Global warming

>>134108364
>Global warming
>Fake news
That pretty much sums up who denies it and their logic.

>>134108364

american dum-dums are taught from an early age to be suspicious of anyone more intelligent than them instead of engaging in articulated debate

two phrases you'll never hear from an american "wow I didn't know that" and "thanks for enlightening me on this"

File: Obesity-America.jpg (237KB, 698x562px) Image search: [Google]

237KB, 698x562px

>>134108364
We don't want to abandon the lifestyle that caused it in the first place. It's the same reason why this nation is full of fat fucks.

>>134109493
But there is no reason to abandon that lifestyle. You just need to do what Frenchies do - invest in nuclear and enjoy cheap and clean energy. Also, electric cars.

>>134108364
http://www.gallup.com/poll/206030/global-warming-concern-three-decade-high.aspx
A majority of us do think climate change is an issue. A majority of us also didn't vote for Trump.

>>134109786
>invest in nuclear
Liberals hate nuclear energy and conservatives can't profit from it like oil.

>>134108364
I have completely lost faith in anything involved with the U.S. government. If climate change is happening I guarantee the climate scientists are still lying because the entire thing is a criminal enterprise

File: DDBuEzEUIAAmkpV.jpg (159KB, 758x1024px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 758x1024px

>>134109934
>A majority of us also didn't vote for Trump.
That majority consisted of urban brown people so their vote counted less.

>>134109962
>Liberals hate nuclear energy and conservatives can't profit from it like oil.
Nuclear generally isn't in competition with oil.

>>134109119
>two phrases you'll never hear from an american "wow I didn't know that" and "thanks for enlightening me on this"
I wouldn't say the latter, but I have said the former plenty times.

You however are a faggot
and >>134108364
Nobody denies that climates change, that's denying seasons. People are skeptical of the claim "the world is warming and it's your fault for using (insert commercial product here)." I happen to be one of those skeptics, and I really would like to know when this supposed climate change of yours started, because you can't be talking about the world's temperature naturally changing. I understand that our carbon footprint can play a role, but I cast doubt on the veracity of claims that say it's more impactful than our magnetosphere, among other, natural factors.

I find you uneducated of your claims and pathetic for calling others names. You deserve what you reap.

Also, Americans like to do this thing called irony. If you give us a shitpost, we usually like to shitpost back, to let you know that's what we're seeing on our end, it's why american in-fighting has such good banter here. It's fun, and you should try it, instead of making us give you a real reply.

>>134110341
actually faggot it consisted of a minority of states, and we're not a democracy.
Mad cause bad.

File: image.jpg (77KB, 750x371px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 750x371px

>>134110442
>g. I understand that our carbon footprint can play a role, but I cast doubt on the veracity of claims that say it's more impactful than our magnetosphere, among other, natural factors.
...ok. Why is thay? Is it because you are a Christian and Christians believe humans cannot be more powerful than nature?

File: co2.png (151KB, 595x600px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 595x600px

>>134110827
The physics behind current situation.

Adding more CO2 can't cause more warming because their is no energy left that CO2 can absorb.

>>134108364

>why do Americans deny

We're resistant to government and media indoctrination and have the first amendment. Also we do not deny that some of it is man made.

File: 14883652471488.jpg (4KB, 125x124px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 125x124px

>>134108364
Why do Germans deny that kikes are liars and are only using MUH GLOBAL WARMING to usher in the Jew World Order? Is it the radical cucks in Germany who still believe in the Holohoax because they hate the thought of being BTFO'd by commies?

>"A New World Order is required to deal with the Climate Change crisis."
-Mikhail Gorbachev

>"The emerging 'environmentalization' of our civilization and the need for vigorous action in the interest of the entire global community will inevitably have multiple political consequences. Perhaps the most important of them will be a gradual change in the status of the United Nations. Inevitably, it must assume some aspects of a world government."
-Mikhail Gorbachev

>Why is capitalism incompatible with sustainability
http://www.cpusa.org/faq/why-is-capitalism-incompatible-with-sustainability/

>Communist Agenda Behind Climate Change Movement
http://www.breitbart.com/california/2014/09/24/communist-agenda-behind-climate-change/

>UN Climate Chief Says Communism is Best Way to Fight Global Warming
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/heatherginsberg/2014/01/19/un-climate-chief-says-communism-is-best-way-to-fight-global-warming-n1779973

>Climate Alarmists Push Chinese Communism, Population Control
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/17650-climate-alarmists-push-chinese-communism-population-control

>'People’s Climate March’ Backed By Communist, Socialist Parties
http://dailycaller.com/2014/09/11/peoples-climate-march-backed-by-communist-socialist-parties/

>>134108364
>why do Americans deny it is man made?

You should also ask the Russians. They don't swallow your crap either.

>>134111217
>Adding more CO2 can't cause more warming because their is no energy left that CO2 can absorb.
You stupid or something? We aren't near 25C average temp which is about the max temp based on our current land mass distribution and atmosphere at rather high CO, CH4 etc. concentrations.

File: image.gif (28KB, 660x417px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 660x417px

>>134112096

File: 1500405836599.jpg (24KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 480x360px

earth is expanding, aka not man made.
or is it , are you implying man made earth ????
we shure as hell made the moon.

>>134112096

I think he's talking about heat saturation of CO2 itself.

>>134111364

100% of it is manmade and it's main causes are our globalized supply chains, the expansion of agricultural and livestock activities into natural habitats and the burning of fossil fuels

or are we going through some kind of cataclysmic volcanic eruption age?

>>134112291
And I am saying we know from historic records we got 8-10C to go from greenhouse gas increases. Why should the past not be a good indication for our current situation?

>>134112291

which is absolutely besides the point and shows how little he understands about the subject

the problem is not that we are generating more heat which a fixed amount of CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs more and more until it saturates; the problem is that the fixed amount of heat that hits the Earth from the sun is getting trapped within a greater amount of CO2 which we pump into the atmosphere at greater rates than it can naturally degrade

>>134112310
>100% of it is manmade

You drank the fucken cool-aid.

>>134112693
>And I am saying we know from historic records we got 8-10C to go from greenhouse gas increases.

Bullshit. You have absolutely no fucking way of knowing this. You're just pulling that number out of your asshole.

File: 9867342.gif (2MB, 400x299px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 400x299px

>>134108364
It's global communism, and an explicit effort to seize the production and wealth of "resistant" nations, and then redistribute that wealth to compliant nations. America, despite reneging on the Paris Accord, can still easily meet the super special emissions restrictions without having to give billions of dollars to India and China. Big fucking surprise that EU cocksuckers are 'deeply concerned'. Go fuck yourselves, if you want to save the planet go blow your brains out - one less commie fag shitting up the place.

