Al Gore Uses 7 Times More Energy to Heat Mansion Pool Than Average

That leaves the former vice president as presumably the only occupant of the home, making his energy consumption even more staggering.

Gore also owns at least two other homes, a pied-à-terre in San Francisco's St. Regis Residence Club and a farm house in Carthage, Tennessee.

The center received some shocking results after petitioning for Gore's home electricity usage from the local utility company. Among them:

• The past year, Gore's home energy use averaged 19,241 kilowatt-hours (kWh) every month, compared to the U.S. household average of 901 kWh per month.

• Gore guzzles more electricity in one year than the average American family uses in 21 years.

• In September of 2016, Gore's home consumed 30,993 kWh in just one month — as much energy as a typical American family burns in 34 months.

• From August 2016 through July 2017, Gore spent almost $22,000 on electricity bills.

• Gore paid an estimated $60,000 to install 33 solar panels. Those solar panels produce an average of 1,092 kWh per month, only 5.7 percent of Gore's typical monthly energy consumption.

• During the past 12 months, Gore devoured 66,159 kWh of electricity just heating his pool. That is enough energy to power six average U.S. households for a year.

According to government energy studies, the average American household uses 10,812 kilowatt-hours a year. Some basic math shows that Gore's annual pool heating bill is nearly seven times the annual electricity used by an entire American household.

Worse yet, Gore lives by himself.

Talk about an inconvenient truth.

>>163637
He is a fraud and probably the biggest reason why everyone should be a skeptic.

His predictions that the polar ice would be gone 3 years ago was wrong especially now that they are larger than ever.

On CNN the other night he claimed that Beach Erosion was caused by Rising Tides.

>One asshole hijacking a cause means the entire cause is suspect

Come on now. Most of my liberal leaning friends acknowledge how much of a fraud he is and also still believe climate change is real.

Any cause is going to have some asshole hangers on who are only doing it for attention.

>>163637
Trump tells us that the Chinese are stealing our jobs and destroying our economy but he continues to import foreign labour and outsource jobs to China. I guess that means that Trump is lying and the Chinese aren't making things worse for the local economy.
OR
Maybe just maybe OP, people are selfish and have the right to spend their own money how they see fit. Not leading by example doesnt necessarily mean that the message people are preaching is wrong.

>>163673
The entire cause is suspect because the entire movement is made up of al gores who's predictions have all not come true. There isn't one global warming prediction that has come close to being true and hell if we go by what these idiots say it's too late anyway so why bother?

>>163647
>now that they are larger than ever
Wrong. Don't make any claim like that unless you have a peer reviewed study to back it up.

And beach erosion is going to happen regardless, but add two extra intense storms every year due to increased heat and moisture and erosion will speed up.

Gore is a borgoise weirdo who happens to be worried about climate change and not have the self control to change the way he lives.

>>163678
bad science is why al gores preaching is wrong.

>>163682
When the alternative is believing blog tier 'science' funded by oil shills, I'll take my chances believing the peer reviewed science Gore quotes

>>163681
Hurricanes have actually been below average over the last 5 years.

http://climatechangedispatch.com/ice-cap-history-and-present-dont-fit-climate-alarmist-tall-tales/

and ice caps are larger than ever.

>>163685
there are no "peer reviewed" sources that prove al gore right.

Either way the point is moot. We're not going to be destroying our economy to fund some carbon tax nonsense. If you want to fight "climate change" you do it on your own but don't expect me to change ANYTHING about my lifestyle. Hell I've never recycled

>>163680
You can't peredict changes with 100% accuracy when the warming trend introduces more uncertainty and extreme weather.

https://alaska.usgs.gov/science/interdisciplinary_science/cae/marine_ecosystem.php

The decrease in arctic ice is graphed and the third image down on the page.

>>163686
>5 years
>that source

Have you thought about doing something with your life besides consuming and sharing poorly written propaganda?

Al Gore is a hypocritical asshole, that doesn't invalidate man made climate change.

He's a venture capitalist that has invested millions into energy conservation and clean energy production technology.
He's dedicated his life to doing a lot of good and I'm not going to begrudge him enjoying his earnings. Only conservatives have this fantasy that liberals and conservationists in general expect us to go back to living in mud huts. We can have the same quality of life we would otherwise, we just have to be smarter about our investments and regulatory structure as a civilization.

