What is /out/'s stance on global warming?

File: 1488911431122.jpg (836KB, 611x536px) Image search: [Google]

836KB, 611x536px

>>1015972
>long term trend
We are losing atmosphere and will become like mars if we dont keep adding co2
>right now
Omg we found an excuse to get the plebs to pay an air tax

File: 00114320db41139b9f4804.jpg (19KB, 500x299px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 500x299px

>>1015982
>Yes good goy, you don't need good air.
>Yes good goy we have your interest at heart

File: IMG_1406.jpg (43KB, 528x336px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 528x336px

>>1015982
This

All the predictions I've ever heard from politicians and scientists have been 100 percent bullshit like Florida being underwater by 2013 or endless droughts. It's a mix of human pollutants and the climate changing over time. But don't believe a word out of al gore as he flys his jumbo jet airliner and drives his SUV motorcade across the country to virtue signal polar bears melting.

>>1015989
lol, you seriously post that graph as evidence

fucking kek

>>1015972
I'm trying to be /out/ as much as possible before it gets really bad.

This thread will be a complete festering sewer and you are a black nigger for making it.

>>1015998
Talk shit post graph?
https://www.google.com/amp/www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/amp/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html

>>1016023
>wur dur we shouldn't speak about issues that affect /out/doors because people will get mad and disagree
Thinking this is the way that college works these days is frightening. But hey feel free to leave.

File: cp.jpg (103KB, 855x960px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 855x960px

>>1015972
Also
>polar bears endangered species in usa
>polar bears are an overpopulated pest in canada

What you're told may be true on its own, but without context the message can be shaped to support any agenda.

>>1015972
>What is /out/'s stance on global warming?
https://youtu.be/cDGlN6mluGA

>>1016024
>Daily Mail
No please, stop

File: IMG_2710.png (537KB, 640x1136px) Image search: [Google]

537KB, 640x1136px

But it is obvious that modern leftist philosophers are not simply cool-headed logicians systematically analyzing the foundations of knowledge. They are deeply involved emotionally in their attack on truth and reality.

I believe that it isn't real. I would support most things to prevent pollution locally though, so even if it is happening it would be curbed. Local anti-pollution action.

It's getting hot as shit here and keeps getting hotter every summer. If you don't believe in climate change you should seriously kill yourself because you're useless and stupid. Anyone that denies it should seriously be killed.

>>1015972
Global warming is the biggest threat humanity is facing. It is caused by Human CO2 Emissions. Every Major Respectable Peer Reviewed Scientific Journal agrees. If you think we have a refugee crisis now you have no clue what awaits us at the end of the century.

>>1015972
Fake news by fake Jews

>>1016229
>Every Major Respectable Peer Reviewed Scientific Journal agrees.
Because those who disagree are silenced.

File: It is dangerous to go alone, take this.jpg (59KB, 634x454px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 634x454px

>>1015972
Where I live, when I was a child, the winters gave us -50F temps at most and 4 to 12 feet of snow. My winters as a child were spent tunneling, making snow forts, sled ramps, and going ice fishing. From early October to the middle of May it would be snowing.

Fast forward 45 years and the past decade there's been barely any snow at all. Now the spring flowers bloom in January. This winter the Canadian geese did not leave to go south and the groundhogs never went into hibernation. The blue birds even started nesting in February. I was able to plant my garden an entire month earlier than normal.

I don't know if that's global warming/climate change, but it sure is something and it isn't a fluke or a short trend. It is a fact of life here.

File: 1970.gif (107KB, 737x776px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 737x776px

>>1016270
Why do climate change shills always start off their remembrances in the 1970's? Could it be because that was the coldest decade in like the last hundred years?

>>1016139
What the fuck are you talking about lol you retard a species being endangered is not based on geographical location, whales can swim where ever the fuck they want, which country are they endangered in, smartypants

Ok so I think you can think it's bullshit. But you can't ever argue that putting a million factories beside your home is a good thing. Burning stuff, pollution and all that shit will definitely kill you. So even if you think theres no climate change it does not condone what we are doing now.

>>1016270
I live in New England and out winters are getting colder and we're getting way more snow (like 6-10' per winter instead of 2-5'). And then summers are hotter and much drier, like 30" of rain instead of 60". Shit's fucked.

File: 20170516_064419.png (150KB, 1440x1247px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 1440x1247px

>>1016288
>not based on geopgraphic location
Lol ok fagboy

>>1016281
1970s-1990s were pretty cold. I also live in the mountains, so there's that, plus my grandfather would regale us with tall tales of massive storms and he was born in the late 1800s. My father was born in the 1920s and he always talked about the same thing.