>>134112703
>which is absolutely besides the point

Because you say so. Sorry, you're not an authority on any thing.

>>134112930
We got no way of knowing this? Just that the 25C ceiling has happened several times over the last 500 million years?

>>134112096
Which has what to do with CO2 emissions?

CO2 warming is capped out. Adding more will do nothing.

>>134113138

But you were referring to CO2. You don't know the various saturation points of the various gases that compose the atmosphere. And if you say you do, you're a god damned liar.

>>134112777

it is you who drank the piss out of the conservative talking heads who don't know a single thing about natural sciences

there ARE natural fluctuations to the planet's climate, nobody denies that

global warming or climate change by DEFINITION is the phenomenon that deviates from these known natural fluctuations, which are well understood and used by propagandists to manipulate people like you

>>134113080

it's like you didn't even read the rest of the post

Climate change is influenced by man. However, what America does is inconsequential as long as India and China keep pouring shit into the atmosphere a hundred times more than we do.

>>134112703
>the problem is not that we are generating more heat which a fixed amount of CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs more and more until it saturates; the problem is that the fixed amount of heat that hits the Earth from the sun is getting trapped within a greater amount of CO2 which we pump into the atmosphere at greater rates than it can naturally degrade

The amount of energy leaving the Earth in the spectra that CO2 absorbs on is at the limit of 0.
Adding more CO2 can't raise the temperature higher.

File: IMG_0611.jpg (74KB, 476x616px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 476x616px

The whole solar system is warming. It's not our system or our original sun. It will heat until every planet is a barren burnt rock. Humans have no role. We should be trying to extinguish our sun so our true star the black sun shall arise from its sleep deep in the gasses of Saturn . Her holy purple light will shine down amplified by mars and Venus if they still work as planetary lenses. Whites we're the first humans. They burned and became dark as the bastard sun burned our beautiful jewel. It wasn't an asteroid. It was the new sun

>>134113503
>it's like you didn't even read the rest of the post

It was just cultic true believer drivel. Like listening to a religious maniac.

Scientists are supposed to be skeptical.

Considering at pressure is constant. Global warming is pure bullshit.

>>134113642

that conclusion doesn't really follow from that piece of data, it just shows CO2 is efficient at absorbing energy, it doesn't adress the changing composition of the atmosphere

also there are hypothesized delayed and multiplying warming effects to CO2 (specially if you account for interaction with other gases) and adding more at this point will at the very least extend the problem to much longer into the future as it takes a long time to degrade in the atmosphere

>>134113907

hmm no honey I think you meant galaxy and no it is in fact getting colder or less energetic

>>134114939

This proves how stupid you are. The guy was obviously trolling.

>>134113632
China is barely the largest greenhouse gas emitter and with Trump in charge America will reclaim the throne of biggest greenhouse gas emitter soon.

India? Jesus, what? They don't even eat cows!

>>134114803
>also there are hypothesized delayed and multiplying warming effects to CO2

Hypotheses are hypotheses. Not "settled science."

>>134113476
I was refering to global average temps as per fossil records of the last 500 million years (time with plants on surface). Max average temps alwaya peaked at 25C regardless of greenhouse gas concentrations.

>>134113632
Since the US is still one of the largest CO2 emitters, cutting it definitely isn't 'inconsequential.' And China is investing billions into clean energy as we speak. They're kind of forced to looking at how horrible their air is.

File: All_palaeotemps.png (90KB, 1753x565px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 1753x565px

>>134110442
Claiming seasons are the same as climate shows a lack of understanding of the terms at play.

Climate describes overall behavior from year to year, not the changes within a year. For example, A temperate climate will have warm summers and cold winters, where a tropical climate has a rainy and dry seasons, etc. The seasons are aspects of the climate you're in. Changing seasons doesn't change the climate.

>>134110827
Here's a relatively complete chart of all temperature over time we have recorded. Note how much farther back it goes than yours (500 million years vs ~350 thousand, ie >1000x farther). Note that current temperatures are still below average, which supports the "current ice age" claim. This claim is also supported by the fact that we have year-round ice at the poles, which is not always the case as archeologically shown. Also note that the chart shows multiple forms of temperature sources differently, even when they overlap, and provides individual sources for each data set shown.

Also worth noting: The source for the CO2 concentrations you provide is, other than the final data set, from the same ice samples as the temperature readings. The methodology is relatively simple, much like geologic dating: measure layers of freezing and melting, count them, and you have your years. Measure the CO2 trapped in the layers, and you have that year's relative CO2 concentration.

However, the final set is from CO2 concentrations in-atmosphere around the globe. These are not comparable measurements to CO2 trapped in ice at the poles (wildly different climates), and the fact they are treated as the same on this chart is highly misleading.

>>134114803
>that conclusion doesn't really follow from that piece of data, it just shows CO2 is efficient at absorbing energy, it doesn't adress the changing composition of the atmosphere

That doesn't matter unless we are now going to investigate gasses produced from CO2 and the other atmospheric gasses creating new compounds that have different characteristics. CO2 is stable and needs a large amount of energy to disrupt, it's why it is used in fire suppression.

>also there are hypothesized delayed and multiplying warming effects to CO2 (specially if you account for interaction with other gases) and adding more at this point will at the very least extend the problem to much longer into the future as it takes a long time to degrade in the atmosphere

I doubt we have many second order effects from CO2 concentration that wouldn't have manifested by now that are not vastly more complex interaction with other potential factors.

For example what's the temperature effect of having more CO2 on plant life. Does the change in growth rate that changes the weather still get count as a CO2 effect?

The only new potential interaction CO2 can have on the climate are no longer related to it's power as a greenhouse gas. CO2 has more or less capped out the amount of warming it can cause.

>>134112703
Brazilian education and TV right here folks

I bet you are a carioca fag

>>134114939
You were trying to talk about the universe princess. Steven hawking is a quack fucker. The one who proposed the great cooling. Just because the universe is universally cooling things can still heat

>>134113189
>CO2 warming is capped out. Adding more will do nothing.
I trust data more than you. And physics. Nature doesn't provide for some magic "on-off" switch. For any given gas pressure in our atmosphere, every gas in that atmosphere has a certain combined likelihood of interacting with photons of different wavelenghta. As with all gases, if you're increase their concentration, interactions go up. It is not a linear trendline, but it certainly isn't a sharp increase followed by a flat no-increase line.

>>134112703
The warming effect of adding CO2 plateaus: You need to add more and more CO2 to get the same amount of warming. The growth rate of our CO2 emissions was driven by thepopulation growth rate of the 20th century, which is itself plateauing.

Ergo the cause of the problem is being solved and all we need to do is adapt to the warming already locked in.

There is no runaway greenhouse effect risk for us.