>>163696
I know climate deniers do the dumbest shit, pull the worst sources (or say stuff they can't back up), frequently misinterpret studies because they don't understand stats, can barely argue about AGW without trying to force politics, but come on, don't defend Gore. He has constantly spouted shitty predictions, barely understands the science behind it, most of his contributions to clean energy have been built off of his love for carbon tax. He also hates addressing China and India.

Climate alarmists in general are shit stirrers that say what the normal person thinks about climate change but blow it up to unreasonable levels because they don't have experience, most of the time to line their own pockets.

>>163685
>believing "Academia"

Newsflash, Conservative belief is infinitely more powerful than Liberal intellectualism. It is the passionate who rule, not those who hide themselves away from the world.

>>163707
Gore's actually far more optimistic than the scientific consensus. Most scientist aren't saying we're doomed yet, but are saying that the Greenhouse feedback cycle has already started, that the time for serious action has passed, and that 2100 will be a much bleaker place. Again, this ties into Gore being a snakes oil salesman who's interested in using legitimate concerns to line his pockets, just like many other of Clinton's "New" Democrat cohort. Can't sell easy solutions without hope.

>>163734
Do you drive a car? If so, go kill yourself

>>163688
>the only way to reduce CO2 emissions is to destroy the economy
>doesn't recycle
Wow you're so badass anon teach me to be like you

>>163733
>conservative belief > science (or as you call it liberal intellectualism)
Newsflash anon, outside of the US the science behind AGW has bipartisan acceptance. You're trapped in a bubble where oil company political donations corrupt your conservative party more than anywhere else in the world. As evidenced by your comment which assumes conservatism is at odds with climate science.

>not believing academia
>and proud of it
>american education

>>163828
There's no point in arguing with high schoolers anon
At best they're just going to call you a cuck and act smug like they won the argument somehow

>>163849
Dw I know anon. I just enjoy shooting fish in a barrel sometimes

More proof that progressive enviromentalists are communist scum.

>>163801
The world would be a better place if all "alternative" energy was destroyed and all the greenies were given helicopter rides.

>>163637
>The world would be a better place if all "alternative" energy was destroyed and all the greenies were given helicopter rides.
All the way to the gas chamber along with the rest of the commies.

>>163733
You aren't as passionate as environmentalists. You just fantasize about killing people who slightly annoy you.

>>163874
>>163872
You'll get yourselves put on a watch list saying things like that.

>>163898
>You'll get yourselves put on a watch list saying things like that.
It's 4chan. They're probably just a bunch of edgy teenagers. Now if they start sniffing around for bombs and guns, that's when the FBI gets interested.

>>163637
Al Gore does not speak for science, no politician or entertainer can speak for science, only peer reviewed scientific journals can speak for science, and a majority of scientific papers show that overall the globe is warming, and that it is caused by humans emitting so much CO2 into the air. What are we to do about it is a good question though. Make Thorium power plants, which are safer, more efficient, and less wasteful than uranium power plants, develop more on bio-fuels, fade out fossil fuel run cars, use more solar power and wind energy, and so on. This will never completely phase out fossil fuels though because of such a big demand for energy, it will only lengthen the time it will take to get to catastrophic levels. But that's okay, we just need to bide time until we master nuclear fusion.

>>163911
Al Gore single handedly destroyed the entire climate change movement in america, and is the direct cause of the horrible political argument we're in today where the president can accuse scientists of secretly working for China to undermine the United States. If he had just kept his fat fucking mouth shut, we might be in a completely different place today, and politicians might not be treating science like betting on boxers, with the entire world on the line. I hope he somehow loses all his ill gotten money within his lifetime, and suffers for the destruction he's caused.

>>163696
>We can have the same quality of life we would otherwise, we just have to be smarter about our investments and regulatory structure as a civilization.
Yeah because solar panels are made of regular items than can be farmed off many mobs right? RIGHT?

NO. FUCKEDFACE. Peak solar is coming soon.