I suppose if you are a child born of early 1980s millennial parents, I can see why you don't believe.

File: 9mjci.jpg (89KB, 576x768px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 576x768px

>>1016341
>plus my grandfather would regale us with tall tales of massive storms and he was born in the late 1800s
and he absolutely positively definitely 100% never cherry picked the fluke biggest events and ignored the normal years or embellished them.

>>1015972
Temperatures are rising. CO2 and other trace gases are causing it. The majority of these gases are produced by human activity.

These are just simple facts. All the rest is predictions and models, they might come true, might come true later as expected or might not come true at all. But better safe than sorry I'd say.

File: woims.jpg (262KB, 563x853px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 563x853px

>>1015972
Oh, look what you just opened.

>>1016256
any prove to claim your wild accusations up?

>>1016389
Here. Check the sources before you start autistically screeching.

https://www.nas.org/articles/Estimated_40_Percent_of_Scientists_Doubt_Manmade_Global_Warming

File: tmp_25472-are_you_fucking_kidding_me__by_rexdragonfang99x-d6o7s38-1-1-1961007239.jpg (30KB, 498x491px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 498x491px

>>1016396
>PRINCETON, NJ (January 3, 2011)—S. Fred Singer said in an interview with the National Association of Scholars (NAS) that “the number of skeptical qualified scientists has been growing steadily; I would guess it is about 40% now.”
>Singer, a leading scientific skeptic of anthropocentric global warming (AGW)...

Seems like a reliable source. The guess of a AGW skeptic really made me think.

>>1015972
There is no stance to be held really. Its happening and its human caused, that much isn't being debated anymore. The stance is about what actions we should take AS A PLANET to address the biggest issue humanity faces at the moment.

>>1016229
I agree with you but its important to note that nobody knows what awaits us at the end of the century. We have models/predictions for what may happen given we follow the current trends but nobody knows for sure and you should be skeptical of anyone that says they know for sure. We know things will be different, but the extent of change is unknown.

>>1016256
As they should be. Their wild assertions don't conform to the mountains of evidence supporting the facts of man-made climate change.

>>1016401
The only problem is that a majority of those 40% ARE NOT ACTUAL CLIMATE SCIENTISTS.

>>1016256
>Confusing no evidence/pseudoscientific whack job claims being dismissed with repression

You sound like a creationist.

>>1016419
Exactly. We need to only listen to accredited climate scientists like Neil deGrasse Tyson, Bill Maher, Bill Nye, Al Gore and Madonna.

>>1016345
>>1016281
Sure thing, kid.

>>1015982
>We are losing atmosphere and will become like mars if we dont keep adding co2
actually co2 protects against white-out the magnetosphere protects against losing air.

>>1015998
He's right. There was a period of time, when parts of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth had climate similar to todays Italy.

>>1016446
This so much and so hard.

>>1016270
This has been the experience where I live. My children haven't actually seen snow yet. Which is crazy.

File: 1483817920483.png (131KB, 744x1026px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 744x1026px

>>1016201
>I believe that it isn't real. I would support most things to prevent pollution locally though, so even if it is happening it would be curbed.
But you don't, and it isn't.

>>1016256
>those who disagree are silenced
No, they keep talking bullshit, you are one of them. It's just that nobody is listening. And i mean you. We are not listening to you.

>>1016396
Are you a potatoe maybe?

>>1016406
But nothing is done and there isn't any discussion about what has to be done.

>>1016412
So nothing is done. We know shit gets real, but nothing is done.

Let's face it, we have started the first man made extinction level event. Species are dying left and right and nothing is going to get better when we have 10, 14 or 16 billion people.

File: denier.jpg (91KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 600x450px

>>1015972

It's really very simple: anyone that questions global warming is labeled a "climate change denier". The problem with this label is:

- Strawman fallacy: global warming skeptics ALSO believe the climate is changing, of course they do. What they question is mankind's influence on climate change: positive, negative, negligible? This label is a deliberate attempt to mislabel dissenting viewpoints as absurd.

- Pejorative term: the term "denier" carries connotations of dishonesty, refusal to acknowledge the truth, and evasiveness. Ex. a born again christian once called me a "Christ denier." If global warming "zealots" (see I did it too) were interested in a fair discussion, they would label opponents "climate change dissenters", which carries connotations of the Western tradition of honoring and protecting different viewpoints... ie "dissenting" supreme court justice positions.

I don't know much about climate change science, and I honestly don't have a vested interest in the debate either way.