File: diddle.png (115KB, 1873x573px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 1873x573px

>>134108364
Filthy pagan attacking christians...sounds about right

>>134115375
>Max average temps alwaya peaked at 25C regardless of greenhouse gas concentrations.

Then why are you sweating it? If, as you say, we can disregard greenhouse gas concentrations.

Also, proxy data. Warmologists do whatever the fuck helps them come to their preconceived conclusions with that kind of dubious low-resolution "data."

Just have a look at Michael Mann's tree rings.

>>134108364
>It is a bad thing
Is it really? Canada and Siberia become habitable, and the third world burns/starves/drowns. Seems like a good thing to me.

>>134108364
It's just the Gasbergs and Ovenbergs looking out for the Icebergs.

>>134115747
Law of dimishing returns. You have to double the amount of CO2 to get the same amount of warming as half the amount.

IE from x CO2 ppm warming you need to add 2x CO2 ppm then 4xppm to keep getting the same amount of warming.

How is global warming bad? We're turning the shitskin countries into deserts and turning the poles into hospitable areas that whites can colonize. The kikes and niggers will starve to death while whites will get nicer, sunnier weather and new lands to conquer.

>>134108364

You're insinuating that the weather is only changing because of us, despite the weather having always changed (i.e. ice age). Most Republicans don't deny the weather changing, they deny that fact of us being the only reason for it changing.

>>134115747
>I trust data more than you. And physics. Nature doesn't provide for some magic "on-off" switch.
No. Which is why I later said the limit of zero.

>For any given gas pressure in our atmosphere, every gas in that atmosphere has a certain combined likelihood of interacting with photons of different wavelenghta. As with all gases, if you're increase their concentration, interactions go up. It is not a linear trendline, but it certainly isn't a sharp increase followed by a flat no-increase line.

And CO2 has the limit of total interaction or absorption. Adding more doesn't stop any more energy from exiting out to space, as we already stop the limit of all of it.

Lets say you have a normal flashlight. If you cover it in aluminum foil you block the visible light completely. What you are saying is that by adding more foil you can block more of the visible light. I'm saying it's already all blocked and adding more isn't going to do anything.

>>134108364
It is good that it is happening just move to a place that will be least affected by it. In the meanwhile the world will go to hell with 70 to 1 ratio of niggers and whites dying from random tornado and 9000+ year old ebola from glacier.

>>134115906
We can disregard greenhouse gas emissions over a certain concentration as their atmospheric effect tapers down as concentration increases. At around 25C average global temp you just do not get any higher even if you quite massively increase CO2 levelas. You would have to get into levels for beyond 5000ppm such as 50,000ppm or 5-10 percent to go a significant portion higher than 25C.

I am not sweating anything, by the way. I am ok with a 22nd century Earth with a desert Africa and desert Asia, but an jnhabited Greeland, Siberia, Northern Canada and Antarctica.

>>134115766
>There is no runaway greenhouse effect risk for us.

Yep.

CO2 concentrations have in the geologic past been much higher than now and there was no runaway effect.

>>134115766

methane trapped in the permafrost is the big daddy and we're playing with fire

>all we need to do is adapt to the warming already locked in

no shit we can adapt to almost whatever global warming throws our way (except ocean acidification) but it won't be any fun

>>134116361
Colonizing Antarctica wouldn't be fun?

>>134115961
>You have to double the amount of CO2 to get the
Yes, that is what I said. Max temp for "normal" greenhouse has increases has been around 25C.

>>134116094
>You're insinuating that the weather is only changing because of u
I don't think I talked about the weather at all, Darral. You must have replied to the wrong thread.

>>134116313

None of what you have stated supports the climate catastrophe narrative.

Because majority of the issue is caused by other nations, who couldnt care less about water levels rising or polar bears dying. If all actions suggested that Americans take were taken, emmisions would got down by at best 2%, which is not a high number

>>134116361
>methane trapped in the permafrost is the big daddy

Another hypotheses.

>>134116313
Other greenhouse gasses can cause more warming. However all of those gasses have short life spans in our atmosphere; the more you have the more is removed.

The halfing trend really makes short lived gasses hard to accumulate in large amounts.

>>134116094
Weather is not climate. Humans are the dominant cause of current climate change, but nobody worth their salt would ever say they're the 'only reason' it's changing.

>>134116187
>And CO2 has the limit of total interaction or absorption. Adding more doesn't stop any more energy from exiting out to space, as we already stop the limit of all of it.
Around 1000watts are dissipating into space per m2 every second of sunshine.

Not sure what the fuck you are talking about. If greenhouse gases were trapping 100 percent of all sunlight, the Earth would appear black from space.

>>134116435

depends on the kinds of viruses dormant down there and I doubt the soil would be of any quality if it isn't all bedrock

>>134116324
And no credible scientists claims there is a runaway greenhouse has effect to come on Earth. 5-10C changes still make quite some difference. I for one would hate to see all these Dutch Amsterdam hippies move to Germany after their shitty bike city disappears.

>>134116847

I think you are purposely taking him 100% literal. He obviously recognizes that CO2 interacts within specific bands of energy.

>>134116847
The wavelengths that CO2 absorbs energy on are totally absorbed by overlap with other gasses and by the CO2 currently in the atmosphere.

So adding more CO2 can't absorb more energy. You can see through CO2 because the wavelengths of visible light pass through it. If you could see other frequencies or energy levels of light you could eventually find the wavelengths it absorbs on and it would block your sight.

>>134108364
How come all the solutions require massive taxes and wealth redistribution to the 3rd world but do not go after the biggest polluters?

Also has nothing at all to do with there being 7 billion people running around. The warming could be from all our excess body heat.

>>134108364
We ain't giving the global banks SHIT, old man.

>>134117663

except you alraedy are since financing is a massive source of soft power

>>134117367
The planet is cooled by radiation which goes around greenhouse gases, not through them. Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation (IR) in three narrow bands of wavelengths, which are 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (µM). ... About 8% of the available black body radiation is picked up by these "fingerprint" frequencies of CO2.
-----

Current CO2 concentrations don't even come close to block those 8 percent. If they did, we would all be dead in a frying heatpan.

>>134117385
They do not require any transfers.

The solutions require investments in nuclear, Electric cars, electric trucks, housing, infrastructure, biofuels etc.

It also requires a mindchange away from jobs in coal and oil and gas.

File: climateChange1976.png (290KB, 284x638px) Image search: [Google]

290KB, 284x638px

Its too cold though

>>134117663

Globalist Bank Accounts to be more specific. They're getting our money in all kinds of ways.

>>134117914
>The planet is cooled by radiation which goes around greenhouse gases, not through them.

This is a semantical argument that contributes nothing other than to make it seem like you are correcting somebody. Warmies really do debate just like liberals.