>>163690
Typical liberal faced with hate facts

Sad display ol chap

>>163696
He's a fraud and a Liar the AGW hoax has been thoroughly debunked by now and those who still push it are ideologues.

>>163734
Gore is a fraud, his Polar Ice caps "predictions" were science fiction and his claims that miami would be underwater are even more ludicrous.

There is no science in the AGW hysteria.

>>163911
>and that it is caused by humans emitting so much CO2 into the air

No the fuck it's not. There is no definitive source that proves this.

>>163938
I guess you could make a claim that the close correlation between human CO2 emissions and temperature isn't proof. But with all that's at stake, why the fuck would you want to? You're better off to give the economy a boost with a switch to renewables either way.

>>163918
>farmed off many mobs

>>163919
>hate facts

What are you trying to say?

>>164081
Renewables are a huge waste of money. Besides, anything supported by radical feminine libtard globalists is something worth opposing by good, just conservatives.

>>164085
Next time, at least try to use logic.

>>164085
>Renewables are a huge waste of money

Wind and solar have dropped a crap ton in price. Solar was like $76 for in PV cell in 1970. It's like $0.30 now.

The technology gets better every year. If it reaches parity and we don't have to fuck around so much with coal or natural gas, why wouldn't we switch?

>>164201
Because wealthy individuals involved heavily in the oil and gas sectors run your country?

Turns out Al Gore the bloodsucking pedophile is a shady guy that makes hypocritical movies and sells worthless carbon credits for personal profit. What a shock.

>>163681
He doesnt give a fuck about climate change retard, people have the ability to lie you know? Especually politicians, either republicans or democrats, if you think Hillary Clinton have more things in common with an average democrat voter than Goerge Bush, think again. Both of them are rich fucks that get involved in one of the most stressfull and disgusting bussines in the world which is modern politics, intead of enjoying their money becouse their are fucking sociopath whose only satisfaction comes being able to make others do what they want. They are from the same social class and profession. The antagonism it's just show bussines.

>>164246
>politicians lie and love power
Wow so profound anon. I guess climate change is fake then. Thanks for opening my eyes <3

>>164246
Why are you even bringing up Hillary?

>>164289
It's what he gets paid for.

>>163690
Yea yea we get it, only those who speak with the sanction of the all knowing, incoruptable peer review matter.

Academia is as corrupt as the state, as influenced by the desires of sponsors. Why would I expect good fruit from those diseased vines any more than from another?

>>164647
Of course it's a fucking food analogy.

But anyway, do you really think the people who deny AGW aren't getting paid? There's a lot of money to go around, you know.

>>163733
>opinions based on willful ignorance change less over time than opinions based on current understanding of fact
I mean, this is true, but it isn't proof that being dumb is better than being smart

>>164660
Government subsidies and grants for AGW research far outweigh the available dollars for denying-AGW

>>163828
Actually, big oil funded AGW research and lobbyied for legislation to kill the coal industry.
But keep blaming "big oil" for people who dont subscribe to your "scientology" ;)

>>164081
Renewables will absolutly destroy the economy, destroy local environments, use way too much land and "giving the economy a boost" is called "making a bubble in the market with government aid"

>>164201
Price isnt the problem, its land use and dispatch.

>>164084
We don't have the resources to rely on solar

>>164729
>>164201
Let me correct myself.
The price of a PV CELL isnt the total cost of using the PV CELL. It is not market competative compared to oil and natural gas.

>>164727
>big oil funded research to deliberately sabotage their own business
Whew, put down the pipe m8. They may have put some money into research but they've hardly been the driving force behind it. They also deliberately kept their own climate change research secret for decades

>>164765
Go read "fueling freedom" by kathleen white.

>>164795
Isn't that a woman's name?

>>164795
Whilst that book looks like a pretty interesting read, realistically Im not going to fork out for it right now. Got any good talking points from the book?

>>164822
Cant remember right now im at lolla

>>164862
Fair enough. Stop talking to idiots like me on 4chan and enjoy Lolla bruvz!

>>164276
Never said that

>>164289
I just used them as examples, god why people is saying i said climate change is fake or being so fucking defensiva with that stupid bitch?

