talking is ALWAYS going to be a buzzkill, and a complete waste of time.

This fact can and is used by those who control what others say (by speaking for them or slowing down them speaking for themselves).

>>164745
The problem with nuclear power is regulation, while the problem with "green" energy is subsidation.

>>163342
This post is a perfect illustration of how climate alarmists argue their religion.

Step 1: a scientific fact
Step 2: pretend that fact supports your argument

Such intelligent

>>164763
https://realclimatescience.com/

>>164764
Now that your dishonest nature has been highlighted, your cowardice reveals itself.

Afraid to speak in complete thoughts? Just post a link. Brilliant!

>>164746
Im definitely not a conservative. I live in Europe so I cant be classified by your shitty american system. I do tend to vote for green parties or liberals tho.
And I didnt mean that this particular article is very sensationalist, but this topic in general is often used as a way to tell people that we are fucked and to create fear.
Its good that we are working towards more ecological solutions, but we are not going extinct.

>>164653
Exactly what this guy said

>>164767
What? I'm on your side.

>>164763
This post is a perfect illustration of how climate denialists dismiss science.

Step 1: read valid argument
Step 2: reply with hollow political rhetoric opposing it

Such intelligent

>>164769
Anon, as if a climate change denier is actually going to read a page with all those sciencey looking graphs on it

>>164771
Claiming someone is a climate change denier is unfair. What people have a trouble accepting (and with good reason) is that the climate is changing BECAUSE OF and not DESPITE human beings.

>>164773
And you think the best way to learn about the validity of that phenomenon is to read politically charged blogs??

>>164769
ok cool. Don't go to chuck e. Cheeses on Monday.

>>164770
This post is a perfect exanple of how unoriginal liberals are

Copying my shit, again? Get your own brain.

>>164776
Please don't call them "liberals". They're opportunistic charlatans that appropriate genuine and benign terms for their own corrupt ideals.

>>164777
I know they are merely thoughtless masses of sheep, but they are regarded as liberals.

I could call them leftists.

>>164773
>Claiming someone is a climate change denier is unfair.
No it isn't. If you've read actual evidence, but choose to ignore it because it conflicts with your political views, then you're a denier.
The actual evidence is overwhelmingly that the current rise in global average temperatures (~100 years, ~+1°C) is primarily (80% to 120%) due to human influence.

>What people have a trouble accepting (and with good reason) is that the climate is changing BECAUSE OF and not DESPITE human beings.
No shit they're having trouble accepting it - a lot of people would lose a fucktonne of money if they did. That's why they've been paying groups like Heartland and Cato to flood the internet with propaganda. This isn't a fantasy conspiracy theory, there is both publicly available information linking those PR groups to energy companies, and the leaked Exxon documents from a few years back.
Climate change "scepticism" is entirely manufactured.

>>164733
Because this is stuck behind a fucking paywall.

>>164768
>>164653
Our main concern is weither we have enough time to adjust; and since manufacturing/resource extraction is accelerating, we won't have time left until the entire planet became inhabitable due to over production and consumption.

I've a great solution for the problem of anthropogenic climate change, even though it's a meme.

>>164958
Stop funding the fake research and the "problem" of anthropogenic climate change will vanish back to the pits of hell where this lie came from.

>>164959
Yes but there's something heating up the planet that needs to be taken care of: we must remove kebab and finish what should have been done 1000 years ago.