>>134117914
I literally posted the graph showing what is absorbed.
Most of the emitted radiation is between 8nm and 13nm.

>>134108364
It's a combination of a lot of things, but the biggest issue is that no current policy-maker will still be alive when it gets really bad. That allows you to deny it exists, and then choose your own adventure when deciding why you'll ignore it. Among the reasons:

>God will take care of it
>Doing something about it would hurt businesses
>I might have to agree with a lib on something
>Muh taxes
>But the coal jobs!

These people need to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century.

>>134118583
µm not nm.

>>134118583
And i just told you we would all be dead if CO2 right now would literally be absorbing all he light in the fingerprint frequencies which it can interact with.

Dude, you can even test this at home. Just set up a balloon, a temp measurement instrument and an UV light. Based on different ballon CO2 mixtures you will get different heating curves.

>>134117914
>Current CO2 concentrations don't even come close to block those 8 percent.

>block those 8 percent

Nobody even made this claim. At saturation, CO2 stops ABSORBING.

>>134108364
what about the massive geothermal activity under the oceans in the arctic and antarctic area?

>>134118097
>They do not require any transfers.
>The solutions require investments in nuclear, Electric cars, electric trucks, housing, infrastructure, biofuels etc.

That's a huge wealth transfer. And other than with nuclear, has not been proven to work without huge government incentives to offset economic losses.

>>134108364
The Green House Effect makes sense and the current status of the world suggests the theory is correct, therefore I will adopt it into my beliefs and understanding of our world.
>Liberals/Progressives also support this
"What the fuck, Global Warming isn't real! I see snow outside, idiot!"
The politics, there every where nowa days.

>>134118871
>And i just told you we would all be dead if CO2 right now would literally be absorbing all he light in the fingerprint frequencies which it can interact with.

You are aware than when the CO2 absorbs EM energy, it emits EM energy at a lower energy carrying away some of the energy off and further up?

The CO2 heating effect while absorbing all the energy at the set wavelengths is also passing on a large amount of energy at a different lower energy wavelength. It's not capturing all the energy as heat, only losing it as black body radiation.

>Dude, you can even test this at home. Just set up a balloon, a temp measurement instrument and an UV light. Based on different ballon CO2 mixtures you will get different heating curves.

I'd love to hear what balloon you can use that's transparent to UV light and transparent to the lower energy emissions of the CO2.

>>134118871
>And i just told you we would all be dead if CO2 right now would literally be absorbing all he light in the fingerprint frequencies which it can interact with.

He never made an argument that it could even be possible to do that.

File: 1447622860416.jpg (45KB, 570x487px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 570x487px

>be me , romanian
> we regularly have -30 C winters
> hear about Global Warming
> mfw, I really hope it's real.

>>134119300

if oilrigs manage to be economic viable (plenty are struggling now btw with the low oil prices) anything can be economic viable given a certain level of economies of scale, it's just a matter of who gets there first and you are being left in the dirt cuck

File: Time-Climate-Covers.jpg (44KB, 509x340px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 509x340px

>>134118170
The science is settled.

Ban all germs from this board

>>134119417
>The CO2 heating effect while absorbing all the energy
The CO2 and other gasses, like water vapor.

>>134108364
>It is a bad thing
Why is that? Worst case scenario is that we colonize northern Canada and populate Russia.

>>134119302
>The Green House Effect makes sense and the current status of the world suggests the theory is correct, therefore I will adopt it into my beliefs and understanding of our world.

Okay. But don't concoct any crazy doomsday theories with it.

>>134119642
>if oilrigs manage to be economic viable (plenty are struggling now btw with the low oil prices) anything can be economic viable

So, because oil is so cheap it is not as economically viable. Do you realize just how stupid your argument is? Probably not.

>>134108364

warming and cooling of the globe is cyclical, like many elements of nature. if you can prove with evidence that we are not just currently in one of these ever present cycles, then i'm all ears.

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


not saying pumping a tonne of shit into the atmosphere is beneficial, just it's effects have been over exaggerated and the earths natural cycles have been exploited to push an agenda

File: globalcoolinglitreview.png (60KB, 405x311px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 405x311px

>>134119643
One on the left is fake. Even if it wasn't, it doesn't discount the fact there were six times as many papers in the 1970s predicting global warming than there were predicting global cooling.

>>134120241
>So, because oil is so cheap it is not as economically viable. Do you realize just how stupid your argument is? Probably not.

Lets say you can produce 1000 units of oil at a cost of 50 units of money. If the price of oil falls below 50 units you can't make any money producing that oil.

If the price was 75 units of money you could produce your 1000 units of oil and maybe look at expanding.

If the price of oil was $80 you would make a huge amount of production viable again.
Right now everyone is looking at ways to cut costs. Some production isn't viable because the price of oil is lower than the cost of production.

File: shlomo.jpg (44KB, 255x212px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 255x212px

>>134120922
>A (((paper))) was published. It must be real, goys!
Also, found the commie kike.

>>134121240
Yeah, why look at a literature review of other papers when you can just look at some fake image? Found the low IQ retard.

>>134117863
>except you alraedy are

Well, technically there is an exchange taking place in the global Fiat currency scheme...

We rent their worthless ink and paper, and they agree not to assassinate our leaders.

Right?

>>134120241

Can you even read? Do you stop reading midsentence? Do you think for a second? Given your participation in this thread I'm seriously doubting it.

My point is if we managed to make such a complex, costly and risky activity such as extracting oil from the depths of the ocean floor economic viable, electric cars and solar power don't seem so farfetched. Setting all the business and economic talk aside, if as a society we decide to pursue "green" energy it WILL become a reality because that's what humans fucking do.

>>134120922
>there were six times as many papers in the 1970s predicting global warming


Another lie brought to you by Big Climate. If you were alive in the seventies you would have strongly questioned this claim from the beginning. Global cooling was actually being taught in schools.

99.9% of people that hears this lie will never hear a retraction. It's like The New York Fucking Times.

http://notrickszone.com/2016/09/13/massive-cover-up-exposed-285-papers-from-1960s-80s-reveal-robust-global-cooling-scientific-consensus/

File: tumblr_ost88dImTe1s2yc47o5_1280.jpg (135KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 1200x800px

how can there be global warming if the world isnt a globe?

>>134121355
Yeah, why use logic when you can just look at unsourced infographics posted by anonymous commie kikes parroting anonymous commie kikes? Found the hook-nosed inbred.

>>134120929
>Lets say you can produce 1000 units of oil at a cost of 50 units of money. If the price of oil falls below 50 units you can't make any money producing that oil.

This will never happen. There will never be an energy shortage due to low prices.

Think it through, man.