>>164918
I'm not defending her, she was a worse piece of shit than Bush, I was asking why you brought her up when she's entirely irrelevant to the conversation.

the only way to stop global warming is to genocide the chinks and stop feeding africa

i would gladly do both

>>163680
Science is mostly predictions that don't come true. Einstein didn't believe in Quantum probability (not to mention the fuckign cosmological constant that every undergraduate teacher uses to remind students that no matter how smart, everybody makes mistakes), Hawking is looking like he will be wrong about information annihilation in black holes and generations of physicists were wrong about the solar system orbiting around the earth. You're giving the middle finger to the entire scientific community when you start saying that incorrect predictions undermine their credibility.

>>163688
>thinking climate change and trying to re-use finite resources are the same thing
lol

>>164997
Exactly. This is why we should wait and NOT implement global Communism on the vague chance that it might mitigate the effects of a most likely wrong global warming theory.

>>164999
>Having mounds of evidence that point to climate change is the same as a couple of famous people guessing incorrectly about other stuff

Come on

>>165024
There is no mounds of evidence.

>>165030
>12,000 studies from 1991 to 2011 with a 97% agreement on anthropogenic climate change is not mounds of evidence. Thousands more since then.
>A couple of shitty blog posts is evidence enough for me to deny climate change

You're retarded.

>>165047
>97%
The "97%" number is the number of studies that say humans contribute SOME amount to climate change.
Not only that it doesnt eliminate duplicate submissions by individual research firms.

You're retarded for touting that number.
As we really dig into the details AGW becomes less and less significant.

>>165065
Then by all means, back yourself up with some good ol' peer reviewed research.

I'll be waiting a long time since there aren't any.

>>165065
97% number has been debunked time and time again. You don't understand what that 97% number means.

>>165047
http://truthfeed.com/97-consensus-on-climate-change-completely-debunked-as-a-lie/55162/

>To do this, Cook analyzed the abstracts of 11,944 peer-reviewed papers on global warming published between 1991 and 2011 to see what position they took on human influence on the climate.

Of those papers, just over 66 percent, or 7,930, took no position on man-made global warming. Only 32.6 percent, or 3,896, of peer-reviewed papers, endorsed the “consensus” that humans contribute to global warming, while just 1 percent of papers either rejected that position or were uncertain about it.

Cook goes on to claim that of those papers taking a position on global warming (either explicitly or implicitly), 97.1 percent agreed that humans to some degree contribute to global warming.

You people can't stop lying about so-called "climate change".

>>165084
Fueling freedom by Kathleen white
Gusher of lies and power hungry by Robert Bryce
Rupert Dahrwal is about to come out with another book aswell.
Peer reviewed research needs analysis aswell.
>>165100
I think you responded to the wrong anon.

>>165114
I did.

>>165114
>Books are peer reviewed research

???

>>165166
They are published works that provide detailed analysis and cite peer reviewed research
What youre telling me is that youre too retarded to read.

>>165211
Seeing as you allegedly enjoy reading so much, have you ever considered reading up on why we use a peer review system to progress our scientific understanding?? Go ahead and do that now.

Citing peer reviewed studies a couple of times in a whole book is very different to the requirements of peer reviewed research, and if you're going to claim they should be given the same level of respect then you should at least know the differeneces and downsides of each approach

>>165236
Each of those books have hundreds of references.
You dont understand that "peer reviewed research" should typically produce data, it takes detailed analysis to understand the implications of that data, if its valid or not, and what can be done with that data.
Thats all apart of the "peer review" system.
Data being reviewed and cited by secondary sources is apart of this peer review system, if you're going to claim a just any single piddly research paper should be given the same level of respect as a fully published book...

You claiming that these books cite "a couple" of references and because you type like you have an academia cockholster for a mouth im going to assume you are nothing but a hyped alarmist who touts "MUH NINTEY SEEVEN PURCENT"

>>165236
>>165239
Also
"Peer reviewed research" for climatology is nothing but garbage.
The entire field is bordering on psudoscience for anything beyond regional analysis.

Climate alarmist btfo can he recover?

>>165239
FYI not the same anon who said the 97% figure. Although you're not in a position to discredit it with since I doubt you've ever read Cook et al or any of the other 10 or so papers which find similar levels of agreement in the scientific community.