What I do know is, using the term "climate change denier", an immediate strawman with a pejorative, reminds me of a boxing match, where at the starting bell one boxer throws sand in the other guy's face and puts brass knuckles in his gloves. I don't know if the other guy (the victim) is an honest fighter, he might fight dirty too...but the dirty fighter is *for sure* not a good guy, that's not what good guys do.

tldr; climate change activists fight dirty, they shouldn't be trusted

>>1016270
I have a version of this one, but it takes place in the Pacific. My grandparents could recall a time when the heat was bearable, nowadays it seems like no one can stand being outdoors anymore and I always felt bad for the people who are too poor to afford A/C or even a fan and make do with the insane heat

>>1017952
This.
Communists (masters of the Lie) sided with big business (masters at corrupting decision makers) & are creating a market where they can thrive on our money.

>>1017952
You don't know what strawman means. A strawman is when you argue against a false point the other side hasn't even made. Arguing against climate change is arguing against facts wich makes you a denier. As you said you don't know much about climate change science. If you did you would know that there isn't a scientific debate if climate change exists or not. It has been scientifically proven again and again. It is only a political debate because the fact that it exists doesn't fit into some parties political agenda. So yeah if you argue against evolution you are a evolution denier. If you argue that the earth is fact you are a globe earth denier. and if you argue against climate change you are a climate change denier. Because you are the outside arguing against well established and proven scientific facts with weak and refutable arguments.

File: images.jpg (5KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 225x225px

>>1018418
>big business

I wonder what's the bigger business. Renewable energy wich provides 10% of our energy or the fossil fuel industry wich provides all the fucking rest.

>>1015972
Global warming itelf is made up, proven by the 2 noaa/nasa email leaks proving they are arbitrarily increasing base data tempatures. Also everyone with a brqin has realized co2 is not a greenhouse gas, so all "beleived" models are wrong, but so2 is.

So at this point, for the love of the world and the shame of.bill nye, just give it up. Yea lets cut down on pollution. But all the doomsday science "FACTS" that were models never came true.

>>1016412
There is a slim chance that things get better. Maybe science will advance enough that we can deal with the outcomes. But in all likelyhood our world will turn to shit. That's why I don't plan on having children actually.

>>1018445
>typing like a unintelligible moron
>believing that nasa are the only ones who measure global temperature.
have you sniffed too much glue as child?

>>1015972
I have a hypothesis
I made a model based on the hypothesis
This model is a fact

Any third grader can tell you this is the antithesis of the scientific method, and yet so many scientists believed it.

>>1018448
what are you even talking about?

>hurr durr every scientist is doing it wrong because of this strawman i just made up

>>1018447
Noaa and nasa are literally the only people in the world claiming the world is warming. From a data driven view. But noaa and nasa will not publicly release their raw data, even after 2 email leaks proved it was being inflated.

That itself is insane. If any other government agency was proven.to be blatantly lying with data, it would be under investigation. But noaa just said "its science" but it isnt. Adjusting ocean tempatures higher for no reason is not science.

>>1018452
Its literally the reverse of the scientific method, which was adopted to push climate change. For fucks sake did you even do a 3rd grade science project?

Fuck it. Whatever. Me and you will be long dead before the actual science, not the models that keep beimg wrong, are settled. And im not arguing for unending polution.

Im just saying that the basic idea of global warmimg is wrong as.probed ny their 100% failure rate at predicting anything. Which itself is remarkable.

>>1017952
If you argue the world is flat, I bet more than a handful of people could only come up with a poor arguments to convince you otherwise (many of which would be fallacies). That doesn't mean the world isn't round, or that you'd be right. It just mean's people are, in general, not very good on formulating arguments and prone to logical fallacies.

Professional climate scientists aren't out there debating with "climate deniers," they are trying to make accurate models to tell us what impacts to expect.

The basic evidence that humans are impacting the climate is two-fold:
1. The global temperature and atmospheric concentration of CO2 are related. This is because of the greenhouse effect, where visible light can enter the atmosphere and is re-emitted as infrared light which is trapped. Essentially the same amount of energy is entering our atmosphere, but less can escape which means more heat.

2. Humans have rapidly increased the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere due to changing land use and burning fossil fuels.

>>1018437
It is a strawman because many people do not believe that humans are impacting the climate but do accept that the climate is changing. Here the false point is that "climate deniers" don't believe the climate is changing. Got it?

>>1018470
But that's wrong. All climate scientists have been dead wrong, so much to prove that co2, THE SHIT TREES AND ALGAE AND FUNGUS BREATHE, is actually not effecting the environment at anywhere.close to what they thought. Now the science is slim and far from settled, but it appears their hypothesis does not correlate with observed facts, even after noaa gives us alternative facts.

