Why do right-wingers always fail to see the bigger picture when

>>132427639
>implying the majority of oxygen doesn't come from algae in the sea

Going to need empirical non-issue non-deductible facts that being right wing=disliking trees

That being said, fuck Canada, your country is so defenseless and pointless that any country on earth could invade and 0 people outside of Cuckada would care, Canadians are a meaningless worthless doormat cultured subhuman shit

>>132427639
generalizations aren't arguments

present an argument to rebut

>>132427639
Trees produce an extremely small amount of the total oxygen on the earth, the majority of produced oxygen on the planet comes from phytoplankton.

>>132427639
Right-wingers only care about themselves and $$$money$$$.

>>132428015
Agreed

File: tumblr_inline_onbnzdndVa1t63ajm_500.jpg (45KB, 500x338px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 500x338px

Right wingers hate pseudoscience like this, because they are smarter than leftists.

>>132427639
Plants and trees grow better with increased carbon dioxide levels. Hmm. Maybe right wingers are really redpilled and are the real environmentalists.

>>132427639
Fuck off, kike.

https://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wilderness-resources/stories/more-trees-than-there-were-100-years-ago-its-true

>>132427639
Come on OP, any arguments to make besides a factually incorrect picture? Why should we bother working to optimize and clean up inefficient power sources that have already been surpassed by nuclear? Why aren't we switching over to nuclear for our electrical needs? Why do environmentalists only ever care about the climate when it gives them an excuse to expand government taxes and regulation? How is climate change going to bring about a Venus scale runaway global warming event when the Earth simply doesn't have enough carbon in it's composition for such an event to be possible? Why is 400ppm atmospheric carbon apocalyptic when life flourished at 4000+ppm in the past? Why should we try to hold on to this post-ice age climate when hotter climates have historically been beneficial to life as a whole?

Feel free to answer even a single one of these questions.

>>132427639
How many trees have you planted, specifically?

>>132428514
You don't need credibility if your facts are correct, anyone can look at empirical data and come to a conclusion.

>>132428015
ok i changed my flag.

care to make an actual argument?

>>132428015
Blown the actual fuck out.

>>132427639
Because leftists fail to realize Asia produces the overwhelming majority of greenhouse gasses.

Why don't we just plant trees that broadcast wifi signals then?

File: DCe1BXuU0AAm_SC.jpg (44KB, 720x726px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 720x726px

>>132428727
Climate science relies on climate models which are bs. So are their measurements. So its not credible, either way. They have bad data and bad models.

>>132429053
Yes well if their models are incorrect then obviously their position is not built on empirical data.

>>132427639
Why do leftwing faggots never do any research before they open their mouths?
1. Most of our oxygen comes from photoplankton and not trees
2. The planet is getting greener because of increased co2

File: 50225507.jpg (102KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 400x400px

>>132427639
>climate change
mentally ill faggot detected

>>132429187
>>co2 is a greenhouse gas
>>hey guys increase in co2 means the planet is greener

the fuck?

Is it theoretically possible to biologicaly engineer a tree that can do this? I mean.. the Lord designed a species that is capable of flying to space.

File: model enhanced.png (2MB, 3000x3000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3000x3000px

>>132428637
Yeah any real environmentalist has to support nuclear as a means of transitioning to a carbon neutral/negative economy. The cost of climate change is far to great to worry about comparatively trivial, local damage done by nuclear.

>>132428831
Its hard to compare GHG emissions in a global economy though. Why stop the buck at Asia? Most of their emissions are due to demand for consumer goods in first world countries. Each country serves a different purpose in production that is dependent on all other countries, China and India should and are being forced to reduce emissions however you must realise that in order to do this an maintain living standards that they will have to continue to rely on cheaper dirtier forms of energy.

>>132429053
Well if they're BS then they're lucky BS because they're almost always correct.

But hardly any rightwingers sent climate change? Nice try, disinfo.

>>132427939
sucks that the algae will die out due to rising ocean temperatures

File: Climate sensitivity.jpg (39KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 500x375px

>>132429175
its only built on empirical evidence. Climate sensitivity to different heating/cooling mechanisms (forcings) wasn't just pulled out of the ass of some climate scientist it's based on hundreds of thousands of years of climate data and the changing prevalence of the mechanisms.

>>132429273
Guy who's way too confident in his knowledge of the field detected.

File: your cities.jpg (421KB, 1024x418px) Image search: [Google]

421KB, 1024x418px

>>132427639
Actual conservatives and traditionalists would be very pro-conservation and environmentalist. Our current system is just too controlled by corporations for people like that to get a foothold in politics.

>>132430166
>its only built on empirical evidence
The models are by definition not empirical if they can't make accurate predictions (such as large parts of the country supposedly being underwater right now)

Empirical means observably correct since you seem to fail to comprehend the word.

>>132430427
This, thread.