>b-but muh references
Your comment shows you dont understand the nature and difficulty of objectivity itself or the necessity of the peer review (PR) system to progress scientific knowledge in the most objective way possible.
Outside sources can be quoted in PR literature and when they are, their quoted claims are then subjected to the PR process when the article that quotes them is reviewed. A book itself is not subjected to the same level of scrutiny (or any scientific scrutiny by definition). Anybody with a half a brain will not take the opinions of a politically charged book as seriously as any PR scientific research paper whether it's 5000 words or 50,000. Keep shitposting away for yous, but just know that your stupidity is blindingly obvious

>>165283
>a book is not subjected to the same level of scrutiny
You're correct, its subject to much more scrutiny.
E.g. "the bell curve"

Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize for a movie, beating Irena Sendler who saved Jews in the Holocaust.

>>165283
>FYI not the same anon who said the 97% figure. Although you're not in a position to discredit
All of which has been consistently shown to be discredited and wrong.
Cook is just the most noteable, and most notably wrong.
>>b-but muh references
>Your comment shows you dont understand the nature and difficulty of objectivity itself or the necessity of the peer review (PR) system to progress scien
Oh great Im going to get a lecture from an internet wiz kid about objectivity and "muh sacred science!"
>Outside sources can be quoted in PR literature and when they are, their quoted claims are then subjected to the PR process when the article that quotes them is reviewed. A book itself is not subjected to the same level of scrutiny (or any scientific scrutiny by definition).
Being inside and "outside" the acedemic process is both more intently scrutinized, and less. And because its not a research based document, its a detailed analysis, its "outside" of the perview of what would normally be submitted. It IS however subject to vastly more scrutiny and attack by the "inside" group.
What YOU are advocating for is that only YOUR select group of approved individuals can review, resource, and publish analysis, research, and conclusions.
>Anybody with a half a brain will not take the opinions of a politically charged book as seriously as any PR scientific research paper whether it's 5000 words or 50,000. Keep shitposting away for yous, but just know that
You can shitpost all you want to stake your untenable position.
You havent read any of the books, you most likley havent done any of the research, youre just another climate change alarmist with their noses up in space scoffing at the "stupidity" of others for not accepting your sacred science.
You are claiming ANYTHING published outside of your sacred cow (which has been proven to he poisoned by malicious interests, intentionally and unintentionally) is wrong, outdated, and cant even be considered.
Fuck off and die.

>>165299
>fossil fuels
How fucking dated are you.

>>165299
>academia is proved to be lying or misconstring the reality of the situation
>again
>again
>again
THEY ARE SACRED AND UNTOUCHABLE

>>164085
> le lets piss off tha libruls
good to know most conservatives are still retards

>>165299

Conservatives are not against environmental policies, or at least the actual ones are not. RINOS are full blown oil shills due to lobbying and nothing can change that other than voting them out. But that's no different than people like Gore who don't even believe in it and are just milking it.

The Paris agreement is just fucking atrocious. It basically lets China and India do whatever they want, with just a pinky swear that they will work towards reducing emissions within the next ten years. Whereas the US and Europe are pretty much forced to pay for everyone else, even though they're not even the problem with global pollution.

Look how much money the Obama admistration and Gore have embezzled with all of these pump n dump green energy companies.

Remember Solyndra from a few years ago? The Democrats basically gave away 250 million of tax payer money. Then they complain that the conservatives are sucking big oils cock.

If you want to fix the environment, then liberals have to do better than carbon taxes and green energy slush funds.

And even though it has nothing to do with the actual argument, it is important to note that regular people will just not connect with the issue when Democrat politicians are rallying against fossil fuels and then all of them are flying around in private jets and living in mansions that use more energy in a month than they do in a year.

Your average person sees this and all these falsified research studies put out by colleges and environmental groups who are only trying to get government subsidies and grants, and they just see climate change as a joke.

>>164647
idiocracy, brought to you by conservatives

>>165292
kys

>>165321
Liberal arlamism and nannystate politics are what causes Idiocracy.

>>165236
Climate science is pretty much junk science at this point.