File: 1491076437852.gif (577KB, 540x540px) Image search: [Google]

577KB, 540x540px

>>134108364
>It is a bad thing
Actually, historically the worst plagues and famines accompany periods of cooling, not warming. Warming generally brings boons.

According to historical record.

File: seafuel.jpg (142KB, 1087x664px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 1087x664px

>>134121596
Why waste time with electric cars when you can make fuel from water?

Take a nuclear reactor, use it to crack hydrogen from water.
Extract CO2 that dissolves in water.
Run through a catalytic process and get custom made hydrocarbon fuel out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8zOHZINyG8

Keep all your current ICEs, distribution networks and technical know how. All you do is replace the refinery and production side with something different.

Due to how the electrical grid works, you have period of low electrical demand. In those times you produce the hydrogen, letting your reactors run at 100% output.

>>134108364
Explain to me then why a 2 degree rise in temperature over 100 years is devastating on an apocalyptic scale that you "educated geniuses" seem to tout about.

>>134121884
>This will never happen. There will never be an energy shortage due to low prices.
>Think it through, man.
It's actually happening right now with natural gas.

The price of natural gas is so low that wells are being shut in and processing plants are shutting down or running in ultra low output mode.

While at the same time people that want to buy natural gas are having trouble due a lack of supply. While they might want to buy the gas no single consumer is large enough for production facilities to resume production.

Right now we have low prices, extra production, distribution and refining capacity, but a shortage of natural gas.

>>134121596
>My point is if we managed to make such a complex, costly and risky activity such as extracting oil from the depths of the ocean floor economic viable, electric cars and solar power don't seem so farfetched.

You didn't say this in any way, shape or form in your previous post. So the new gist of it is that if we can make oil more expensive then those other forms of energy will be more viable.

No shit, genius.

Or on the other hand if we can make alternative energy cheaper . . . etc.

No shit. Thanks for contributing to world knowledge, you fucken big giant einstein you.

>>134110442
>Nobody denies that climates change, that's denying seasons

changing of the seasons is WEATHER, not CLIMATE. not even going to read your post beyond that

>>134121692
From your article:

>As will be shown here, the claim that there were only 7 publications from that era disagreeing with the presupposed CO2-warming “consensus” is preposterous. Because when including the papers from the 1960s and 1970s that indicated the globe had cooled (by -0.3° C between the 1940s and ’70s), that this cooling was concerning

Peterson (2008) only looked at papers that predicted global warming, global cooling, or remained neutral. Yet this trash source is saying we should totally include papers that had no predictions at all because they feel like it. There was slight global cooling from the '40s to the '70s, but that says fuck all about a prediction later. It also doesn't mean anything since we now know the planet has warmed since that time period anyway.

>Global cooling was actually being taught in schools

And again, it is true there was slight cooling in that time period. But if schools were teaching that there would be global cooling in the future, they were dead wrong.

File: IMG_0309.png (288KB, 480x550px) Image search: [Google]

288KB, 480x550px

>>134108364
Why? Because some of us know it's a scam.

>>134121818
So your "logic" is posting fake news? Sounds like your thinking rivals that of some dumb edgy teenager, and judging from your flag, you probably are one.

The source is Peterson et al. (2008), but let's not pretend you're actually going to read it.

File: gay_donkey_1301614428976.jpg (155KB, 498x487px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 498x487px

>>134122047
This is a terrible idea. The whole-cycle efficiency of this approach is ~10%, (Burning hydrocarbons in cars is loses 75% alone, then the costs of splitting the water, then the massive losses involved in synthesizing hydrocarbons...)

> For every complex and difficult problem, there is a solution that is *simple* *obvious* and *wrong*.

>>134122424
>Right now we have low prices

Who is we? Whoever it is it is an isolated market anomaly and will correct itself fast in a capitalist society.

I can tell you the "we" have no problem in that way over here.

Why are Germs such easy marks for scam artists?

>>134122592
>Yet this trash source is saying we should totally include papers that had no predictions at all because they feel like it.

Even the warmies don't shun papers that make uncertain predictions. Back then scientists were skeptics, not priests. Most of the current 100% certainty comes from media, not scientists anyway.

>>134122773
>This is a terrible idea. The whole-cycle efficiency of this approach is ~10%, (Burning hydrocarbons in cars is loses 75% alone, then the costs of splitting the water, then the massive losses involved in synthesizing hydrocarbons...)
The process of making the hydrocarbon is actually slightly net positive in total energy for the process. The real energy cost is in cracking the hydrogen and extracting the CO2. However with water near it's critical point the cost in electrical energy to break it is vastly low than at lower temperatures. It's actually cheaper energy wise to heat water to it's critical point and then electrolize it than to do it to water below 100C and at atmospheric pressure.

You forget that we don't need an energy efficient cycle but a money efficient cycle. With the ability to run a nuclear reactor at full load all the time you can build a full nuclear electrical grid and not have a usage factor of only 40%.

The production of liquid fuels also ends the need for mass extraction of oil. Makes sulfur free fuel and reduces humanities main CO2 emissions sources, electricity and fuel for vehicles to near zero. If you care about CO2. Personally I don't but that's not the point.

>>134122592
>>As will be shown here, the claim that there were only 7 publications from that era disagreeing with the presupposed CO2-warming “consensus” is preposterous. Because when including the papers from the 1960s and 1970s that indicated the globe had cooled (by -0.3° C between the 1940s and ’70s), that this cooling was concerning

This quote is not even making your argument. Why did snip the end off? It's nonsensical.

File: nickcageisamonster.jpg (89KB, 934x485px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 934x485px

>>134110827
Well based on your chart there we should all burn up shortly no matter what we do. That's the problem when you overplay the doomsday card.

>>134122874
>Who is we? Whoever it is it is an isolated market anomaly and will correct itself fast in a capitalist society.
>I can tell you the "we" have no problem in that way over here.
All of western and mid western North America has natural gas below $2/GJ. Most closer to $1.5/GJ.

>>134109119

I believed global warming from an early age (40 now).. I went to liberal schools, mother was an activist to shut down a nuclear power plant.

And the only time my opinion shifted on global warming was when I actually looked into it critically for myself and concluded it was 95% horse shit. When I did come to this conclusion, I was shocked. And guess what I said? "Wow, I didn't know that". and "Thanks for enlightening me on this".

If I was the retarded American that you suggest I am in your post, I would have stayed an unenlightened believer in the massive hoax that is global warming.

>>134123306
>Even the warmies don't shun papers that make uncertain predictions.
I didn't shun any papers. I stated the fact that Peterson et al. (2008) only looked at papers with predictions, so it makes zero sense to pretend that's comparable to papers that gave no prediction at all. And "warmies?" Are you 13?