File: 1424992103272.jpg (77KB, 402x594px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 402x594px

>>132427639
I had 2500 trees planted on my property a few years ago, what have you done for the environment you filthy leaf?

>>132430427
what if it's all a big hoax and we waste enormous amounts of time and money enacting changes that have no significant effect on the climate whatsoever, destroying our infrastructure and economy in the process?

File: Nothing_is_beyond_our_reach.svg.png (1MB, 2000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2000x2000px

>>132429712
>Well if they're BS then they're lucky BS because they're almost always correct.

Mentally ill libtard alert.

File: SLR projection.png (134KB, 864x597px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 864x597px

>>132430445
>The models are by definition not empirical if they can't make accurate predictions (such as large parts of the country supposedly being underwater right now)
Predicted by politicians not scientists, pic related shows the empirical model for sea level rise

>>132430778
This.
So far climate evangelists have not convinced me we can actually stop climate change (not to mention that it getting warmer will in the long run increase the net amount of life on the planet by producing a warmer and more carbon rich environment for plant life). Last I had checked if we spent a significant portion of our GDP on the """solutions""" put forward in the PCA it would put off a dangerous level of climate shift for a few months, that assuming that every member actually did that and did it for another hundred years.

File: christy_dec8.jpg (151KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 960x720px

>>132431129
Lmfao.

>>132431129
The projection is they will rise somewhere between 0-6cm lol

that's not the best projection

File: 1496382526815.jpg (230KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 1920x1080px

>>132430166
C02 refraction has never been proven to affect global or even local temperatures faglord, in fact,
there is no proof it is a driver of temperature at all.

>>132427639
Some don't

Lots of White Nationalist / Far-Right groups have significant overlap with Environmentalist groups

It's your standard run of the mill conservative that doesn't a give fuck because they're fed bullshit by oil and coal groups

File: slide31.png (70KB, 720x540px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 720x540px

>>132431677
The period 1910-1945 comprises about 40% of the warming since 1900, but is associated with only 10% of the carbon dioxide increase since 1900. Tree fuckers btfo.

File: Sattelite TMT v projections.png (231KB, 1280x912px) Image search: [Google]

231KB, 1280x912px

>>132431092
>This is what hours of molymeme does to your brain
Take it from someone who also used to deny a lot of science, be more humble about what you know. The people working in these fields are smarter than almost everyone you know and dedicate their whole life to understanding incredibly narrow fields which you or I know only a fraction of a percent about.

>>132431361
Fuck so much wrong with this.

For one why take the average of three balloon and three satellite data sets? They all have different methodologies and their own biases and rarely agree in their records.

Where are the uncertainty ranges? Does the evidence agree with the predictions? This graph could never tell us. We could only know in a graph showing the 95% CI.

What satellite and balloon datasets are being used for this graph? Satellite and balloon data is subject to by far the most error among all data sources due to the perils of adjusting for impacts such as orbital decay. Its important that we're shown just how much these estimates measured by satellite vary.

Pic related shows the three 'main' satellite datasets seperate against the IPCC projection WITH the CI.

Its also important to note that its flawed to be basing your critiques off one prediction of one value and only a handful of the existing data series. A fair analysis of the evidence should take into account all the models and all the datasets and also account for how valid the results may be.

File: long term climate.jpg (29KB, 450x386px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 450x386px

>>132431627
There were projections made by those on the other side of the issue showing a falling sea level. Also note how SLR projections have been highly conservative, we almost underestimated rate of sea level rise.

>>132431677
In the snowball earth whilst all other factors remained constant or were accounted for CO2 concentration increased causing the warming of the earth and eventual melting of the snowball earth

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222409250_Models_on_Snowball_Earth_and_Cambrian_explosion_A_synopsis
Deglaciation periods preceded by orbital forcing would not have been possible in their scope if it were because of orbital forcing alone, the greenhouse effect due to CO2 and other greenhouse gases must have taken place to cause this

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222818998_CO2-forced_climate_thresholds_during_the_Phanerozoic
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/2009Q1/111/Readings/Lorius1990_ice-core.pdf

File: slide5.png (90KB, 720x540px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 720x540px

>>132432997
I'm a research chemist faggot. Climate science is a lie.

>>132433436
>Also note how SLR projections have been highly conservative, we almost underestimated rate of sea level rise.
Yes I see that, which shows the projections are low reliability considering it was JUST inside the 0-6cm projected rise..

>>132427639
Right wingers understand that the left has blown this completely out of proportion. And we're tired of the boy who cried wolf bullshit with global warming.

>>132427639
I'm about as right wing as they come and I care about the environment. This is the only planet we have. If we fuck it up there's nowhere else to go. A lot of people just parrot all of the views of the Republican party. They have to start thinking for themselves.

>>132427639
Environmentalism is a key concept in NatSoc societies.