>>165349
Shit b8 m8

>>165367
Climate science doesn't folll the scientific method.

global warming is lie.
It is already known that NASA 's NAAMES project and PACE mission are global cooling.
There is no room for involvement of human factors at all.

Only three are important.
Cosmic rays, volcanic ash (iron),phytoplankton.

Mr. Trump is right.
The withdrawal of the Paris Agreement was one of the best.

>>165349
the scientific method is just a fancy word for using logic to figure out which ideas help you predict future outcomes.

And climate science is based upon experimentation. For example, we know from laboratory scale experiments that carbon dioxide is opaque to infrared radiation.

>>165403
ACHKTUALLY
The scientific method has some level of basic structure.
The problem with "climate science" is theres no "control earth" to compare the atmospheric results to. They also have very hard times properly reproducing studys to affirm findings

>>165419
You don't need a "control earth" anon to test the effects of climate change. You can use the scientific method to produce results, it just takes a long time of gathering data; we're talking decades.

>>165373
Really? And if your PC stops working, do you just pray for it to work instead of taking it to an engineer? Even the Bible mentions the scientific method; Daniel 1:12 is practically a clinical trial!

>>165101
You're quoting from truthfeed which is quoting from daily caller, both of which are extremely biased against GW and proven to be unreliable sources for news. Truthfeed is a straight up right wing conspiracy mill and daily caller has been outed by fact-checking sites for making false claims before.

Of course, that doesn't disprove that the study in question was taken out of context -- which it was -- but in a hilarious and predictable fashion, daily caller does the same shit because it is a garbage source.

The numbers are right; with only about 1/3 of the studies actually taking a position on GW and the rest taking no position at all, deriving the 97% of those who support AGW from only the studies taking positions and passing that off as all studies made is disingenuous -- though I'm not leveling that accusation at Cook, but by those who use the study.

But then daily caller goes...

>In terms of peer-reviewed papers, the “97 percent consensus” is really the “32.6 percent consensus” if all the studies reviewed are taken into account.

...and does the exact opposite, using sleight of hand to imply that the 97 percent consensus is now a 32.6 percent consensus. Do only 32.6% of climate scientists support GW? NOPE, the majority just didn't take a position in the study. A reason really isn't given why they didn't take a position, but given the political hotbed that GW has become in America, it's not too unreasonable to assume that a neutral position was simply to avoid their studies from being politicized.

Even so, it is telling that of those who decided to state a position, it was still overwhelming in support of AGW. A more accurate conclusion from the study, which the study itself says, is that papers which reject AGW are "a vanishingly small proportion of the published research."

>>165456
>FAKE NEWS FAKE NEWS YOU /POL/TARD
<isnt actually fake.
>they just took it out of context!
<when they didnt
>97% IS JUST PROBABLY THE NUMBER BECAUSE THEY DIDNT WANT TO BE POLITICIZED, I DONT HAVE ANY DATA TO PROVE IT, BUT IM RIGHT
jesus you read like a fucking screeching soccermom

>>165474
>i-i'm the rational one here!
>look at my greentext all-caps summary of his argument!

This is embarrassing, even for a denier.

>>165485
Your post equivocates to a bunch of "NUH UH!"
Try posting something that actually backs up your shale "argument"
Or go back to consuming your alarmist garbage.

Gore is mining BTC
someone call /biz/

The crux of climate change is that to begin a downward trend in CO2 levels, either the _entire world_ needs to reverse industrialization and enjoy Best Korea levels of carbon consumption, or discover an economical way of sequestering carbon on a massive scale. So the reality is we better just hope that the consequences of warming aren't catastrophic.

It is hypothetically possible to reduce carbon output to that degree without compromising on energy, but the state of politics is such that neither side is trying to broach that issue. And even if they were, China and India would continue to give no fucks and they alone would be enough to keep CO2 trending positive.

>>165474
I didn't say it was fake. I said that the choice of source is a very poor one.

And how did the daily caller not take it out of context? From the article:
>In terms of peer-reviewed papers, the “97 percent consensus” is really the “32.6 percent consensus” if all the studies reviewed are taken into account.