>Most of the current 100% certainty comes from media, not scientists anyway.
Depends what you're discussing. Scientists are certain humans are the primary driver of current climate change. They're certain that CO2 is a heat trapping gas. They're certain that without any changes in our actions the planet will continue to warm. But no scientist is going to say we're all going to die from it; that's just alarmist nonsense.

>>134123658
>All of western and mid western North America has natural gas below $2/GJ. Most closer to $1.5/GJ.

There's no shortage of natural gas here, you fuckstick. It's as available as tap water.

>>134108364
The polar ice caps are melting on mars. It's true, look it up. Is it all those cars being driven on mars causing that?

>>134123558
We need to kill Nick Cage. There is a scientific consensus, that is 100% in agreement. We must stop him drowning people.

>>134123504
Yeah it is. Your source wants to include papers that stated a fact, not a prediction of the future. Plus, I didn't even go through the papers myself. For all I know the conclusions don't support what the source said, or perhaps some of the papers weren't even peer-reviewed.

>>134123763
>so it makes zero sense to pretend that's comparable to papers that gave no prediction at all


Where are you getting this from? It was not contained in the language you quoted from the website.

>>134113907
Not sure if troll or Velikovsky found the internet.

>>134123817
>There's no shortage of natural gas here, you fuckstick. It's as available as tap water.
Are you an industrial consumer of natural gas?

The big users like power plants, plastic producers and refineries, are fine, as are some critical users like hospitals. But if you want to run a mid sized user those guys are having trouble finding gas or getting contracts.

Or are you speaking as a home user?

>>134123763
>Depends what you're discussing. Scientists are certain humans are the primary driver of current climate change.

Some are. But the consensus rhetoric came from studies that included scientists who made no such claim.

>>134124111
Dude, I don't know if you're illiterate or what. I fucking explained multiple times that your source wants to include papers that gave NO PREDICTION. I even gave the quote, so if you can't properly read clear English maybe you shouldn't cite you haven't properly read yourself.

File: [Pyramid].jpg (124KB, 1024x819px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 1024x819px

>>134108364

Climate is always changing & has Cycles. It has nothing to do with Man. Environmentalism is important however.

The "Climate Change" Agenda is part of UN Agenda 21/24, mass Eugenics, De-Industrialization & Global Government.

[Threads: http://archive.4plebs.org/_/search/subject/knowledge%20bomb/username/anonymous5/tripcode/%21%219O2tecpDHQ6/]

The only "Man-Made Climate Change" is Geo-Engineering/Warfare, which also includes Terraforming.

>>134124254
>Some are.
Vast majority of climate scientists are.
>But the consensus rhetoric came from studies that included scientists who made no such claim.
Citation needed.

>>134124039
>Yeah it is. Your source wants to include papers that stated a fact, not a prediction of the future.

Show this is the case with a legitimate quote because the one you provided didn't make such a statement.

File: 1494300356913.jpg (48KB, 620x592px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 620x592px

>>134122443

>fail to infer my main point from the get go
>instead focuses on the addendum, purposely put in between parenthesis because it isn't central to my argument
>proceeds to creates a new argument out of thin air and attributes it to me
>argues with himself over cost and pricing while completely lacking in understanding of what drives economic phenomena underneath, which was my point
>calls me stupid in the end

here we have the quintessential american alt-right intellectual

>>134124260
>Dude, I don't know if you're illiterate or what. I fucking explained multiple times that your source wants to include papers that gave NO PREDICTION.

Explained without evidence.

>>134124241
>But if you want to run a mid sized user those guys are having trouble finding gas or getting contracts.

Back up this claim because it sounds like you're pulling it straight out of your ass.

>>134124419
>Citation needed.

https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/97_Consensus_Myth.pdf

There are actually many studies debunking the 97% consensus if you bother to look.

>>134108364
20 years ago we were all going to freeze to death. Then burn to death. Then flood the whole world. Now it's "climate change and settled science. When you dumb bastards can stick to a story call me

File: warmies-deny-this.png (799KB, 1206x2273px) Image search: [Google]

799KB, 1206x2273px

>>134123763
Fucking Warmunists!

>>134124547

What was your point then? Because you aren't making one in this post.

>>134108364
>>134108882
>>134109119
>>134109493
>>134109934
>>134109962
>>134110108
>>134110235
INVADERS GET OUT REE

>>134125195

All that media noise is alleged to be the result of six papers awash in a sea of global warming evidence.

>>134109119
It's actually astounding seeing a literal monkey with such an inflated ego.
Just exactly where did you find your false sense of self worth favela monkey?

Reminder that the smartest man in America with an IQ of 200 believes that global warming is highly politicized bullshit. He also voted Trump. He also wrote out a theoretical model of the universe that logically proves the existence of a god type of figure.

He's a bit too much on the logical side though. He believes in eugenics and thinks that a society of average intelligence will at best produce an average society. He believes that for the future benefit of society births must be regulated to either people who have little to no genetic abnormalities, or only if the genes for those abnormalities have been edited out, and in general only the intelligent would be allowed to have kids. He believes we have so much potential but are wasting it away on garbage.

Logically I can't disagree with him though. Emotionally...well I'd be rather pissed off if it was decided I wasn't allowed to have kids because I wasn't deemed smart enough.

>>134124669
>Back up this claim because it sounds like you're pulling it straight out of your ass.
Can I quote Lionel Hutz?

"Well, we have hearsay and conjecture...Those are kinds of evidence."

>>134109119
To be fair, nobody would ever say the latter

>>134125554
Who

>>134116019

>jews will starve

Top kek

>>134123728
What were your resources that involved "looking into it?"

Media paid off by the petroleum industry doesn't count.

>>134110827
>.0004% of history on earth with dinosaurs
This is called cherrypicking

>>134112129
>when your picture hurts your argument
Why even post this?

File: switch-tactics.jpg (13KB, 278x400px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 278x400px

>>134125386
Jews changed tactics. That's never happened before. Global Cooling > Global Warming > Climate Change.

>Global warming is going to be the death of us all, dumb goys!
*said from private yacht
>Didn't you see all the (((papers))) we bought?

>>134123728
>mother was an activist to shut down a nuclear power plant

That's fucking retarded. Nuclear is the most efficient relatively clean source of energy. People like to get spooked out about it because of the leftover spent rods, but solar panels take a shitload of lithium, and wind turbines are huge and loud, so unless they want to keep using coal and gas forever, they better go with nuclear.

>>134115161
China is double the US in CO2 emissions

>>134126174

And media funded by huge gov't agencies that only care about getting more funding for their agency does count? "This is alarming. More research (money) needed."

Everybody has an agenda.

It doesn't fucking matter who funded it if you learn how to analyze basic science you fucking retard. Stop letting other people do your thinking for you, and learn to critically analyze a scientific paper. It's not that hard, you just have to be skeptical.