>>1018443
Bro, I coul write about it for hours. I'm a political activist in Poland.
>bigger business
One example - german corporations working hand in hand with German government to push their agenda, so they can make more money.
Example - Germany consumes A LOT more coal than Poland, and subsidises it's coal Industry with billions, however in mass-media, they construct an image in the head of the people, that Poland is the biggest coal polutant. All that so we have to close oir mines & power plants, and buy electricity from Germany (which we already do), and buy products from german industry, like wind turbines (which we already do).
They did the same with Polish shipyard industry, shugar industry, etc.
But you don't know about it and never will, because mainstream media is, among other things, a XXI century tool of economical colonisation.
Don't be that prol.

Natural cycles turned to highly politicized bullshit. It's a way for greedy corporations to make more money via exploiting (or taking advantage of a mutual end goal) government programs set up in the name of progress.

I dont know if global warming is true, but i have been in Cities with an eviromental contengency due the low quality air. And it feels like shit, It actually burns your throath.

I think we should think global warming is true, if it is not, we dont loose anything trying to have a better world.

>>1018487
Except progress, oportunity and innovation.

The old silicon valley is a superfund site. No one talks about that.

>>1018478
>mainstream media

and your little Blog some guy made that misquotes sources is trustworthy huh?
That said, what you said could probably be true, but it has nothing to do with what I said. I was arguing that big and powerful oil companies like Exxon mobile have way more power over the government then then climate activist groups. There is just way more money to be made in denying climate change and buying politicians, media and scientist, which Exxon and others regularly do.

>>1018470
>It is a strawman because many people do not believe that humans are impacting the climate but do accept that the climate is changing. Here the false point is that "climate deniers" don't believe the climate is changing. Got it?


First of all. If you believe that you are also a denier period. Climate change is man made. This is the scientific consensus. There are myriads of peer reviewed studies by independent scientists and 98% of scientific organizations agree that all come to this conclusion. Denying climate change all together is retarded but denying man made climate change is almost as wrong. Climate skeptics are discrediting themselves because they are arguing against well established facts with misquoted studies, cherry picked data and so on.

>>1018458
You still didn't prove your point. Just wild accusations and namecalling

File: 1291.jpg (146KB, 1291x968px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 1291x968px

>>1018456
>Noaa and nasa are literally the only people in the world claiming the world is warming. From a data driven view. But noaa and nasa will not publicly release their raw data, even after 2 email leaks proved it was being inflated.

No they are not. Also anybody can forge leaked mails about crazy conspiracies.

File: geeps.png (12KB, 261x195px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 261x195px

>>1018528
>anybody can forge leaked mails about crazy conspiracies
but they're peer reviewed anon

The everyone claimed and thought tetraethyl lead was harmless until the average IQ of preschoolers started dropping and people were going insane.
One scientist figured out what was causing it. Now everyone accepts that YEAH LEAD IS BAD.
It's the same situation with AGW, except its 90%+ of climate scientists.

>>1018456
What m8?
Climate date is being collected all over the world by a shitload of countries and organizations. Everyone can go online and find all the data they want.
Christ, sure you can find people who would tell you otherwise, but the is a STRONG consensus in the scientific world that 1: Climate change is happening and 2: Man's actions are partially causing it.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/global-warming-climate-change-man-made-scientific-consensus-study-a6982401.html

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

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/may/16/climate-change-scienceofclimatechange

And yes the "97%" is questioned by some - like this artice, but before you refer to it as some kind of counter-argument, I suggest that you read it through first: It just questions the way that they came to the number 97 % and underline that many scientists are in doubt. But it does NOT question that the vast majority of reserchers working in fields related to climate belive in man made climate change.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425232/climate-change-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle

File: odrovician_co2.jpg (68KB, 667x434px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 667x434px

>>1018519
> climate change is man made

Anon, please see this graph, showing the earth's climate changing over hundreds of millions of years.

According to you, this could only have been caused by an ancient race of humans present since the initial formation of the earth, since "climate change is man made."

A simply brilliant theory, anon. Kudos.

>>1018531
This is what no one gets. The guys at the top change data, and literally have to send out emails to others whos basic data set is based od the us data set. And no, you absolutely cannot download the unaltered data sets. You can download the data sets that are admittedly altered.

Look it up, faggots. This is old but barely reported news. Noaa and nasa inflate sea tempatures, the only reason to have their satelites.

Everyone denying accelerated global warming is a human caused fact is retarded.