The implication here is that there is only a 32.6 percent consensus of scientists who believe AGW is real. The assumption behind that is that a non-position on AGW is the same as being against it, when that objectively is not the case.

>>97% IS JUST PROBABLY THE NUMBER BECAUSE THEY DIDNT WANT TO BE POLITICIZED, I DONT HAVE ANY DATA TO PROVE IT, BUT IM RIGHT

The reason the study gives:
>Of note is the large proportion of abstracts that state no position on AGW. This result is expected in consensus situations where scientists ‘. . . generally focus their discussions on questions that are still disputed or unanswered rather than on matters about which everyone agrees’ (Oreskes 2007, p 72). This explanation is also consistent with a description of consensus as a ‘spiral trajectory’ in which ‘initially intense contestation generates rapid settlement and induces a spiral of new questions’ (Shwed and Bearman 2010); the fundamental science of AGW is no longer controversial among the publishing science community and the remaining debate in the field has moved to other topics. This is supported by the fact that more than half of the self-rated endorsement papers did not express a position on AGW in their abstracts.

Basically, the non-positions are due to the studies being on aspects of AGW which have not generated consensus, but have moved on beyond whether AGW is real or not. For example, a paper assumes AGW is real, but it is on whether methane trapped within the permafrost in Siberia will cause a run away feedback loop, a position that does not have consensus

>jesus you read like a fucking screeching soccermom

Project much?

>>165588
>The crux of climate change is that to begin a downward trend in CO2 levels, either the _entire world_ needs to reverse industrialization and enjoy Best Korea levels of carbon consumption...[continues on]

A complete strawman argument. Mainstream believers of AGW are not proposing or suggesting we limit consumption to bare sustenance levels to achieve a negative growth in global temperature change, but to reduce carbon levels to a point where global temperature stops rising. That entails moving the energy source for our economy from a carbon based one to one that isn't (renewables, fission, fusion, etc.).

>It is hypothetically possible to reduce carbon output to that degree without compromising on energy, but the state of politics is such that neither side is trying to broach that issue.

It's just one side, the US, which is dragging its feet on doing something about AGW. It pulled out of the Paris climate accord, the only country to do so (Syria and a Nicaragua didn't sign it at all) and the only country which actually openly denies the existence of AGW.

>And even if they were, China and India would continue to give no fucks and they alone would be enough to keep CO2 trending positive.

You are parroting American right-wing propaganda here as this is demonstrably untrue. China already invests more than double in absolute dollars than the US does (and this excludes hydro) and India has been rapidly increasing its investment in renewable energy at a far greater rate than the US. They could do more, but that is a far cry from no fucks given.

>>165612
China and India also continue to increase investment in fossil fuels. They are diversifying, not going green. Their respective pledges in the Paris Agreement said as much -- they would reduce carbon as a fraction of GDP, not in gross output.

>>165613
Fair enough, but that still isn't China and India trying to take advantage of a free rider problem.

It's futile to argue about whether or not climate change is man-made to a significant degree
and futile to try to reduce carbon emissions
since we've almost exhausted economically recoverable fossil fuels and thus mega-agriculture
so everybody harping on and on about those things are actually hurting the prosperity of humankind
by steering the discussion away from how to ADAPT TO CLIMATE CHANGE which is the only practical way to deal with this situation

>>165612
You dont understand that Chinas black market industry is the largest in the fucking world and will not comply with regulations.
See: REM mining.
Also "renewables" is an entirley misleading concept, they all cause massive ecological damage in both materials and land useage, not to mention their inability to distribute power consistently, evenly, and even portability in the form of fuel and in a means of convenience for consumers.
Nothing but nuclear energy does that, bot not even without subsidies.
When subsidies run out, oil and natural gas are king, and will continue to be the only feasable mainline source of energy for current society for many more years to come.

Not only is your science flawed, but your policy immoral, fictitious, and unfundable without drastically reducing world populations.

>>165621
Did you just bring up peak oil...
We are trying to adapt but the fucking alarmists arnt letting the market do just that, they want to lock it up and keep the status quo.
Thats the difference, but still, most of the earths climate changes by its own resolve, regardless of human action.
Typically earth has been much warmer as a planet, and climates would very drastically change, bringing new lands and washing away old.