Start with Alex Epstien. He gives you the big picture philosophical shift that you'll need as a foundation. Stats can be found anywhere, including the completely wrong ones. They basically change the models every time they are wrong, which is all the time.

>>134125882
I actually believe you.
Thanks for enlightening me on this.

>>134126933
The magnets used in wind turbines produce thorium as a byproduct of their extraction and refining.

The wind industry has produced enough thorium fuel to power the world for over 200 years if used in LFTRs.

>>134127275
(((Epstein)))

>>134115747
It's logarithmic. Do you know what that means?

>>134127426
I hope they work, but thorium reactors are still only in their early stages of development. If they work, and are cost-efficient, then we'll seriously have a new super-fuel that nobody can complain about.

>>134125209

It was to counter your point regarding new "green" technologies, as posted:

>other than with nuclear, has not been proven to work without huge government incentives to offset economic losses.

My point was that with enough economies of scale, anything, no matter how complex, costly or risky (thus the oilrig example), can become economic viable, including these new technologies. That's it. The point is valid because at some point oilrigging was also seen in the very same light, too much of a technological and economic challenge, with exploration efforts in many countries being spearheaded by the government itself.

You went into your own pricing tangent, which is entirely besides the point: until economies of scale are established, price competition is viewed as a second-rate factor, as investors expect to operate at a loss already, with the focus not on market share but on innovation.

A proper rebuttal would have been "then why does the government have to put money into it?". Of course, to increase demand and supply levels, which are needed to reach said economies of scale. Since few investors are willing to operate at a loss (but some are), progress comes slowly, thus the government can accelerate this process via both subsidizing and regulations (if it is the will of the people for the government to act so). Once these new industries are able to stand on their own feet, price competition kicks in. And it does happen, here in Brazil you can find ethanol from sugar cane in every gas station, and a large part of our car fleet can operate on both traditional gas and ethanol, thanks to the govt.

Odds are we'll live the 21st century with both traditional and green energy projects competing for market share, with the less lucrative endeavors on both sides shutting down, as a greater supply of energy drives prices down as a whole (if unmet by demand), and with low prices it becomes more difficult for energy projects to become economic viable.

>>134117156
The IPCC claims it oftentimes with their Armageddon predictions

>>134109493
lul, the whitest states are also the thinnest

>>134127911
Leave them to be stupid.
We can make America pay double later.

>>134108364
WAAAGH! PEPE

File: nose.jpg (5KB, 250x187px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 250x187px

>You goys need to stop having children, stop taking hot showers and stop eating beef.
Said the kike that took a G6 and 10 limos to get to the Earth Summit.

B-but there's plenty of room in white countries for the importation of millions of worthless high birth-rate shitskins.

>>134119300
Creating electricity via nuclear to transfer to vehicles would work. You dont have to retool the power grid for $20t, retool America for an untold amount and you don't have to develop capacitors due to an unreliable supply like Germany would need for their solar and wind which is why they use France's power

Electric items aren't stupid, the methods by which we charge them are stupid. Also, their materials are cancer af and need to be changed

File: dreamer.jpg (100KB, 932x960px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 932x960px

>>134109493
Importing more mexicunts is the only solution!

>Obesity: Mexico Overtakes United States As World’s Fattest Country
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/07/10/obesity-mexico-united-states-fattest-country_n_3571988.html

>global warming laws and regs directly fuck up western world job markets due to making them uncompetitive because increased costs of production
>average fucked over worker blames the global warming laws/regs
>average worker then questions if global warming is even a thing, or if we should be worried about it
>global warming theories for decades keep on being inaccurate or make a fuss about the obvious - like that the environment is known to have macro fluctuations in temperature like the ice age or the warm periods
>this reinforces the average fucked over worker's inferences that it's really just a big fucking scam
This is exactly the reason why people disagree with the idea of global warming.

>>134127911

Oil wins out under any scale of use right now. That was my point. I find your entire post of ifs, ands and whatnots to be on a ridiculous "tangent."

Here in america, you can also find ethanol at every gas station -- made from corn and subsidized by the government.

Of course the reason ethanol is viable over there is because gas prices are TOO HIGH. Which is the opposite of low. We were discussing why low oil costs do not cause shortages (you disagreed).

https://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-price-of-gasoline-in-Brazil-so-high

Your entire post is an attempt to falsely reconstruct the flow of conversation and substitute one point in particular for the original point which was the effect of low oil prices.

In other words, you're a lying piece of shit and will say anything to "win".

>>134127911
>the government can accelerate this process via both subsidizing and regulations (if it is the will of the people for the government to act so).

We never voted in any subsidies for alternative power and I would be surprised if you did that in brazil.

Did you know that sugar (where your ethanol comes from) is heavily government subsidized?

>inb4 a long nonsensical spiel on what a fantastic idea that is.

>>134125972
Baron Trump

>>134128522
>Creating electricity via nuclear to transfer to vehicles would work.

That is one of the very first things I mentioned in this thread.

>>134108364
you sound like a child. get a more appropriate hobby.

File: 1486841794411.png (157KB, 297x400px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 297x400px

Funny how they can't tell me what the weather will be 4 hours from now, but 40 years from now? Oh, that's a cinch.

Besides, I don't give a flying fuck if the global temperature rises 3 degrees in 50 years. If that's the greatest threat facing your generation, maybe you pussies should all die from a sunburn.

>>134108364
Global warming is used as reason to argue against western birth rate and say brown birth rate is great. But then they want to flip it and say, "Since the population growth is low we have to import those brown people for labor at our non existant factories."

It's just a major step in the attack on whites so fuck it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCEu0Cr-dnA

If whites die out then the environment totally will. So our survival is the only answer to climate change. Blacks would have hunted themselves to extinction nearly everywhere by now had we not intervened.

>>134108364
>take earths temp for 150 years on 4 billion year old planet its all in mans hands
Naïve and arrogant is what man is

>>134108364
Americans are tribalists. There is not much more logic than that. When they see something their opposition hates Americans decide they like it.

>>134130957
>Blacks would have hunted themselves to extinction nearly everywhere by now had we not intervened.

My opinion is that they would live in hunter-gatherer mode and thus would impinge upon the earth very little. The brutality of that existence would keep population low.

>>134108364
>It is a bad thing,
Yes. The speed at which it's happening makes it expensive for humans to adapt. In nature, where adaptation is heavily dependent on genetics, the speed at which it's happening risks causing a lot of extinctions.

>why do Americans deny it is man made?
Because they have an anti government philosophy. Any attempt to address the problem is seen as an unacceptable intrusion into our freedom by big government. So they stick their heads in the sand and ignore the cost of doing nothing, even though that will ultimately require much more government intervention.