/thread

>>1018542
No one disbaleives we have an impact on the environment. It's the idea of doomsday climate change brought about by me driving my f150 thats in question.

And literally all doomsday global warming alarmiats have been proven false by actual evidence

>>1018553
You're a stupid paranoid fagét and the entire contrarian point of view you subscribe to is selfish and myopic. Even if man-made and greenhouse gas climate change completely disappeared tomorrow we should still stop polluting the atmosphere and those satellites still benefit mankind an awful lot. And that's a the fantasyland-tier worst-case scenerio. Sounds breddy win-win to me.

>>1018437
He used strawman fallacy correctly.
He said
>global warming skeptics ALSO believe the climate is changing
and you talk about climate change deniers.
Global warming equals climate change, but climate change does not necessarily equals global warming.
This could simply mean that weather phenomena are becoming more extreme (more snow in one part in the world while more droughts in the other)

>>1018554
/thread

>>1018555
Well the doomsday rethoric is not the fault of climate science but more the fault of media - who agian only try to apeal to a population with an ever-shortening attention span, in a world that has become too complicated to understand.

Doomsday or not the effects of rising global temperatures - 2 degrees, 3 degrees or whatever - are hard to grasp for most people. This is exactly the reason why we need scientist to try to forese what those effects will be. And those predictions are actually grim in some cases and then there are areas that will be less effected. Anyways it is not a question of 'choosing to believe or not'. This is science, and no matter how many youtube clips there exists of people exaggerating the effects of global warming or uninformed people lecturing about green energy it does not change the facts. You might not like those people - neither do I - but making them responsible for the credibility of climate science is a strawman.

>And literally all doomsday global warming alarmiats have been proven false by actual evidence

that ALL doomeday global warming alarmiats have been PROVEN false by actual EVIDENCE is not an argument. Who are we talking about? What claims? Hardly all af them I think. I mean the temeratures are right now rising faster than predicted by the so-called doomsday graphs only a few years ago. They're making them steeper today.
And we are also seeing the draughts getting worse in already hot areas, plus things like rise in tropic storms elsewhere.

>>1016177

>Fox News
>Drumpf
>cool headed, logical

Kek my fucking ass off

File: MV5BMDI5ODBjYjUtNWQ1YS00MTI4LTkxZGMtYzhkY2I0MTNkNDI1XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMjg5MDEyMzg@._V1_.jpg (103KB, 648x326px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 648x326px

What about the cows /out/tists? Is this image bullshit? (no pun intended)

>>1016293
>I live in New England and out winters are getting colder and we're getting way more snow (like 6-10' per winter instead of 2-5')

What fucking New England do you live on?

The past few years have been absolute shit for snow and it's been warm as fuck.

>>1018488
>Except progress, oportunity and innovation.

What opportunities and innovations are humans going to miss out on by depending on energy sources that are rapidly depleting and will take literal millions of years to renew? What progress is being delayed? Please enlighten us.

>>1019219
Literally everyyhing dependant on energy. That's the real problem, isn't it? Energy use is killing the planet. And technically that is scientifically true, no matter what you think of anthropomorphic global warming.

And the only way to reverse it is to stop using energy.

I know this is a hard concept to comprehend with your co2 hockey stick graphs that never happened. But yea some climate science is sctualy real and super scary. Just not co2 global warming.

>were over feeding the trees!

>>1018580
That's unequivocally false. Tempatures have been dropping the last 5 or so years, even after noaa "adjusts" them. No matter what facebook link you click. Actual temps are dropping.

All co2 models are proven wrong with evidence but the co2 tax lobby eill not let it go. And you pretend you know a fucking thing about science? How about some objective review of evidence, buddy?

File: GlobalTemp.png (56KB, 737x365px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 737x365px

>>1019229
>Tempatures have been dropping the last 5 or so years
Not sure what Facebook links you're clicking on.

>>1019236
That is so fake it makes my 5 year old neice laugh. Source: nasa.gov

Look.it up dum dum. Over the past 5 years the tempature has fallen, even after the """adjustments""". In fact, the only time the temperature has risen is if you look at 1980 through 2010.

Look it up dum dum. And don't post your ridiculous graphs again.

>source: nasa.gov
Hahahhahahahahagagahagagaga

File: liesdamnliesstatistics.jpg (21KB, 640x297px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 640x297px

>>1019236
>every graph on here formatted to exaggerate current warming trend
>time periods cherry picked to make things look dire
>scientific graphs with the line going literally "off the chart"
>"OMG it's so bad we can't even adjust the value range, the line just traveled off the paper!!!"