File: 1454730716515.jpg (17KB, 429x399px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 429x399px

>>132427639
>Plants produce the oxygen we need to live
>Plants need CO2 to grow
>Right-wingers produce CO2 to help plants grow and to provide cheap power so even the poor can afford it
> The left wants to decrease CO2

Why does the left hate environment, the poor and human advancement?

>>132433501
Ok then if your telling the truth you should understand how retarded it would be for me, someone with only a first year uni understanding of chemistry, to come along and say your field is bullshit and have complete confidence in my assertions

Also there are some problems with the pic. For one it doesn't tell us the data source of the estimates which can cause great variation in recorded sensitivity >>132430166. Additionally it doesn't claim to summarise all current knowledge on CS just the conclusions of recent studies which may or may not be neutrally selected.

>>132430778
did you even look at my stupid comic? it asserts that even if the planet genuinely doesnt give a shit about what we do, pollution is undeniably bad for humans who live near it.

fucking hell.

>>132427639
There are more trees in my neighborhood than wifi routers idiot.

>>132428753
Only when you make one.

>>132433691
Nobodies ever claimed models to be perfectly reliable, there are simply far too many essentially unpredictable factors for a 100% reliable to ever be constructed. Still SLR fell within the range that it was predicted to fall within.

>>132427639
Because any plan that doesnt involve sterilizing fast amounts of low IQ whites and basically all of africa wont do anything. These half measures are basically a power grab by the left that wont do anything.

>>132435353
>Nobodies ever claimed models to be perfectly reliable
They are claiming a level of reliability I don't see demonstrated.

>Still SLR fell within the range that it was predicted to fall within.
It fell within range sometimes, and considering the prediction was "there would be a rise" it's not a very useful model.

File: hidden castle RU.jpg (1MB, 2341x2160px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2341x2160px

>>132427639

>>132430247
>>132431877
>>132434131
Agreed with those two. Right wingers have every reason to support the environment, but the (((Republicans))) are our only representative here in America, and just like democrats they seen to be more interested in the interests of multinationals than the health of our country.

>>132435880
Its just claimed that it in 95% of all scenarios it will fall in a certain range which is the case >>132429712

>It fell within range sometimes, and considering the prediction was "there would be a rise" it's not a very useful model.
Its a +/- 2 cm estimate how accurate would you have it be?

>>132427639
They're low IQs impede them from engaging in critical thinking

>>132436898
>Its a +/- 2 cm estimate how accurate would you have it be?
In 2010 it is a +/-5cm prediction

>>132427639
You'll find that the further right you go, the more concerned with nature people are.

>>132437377
Got it a bit off actually, the entire length of the interval is 5cm but it varies 2.5cm above and below the mean projection

>>132427639
Conservatives like trees, they just dont like you.

>>132427639
There's nothing we can do about global warming, scientist has said that even if we do contribute to it, there's no way we can reverse the effects.

If we cant do anything about it, then why the fuck don't we focus on bracing the impact global warming (while heeding the possibility that the effects may have been exaggerated).

Why are we focusing on global warming if we cant do shit about it instead of focusing on our polution with plastic and non-perishable items?

>>132429175
Data is filtered into it, but it isn't represented properly. Climate models can't even project backwards correctly a lot of the time. There are just so many variables, and we don't know how they interact properly, even now.

You can take as much data as you want, but if you can't put it into a conclusion for prediction, then it's useless.

Everyone likes nature. There's nothing like feeling the sun on your face, smelling fresh air after rainfall or feeling grass between your toes.

>>132437760
And we think you're too stupid to begin to understand this. But feel free to rattle on about man made climate change.

How many trees have you planted?

>>132427639

make wi-fi that works using oxygen

>>132438391
If all houses contain wood, are all houses then tree-houses?

File: greenazi.jpg (255KB, 907x1360px) Image search: [Google]

255KB, 907x1360px

>>132427639
Hmm

File: uhhh.jpg (21KB, 505x550px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 505x550px

>>132437281
>They're low IQs

>>132427639

Someone probably said this already, but it has been proven that we could easily continue on living with if all flora suddenly vanished. There's enough breathable oxygen in the atmosphere for another 1000 years. By that time we'd find alternatives. The technological innovations in the past century have been insane when compared to the rest of human history. If they continue at this pace or faster, we can easily achieve space travel, AI, fusion power, etc... within 1k years.

>>132427639
We could literally be exploring the stars if not for the jews corrupting scientific progress and starting wars.

>>132427639
"nature knows no disasters"
This is all just the circle of life.
If we take it too far well die and earth will continue on like nothing ever happened.
It will all end when our sun dies but before you can rly give a shit about what's going to happen.
Yolo

>>132427639
Republicans aren't anti-tree you fucking faggot.

>>132427639
Lrn2Algae treefag
They're like trees, but not shit at making oxygen from CO2

>>132440891
>but it has been proven that we could easily continue on living with if all flora suddenly vanished
citation?

Sure, because we don't rely on the ecosystem to hold the soil together and feed ourselves