>>165624
Bring up peak oil? No. You even mentioning it demonstrates that you don't understand the concept but yeah totally on board with the belief that the world is heating up anyway

>>165623
>You dont understand that Chinas black market industry is the largest in the fucking world and will not comply with regulations.
>See: REM mining.
>Also "renewables" is an entirley misleading concept, they all cause massive ecological damage in both materials and land useage,

The ecological damage caused by the logistical supply chain for renewables is FAR less than coal and even gas -- and that accounts for REM. This has been empirically proven.

>not to mention their inability to distribute power consistently, evenly, and even portability in the form of fuel and in a means of convenience for consumers.

This is a problem of energy storage. The perfect solution hasn't come up, but the lack of a perfect solution today is not an excuse to give up entirely and continue using energy sources that exacerbate AGW. The entire point is to invest more into R&D to improve battery technology, and they have been improving thanks to both government and commercial investments.

>Nothing but nuclear energy does that, bot not even without subsidies.

Nuclear has always been the best choice, but the public's view of the nuclear taboo and the irrational hatred from certain environmental groups has prevented widespread adoption of Nuclear. Sadly, I don't see this changing anytime soon.

>When subsidies run out, oil and natural gas are king, and will continue to be the only feasable mainline source of energy for current society for many more years to come.

Oil and Gas also receive large subsidies from the government, both explicitly in the tax code and government grants along with implicit ones such as ignoring the costs of negative externalities. Depending on how you look at it, Oil&Gas get less subsidies but still at a significant rate vis-a-vis renewables or they receive substantially more (taking externalities into account) from renewables.

So glad this meme is finally over for at least the next eight years.

Climate change is basically a religion to the left at this point and they honestly believe it's okay to fake data to get them to their heaven (carbon taxes)

>>165623
>Not only is your science flawed, but your policy immoral,

It's the economics you are referring to, not the science. And what is so "immoral" about increasing investment for renewable energies?

>fictitious, and unfundable

Fictitious? Am I making this all up now?

And why is it too expensive?

>without drastically reducing world populations.

You don't need to exterminate a massive portion of the Earth's population; that's just conspiratorial nonsense.

>>165629
Im far to high to respond now, but oil and gas subsidies produce far more kilowatt hour per dollar than any other subsidy because they actually produce what they say they produce, renewables cant meet demands, they fail to dispatch energy at proper times and require other parts of the industry to fluctuate their production so they dont brown out the system.
Nuclear reactors cant do that, and its costly for oil and gas to do that.
And I very much disagree with you saying rems cause less damage, and dont bring up coal; coals dead. China produces 98% of all the worlds REMs and causes massive ecological damage.
You didnt respond to land usage, kilowatt per acre is absolutly atrocious, especially factoring in the new powerlines that need to be laid because the energy cant be produced in the city.

Renewables literally are not possible at this point and probably never will be.

In the meantime I will advocate for total energy independence, small areas of the city powered by mini-LFTR reactors paid for in contract by the consumers without state intervention.

>>165588
CO2 is used by phytoplankton which is currently growing large.
There is no need for human beings to do anything.
We should prepare for global cooling and watch for forest fires due to increased atmospheric oxygen concentration.

Al Gore is a Globalist puppet. Climatic disasters and climate change are fueled by Globalist technology and greed. Another slave driven tax grab promoting the NWO take over. Research it for yourself.

https://www.youtube.com/user/WeatherWar101

>>163680
You're a flat earther, aren't you?

>>166905
Science proves flat Earth isn't real. Science had yet to prove the agw nonsense.

>>165612
agw has not been proven.

>>163637

I guess this means climate change is not real, and if it is real its totally natural amirite?

>>167099
Well as has been stated time and time again it is natural and there is no scientific proof that says it's man made.

>>167106
>Well as has been stated time and time again it is natural
The fact that deniers repeat themselves doesn't make it true.

>there is no scientific proof that says it's man made.
Carbon isotope balance
Outgoing infrared radiation
Negative ocean CO2 flux
Shrinking day-night temperature spread.
Stratospheric cooling
Claiming there's not evidence just because you haven't looked is dishonest. Go look at the IPCC reports or something.