Holy fucking shit we're all going to die! Somebody save us!

>>1019184
City-dwelling crybabies trying to push the blame for their polluted rivers and oceans onto ranchers.

At least in the US.

Example: A city of 3 million people that routes its sewage into a local lake drives off all the surrounding cattle ranchers with increased regulation in an effort to reduce the pollution.

Doesn't change anything except destroy our agriculture economy even more, and the lake just keeps getting dirtier, but the politicians can tell their constituents that they did something about the problem.

File: marcott2-13_11k-graph-610.gif (26KB, 610x347px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 610x347px

>>1019244
Right, somehow I felt your graphic just wouldn't be helpful to show that "Tempatures have been dropping the last 5 or so years" is a false statement.

Probably because the graphic you posted cuts off the most recent ~250 yr.

The best reason I have to stop drinking is to try and benefit from modern medicine long enough for the "science is settled" retards to choke on their own words.

>>1019267
as usual with you people, your true motivation is all about yourself

Not sure if I believe in global warming but human overpopulation is definitely destroying the environment.
And so we need to get rid of the undesirable people. We need to stop giving food and aid to africans and all other non-whites, honestly.
People who talk about saving the environment are the same people who want to feed african aids babies. Well, you either have one or the other.

>>1018550
idiot

>>1016351
Yes, but what if we create a better world for nothing, greenfag?

>>1018446
Yes, that slim chance ... would be a breakthrough in fusion technology. With almost unlimited energy you could orbit giant shades, build food plantations underground or send people to venus.

>>1018462
And why do you say the basic idea of global warming is wrong? Can't you read a simple chart?

>>1018550
Doing in 100 years what it naturally takes the earth millions of years to do is like going from highway speed to 0mph in a millisecond vs 20 seconds. In one, you're just in a car that decelerates normally. In the other, you're dead, and it doesn't matter how many times you've come to a stop beforehand.

>>1018542
Nope, lead isn't even a real problem. That was a lie perpretated by left wing pinkos to stiffle the free markets.

Why are liberals so gullible?

>>1018542
Nope, USA makes most measurements, they have the means to go anywhere, via sattelites, eurocuck.

>>1018554
At least those retards offer another alternative to mainstream science. Global warming is a lie, libtard.

File: 821334646c65ed8fc7e16a75581272098147ce02cc3cab90c39236ddae915781.png (899KB, 1169x1000px) Image search: [Google]

899KB, 1169x1000px

>>1019326
Dumbest argument in the history of arguments, commie.

its real

>>1019374
As real as Obamas birth certificate.

there was a debate in the US congress a couple years ago about climate change, if you are interested in the subject you should watch it

It's probably real, but it's also probably not something that will be catastrophic, especially to animal life which is all that I care about.

We are very, very good at wildlife management and I'd bet not a single species will go extinct because of it, in fact many species will flourish.

The human impacts may be a bit more, but since the rising of sea levels will be so gradual (likely in the hundreds of years timeframe) people will be able to adapt without too many issues. In fact, the adaptations may lead to revolutionary advances in flood prevention and control measures that make floods, the historical #1 killer of human beings (re:natural disasters), a thing of the past.

>>1015972
I think over time political forces have mixed up (or seperated) three separate issues

pollution, which we need to stop now.
I just came from china where they burn rubish in heaps just for shits and giggles, even in their national parks and in front of their own houses.
if you think buying hemp shirts will save the world wake up.
tied to atmospheric change

long term climate change.
happens with or without us, maybe we can influence it, maybe not. either way we need to prepare for it long term, start de-populating areas before rising sea levels cause panic.
prepare long term agricultural plans to shift staple crops, preparatory terracing etc

"global warming" is however in this layman's opinion a lie, a doomsday scenario spread by leftists and tolerated by scientists to push people to action.
some areas will get hotter, some wetter, some colder
the catastrophic predictions were probably based off assuming local, regional and national changes were global and linear

File: itsnoteasybeinggreen.jpg (28KB, 341x450px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 341x450px

>>1019426

Good comment...I would like to add a 4th issue if I may:

Anthropogenic climate change used as a rational for expanding government jurisdiction over every facet of human life.

Taken to its logical conclusions, the green movement could very well become the basis for a new, *philosophically inescapable* style of fascism. Humans exhale CO2, which they conclude is killing the planet. You merely existing has become the "original sin" that justifies their control over every aspect of your being.

>>1019271
Who are you truly benifiting with global warming alarmism? How many wind farms or solar farms have you invested in? Or do you really think preventing a 2 degree rise in tempature will effect your lifestyle?

>>1015972
We've never had a colder winter in canada in years and now that the massive amounts of snow have melted major parts of eastern canada were flooded for weeks.

If global warming exists I highly welcome it.

>>1019184
Cows just like many herbivores with inefficient digestive system play a beneficial role on vegetation if handled properly l. Australia turned deserts into rich farmland with them.

Manure makes stuff grow better, cows shit a lot. It's not rocket science.

File: 1475714712203.jpg (44KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 640x480px

Climate change is proven. Climate does change over time.

I'm no expert on this shit, that being said, global warming has been a major issue that's actually been debated for how long? The past 20 or so years? I could be wrong.

Is that really a large enough sample size to determine that man made climate change is legitimate? Hell, even a hundred years doesn't seem like nearly a large enough sample size to determine if it's man made. That's the only shit I've been skeptical of as far as man made global warming goes.

>>1016288
>Polar bears are whales

File: 88439-693x459-Oil_Spill.jpg (53KB, 693x459px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 693x459px

>>1019592
replacing polluting power sources with renewable and green power sources benefits us all anon, even if grobar walming is a complete hoax. which it isn't anyway, but even if it was.

>>1015989
1/10 edgekid bait :(

>>1019758
TL;DR it's happening way faster than normal.

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

>>1019758

The infamous industrial tycoons, the Koch Brothers, paid a scientist to re-create the original experiments that led to the conclusion that human pollution is accelerating climate change in the hopes he would find somewhere they made a mistake.

Guess what happened instead? Pick whichever source you personally consider credible:

https://www.google.com/search?q=conversion+of+a+climate+change+skeptic

File: pepetired.jpg (8KB, 277x182px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 277x182px

>>1019502

This doesn't address whether it's scientifically true or not. It's basically a cui bono plus appeal to consequences.

In fact, all of these boil down to that simplistic view:
>>1015982
>>1015987
>>1015989
>>1016177
>>1016446
>>1018418
>>1018480
>>1018555
>>1019305
>>1019333
>>1019392

The problem with humans is that very few of them evaluate truth claims based only on the data. Most of them understand things and form their views from within a framework of stories and human emotions/motivations.

None of that decides what is actually, scientifically true. The data decides that. Even if you reject the data coming from NOAA and NASA, you can personally go out and collect your own data that will vindicate their findings. People have already done this independently: >>1019824

Saying "People I don't like stand to gain from this, so it must be a hoax" isn't data. Saying "Leftists are why I can't call black co-workers niggers without being fired, so they aren't allowed to be right about anything important" isn't data.

None of these people ever even considered, for one split second, that it makes more sense to base a wealth redistribution scheme like cap and trade on an actual, scientifically verifiable phenomenon than on a fabricated one.

This way, opponents of your proposed solution (cap and trade) assume it's a hoax and make fools of themselves by attacking it, when it's your solution that they should be attacking, because there are alternatives like nuclear power and geoengineering.

>>1019857
There you go with your facts again when I want to indulge in irrational emotional outrage.

>>1019862

The other thing is though, the timescales on which climate change is projected to occur means even if we carried on as before it would take centuries before the Earth was actually uninhabitable.

Technological progress would not stop during that period. It would continue. Perhaps slowing somewhat due to logistical difficulties and political turmoil caused by crop failures and resource wars, but 500+/- years is plenty of time.

By then, we will have technology that allows us to survive anywhere. We're talking about colonizing Mars today. If we can live on Mars, a totally ruined planet, why couldn't we colonize a ruined Earth?

There would be no pressure differential to deal with. No dangerous radiation levels. We just seal existing buildings and install air scrubbers.

This is assuming we stay purely biological. If most people upload themselves, then the condition of the Earth's ecosystem becomes irrelevant. Machines can live anywhere.

Environmentalists who are bullish about climate change justifying some sort of global wealth redistribution don't like to hear this. Just like climate deniers don't like to hear this >>1019857

Climate change, even in the most extreme projections, is not a real existential threat to humanity. What deniers should be concerned about is how it will drive massive amounts of immigrants from the third world into first world countries.

Many of them rely on stable, predictable seasonal temperatures to subsistence farm. When that fucks up and they can't feed themselves, they will get hungry and desperate.

/Pol/'s solution is to kill them all because they got beat up by a black kid they called nigger in gradeschool and instead of maturing to the point that they understand they brought it on themselves, they built an elaborate revenge fantasy-centric worldview.

Most people are not murderous psychopaths however, so those refugees will be allowed in. Don't want that? Find a way to slow or reverse climate change.

>>1019866

I wish I could be 16 again.

>>1019868

? I'm 33

>>1019871
Im 28
Great argument, cuck!

>>1018736
oh cringe, you just proved him right.

typical

>>1015972
I dont know for sure if it is or isn't happening, but my question is even if its not happening why are people so against cutting down on things that harm the environment?

>>1019857
>>1019866
wow a double strawman

possibly the worst thing i've ever read on this forum

File: inchworm.jpg (29KB, 640x426px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 640x426px

I'm not a scientist. I don't know all the information. But, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, so I think global warming is probably real and a result of human activity. I'll leave it to the professionals though. If it's a threat to humanity, it should be treated as such. In the end I guess it doesn't really matter. Earth will inevitably be scortched and engulfed by the expanding Sun. All stars will inevitably die. The universe will inevitably go dark and freeze or collapse into a singularity. All life will inevitably perish. We're just here for the show.

>>1019756
They also shit and fart out methane which is worse the the atmosphere than co2. Livestock is exacerbating global warming too

>>1019993
Because we don't need to. The US is not affected like the pajeets in Bangladesh or eurotrash Holland.

>>1020165
Remember that CO2 is actually manure for plants, greentard.

>>1019426
that's why scientists talk about climate change. However, it is true that average temperatures are increasing even if in some areas we are seeing temperatures decrease.

Still its fucking worrying for many many humans.

>>1020243
That's a gross oversimplification. While increased CO2 is good for plants, the increased temperatures and the changes in climate as a result negatively affect vegetation.

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

File: 1495161938383.gif (1MB, 264x264px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 264x264px

>>1020002
you haven't been here long, have you?

>>1019913

You were the one who brought age into this? I am still confused how it is relevant. Are you special needs? Am I speaking to a special needs individual? Where is your handler? Do they know you are having unsupervised computer time?

>>1020243
Don't call me a retard

File: 1492830741524.jpg (540KB, 1280x1807px) Image search: [Google]

540KB, 1280x1807px

>>1019857
good goy

File: How+do+jews+shower+on+germany+same+as+you+goyim+_27f4ea5616d2dbe9b98e1e04f0cfb675.png (9KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 500x500px

>>1022630
>>1019857
sorry wrong pic

>>1017952
>is labeled a "climate change denier"
>climate change activists fight dirty

>>1018736
jesus christ kill yourself kid. you're not laughing.

I can still go skiing at Snowbird right now.. therefore.. I am all for it.

>>1018448
you are actually such a fucking retard i don't know if i should send my formal sympathies to your drunken parents or the people who sincerely attempted to reply to you

File: Screen+shot+2014-02-06+at+11.54.42+AM.png (339KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

339KB, 600x450px

>>1019913
ahhh, a fellow lead connoisseur

Here's the thing about club climate change: whether you believe it's happening or not it makes more sence than ever as a country and as a species to move quickly towards sustainable energy sources. The argument against sustainables has always been cost in relation to fossil fuels, but that is changing rapidly. When you do a cost analysis of energy sources, you have to include costs imposed upon the environment and humans at every step of the production process. Investing in sustainable energy infrastructure would create jobs in an industry that is expanding rapidly. Too bad big petroleum is in charge of our energy policy, so we are already far behind other developed nations.

File: 2012movieposter[1].jpg (68KB, 324x480px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 324x480px

>>1015989
>People are calling this bait
All iv ever heard about global warming was that if we don't all start driving hybrids florida would be underwater in 2013 and all those retarded global warming moves like "An inconvenient truth" and "2012" that all said the world was going to end 5 years ago.

I never bought a hybrid. I never changed my lifestyle, and I can confirm for everyone that Florida is in fact not under water.

>>1018554
Yea, that's pretty much the only argument I ever heard for climate change. That and the world is literally going to be under water in 2012 if we don't take drastic action right now! (2005)

>>1016281
he didn't say it was climate change learn to read

>>1016293
bruh this past winter it didn't snow till february the winter before that we had a max of 4'' in western mass

File: no-amount-of-farts-will-stop-the-new-ice-age.jpg (126KB, 565x502px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 565x502px

>>1018550
Your graph, along with pic related, tell us that the planet is capable of doing far more damage to itself then humans ever will. So there isn't much of a case to be made for "saving the planet" because over a long enough time frame everything you see now will die or evolve into something unrecognizable anyways.

Thus, climate change is a distinctly human problem, not much more different from a war, plague, or economic collapse.

>>1027461

Your post made me think of George Carlin's bit on "saving the planet."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W33HRc1A6c

>>1016293
Looks like its evolving into South Carolina weather. Enjoy your humidity bruh.