>Is it the radical Christians in America who hate the thought God allows us to change the climate?
Partly. Some of them are incredibly gullible, and the neocons exploited that, referring to climate change as "the warmist religion". This was a very shrewd move on the neocons part, because as well as making many of the radical Christians view scientific truth as evil, it made many of the dimmer atheists view it as irrational!

>>134108364
My 8 year old niece needs a heart transplant soon. She's had so many blood transfusions she's probably inoperable. Heart functionality has fallen from 95% to 28% in the span of a month. If she even can have the operation she'll only have 1-5 years to live. God isn't real. Christians are the dumbest motherfuckers on earth.

>>134129426

>right now

oil, gas and coal don't win against hydro in many countries

oil, gas and coal don't win against geothermal in iceland

oil, gas and coal don't win against wind in high efficiency areas, and soon it'll be the same for solar

get with the time gramps, extracting oil, refining it and moving it around the globe is HARD and EXPENSIVE and it's only getting harder and more expensive to produce as new reserves are harder to reach and of sometimes poor quality (except for fracking, keep in mind the USA IS the global exception here), while prices are going down because arabcucks are flooding the market while some countries are steering away from it creating a supply excess, both factors together working to bring down profit margins which will shut down less competitive projects and reduce investor interest

>>134129898

yes, it's a long-term strategy to take the lead in the global biofuel market which we would already have if you cucks stopped heavily subsidizing corn for ethanol which is 5 times less efficient than our sugar cane, getting into your massive market would drive economies of scale even further possibly making it competitive with gas because of our devalued currency, this btw is the current number 1 issue on the USA-Brazil relationship and it has been since the doha rounds started

and no I didn't vote for it because the statization and monopolization of our oil reserves happened under the government of a former fascist developmentalist president back in the 50's (with massive support from society otherwise chevron would be all over our coastline now) and the program for development of ethanol as an alternative energy source started in the 80's under the military dictatorship as a response to the oil shock of 79

>we never voted in any subsidies for alternative power

50% of your population aka liberals would disagree with you

>>134132663
>oil, gas and coal don't win against wind in high efficiency areas, and soon it'll be the same for solar
Only if you totally discount the value of base load and on demand power.

>>134108364

Climate change, global warming, whatever you want to call it. It's going to be good for the planet, not bad.

>>134131404
You're not wrong but I'm completely okay with it. If the rest of the world decided to enhance global warming I'd probably be a tree hugger.

Climate change is "real," but is grossly exaggerated.
It is a naturally occurring phenomena on Earth.
Humans may be contributing to it, but we we're born to adapt.
Climate change has, however, been co-opted by international socialist agendas.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/31/mars-also-undergoing-climate-change-ice-age-retrea/

https://youtu.be/vMubByF332U

https://youtu.be/N-0Md4WSe-g

>>134124111
Yes, it does. Here's the full sentence, which was cut off because it's long and wasn't necessary to quote it in full.

>Because when including the papers from the 1960s and 1970s that indicated the globe had cooled (by -0.3° C between the 1940s and ’70s), that this cooling was concerning (leading to extreme weather, drought, depressed crop yields, etc.), and/or that CO2’s climate influence was questionable to negligible, a conservative estimate for the number of scientific publications that did not agree with the alleged CO2-warming “consensus” was 220 papers for the 1965-’79 period, not 7.

Now, please tell me where in that sentence that states that it's including those papers does it say anything about predicting future climate change.

>>134133667
>Climate change is "real," but is grossly exaggerated.
By who?

>It is a naturally occurring phenomena on Earth.
Not it isn't. We can clearly mesure the human contribution: we're causing about 80% to 120% of the observed warming.

>http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/31/mars-also-undergoing-climate-change-ice-age-retrea/
That's nice, but completely irrelevant. Measuring the strength of the solar forcing is pretty easy, and it's not increasing on the time-scale we care about.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/2071/most-comprehensive-assault-global-warming-ever-mike-van-biezen


Read this perhaps.

>>134138464
>Random opinion piece in a shit-tier paper.
Okay.

>>134124918
So just looking at the graph showing the levels of endorsement of Cook et al. (2013), you can see some major lying with statistics. It's true that of the nearly 12,000 abstracts, about 66 percent took no position at all. However, this "study" is including that in its pie chart pretending this is somehow an endorsement of anything. The 97 percent figure comes from the abstracts that *did* take a position, so including the papers that took no position at all and including that to try and debunk the conclusion is straight up bullshit dishonesty, which isn't surprising since Friends of Science is bought and paid for by fossil fuel interests. You're literally citing propaganda.

Now, if you actually read Cook's study, you'd see that there's 7 levels of endorsement, including "implicit endorsement," meaning that the authors *already assume* that humans are causing global warming. They're well past showing that humans are because the literature has already well-established that. Your dishonest source tosses those responses out and pretends that only the ones that "explicitly endorse" count, which again is dishonest bullshit. It also throws out explicit endorsement without quantification.

If that methodology isn't sound for you, the study also includes a survey of authors they emailed and got a response from. The authors self-rated their own papers and the study *also* got a 97 percent endorsement. Considering how shit your source handled just this one study, I'm going to assume it's also dishonest as hell with the rest.

>>134138875
Did you even read it?

Because it sure as hell doesn't seem so.

CO2 cannot reflect enough light to cause these temperature changes. It has been far hotter before, and the politicians who run the whole damn thing told us the world was cooling just 40 years ago.

Never consider something a crisis until the people warning you start acting like it's a crisis.

https://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/?toURL=https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2016/03/01/leonardo-dicaprios-carbon-footprint-is-much-higher-than-he-thinks/&refURL=https://www.google.com/&referrer=https://www.google.com/

>>134139302
I'm actually still working my way through it - its a pretty dumb collection of "I don't understand it so it's wrong".

>CO2 cannot reflect enough light to cause these temperature changes.
Yes it can.

>It has been far hotter before
So what? It's the rate of change that's alarming, not the absolute temperature. Our civilization and agriculture is set up to deal as particular climate.

>Never consider something a crisis until the people warning you start acting like it's a crisis.
Climatologists ARE acting like it's a crisis. Don't blame me for your shitty choice of sources.

>forbes
Oh boy.

>>134139302
>CO2 cannot reflect enough light to cause these temperature changes.
It certainly can and has. That's how a heat-trapping gas works.

> the politicians who run the whole damn thing told us the world was cooling just 40 years ago.
Stop listening to politicians and listen to the scientists. Even 40 years ago there six times as many papers predicting global warming than papers predicting global cooling. Find a new talking point.

>>134132663

>oil, gas and coal don't win against geothermal in iceland.

Iceland is a volcano in the ocean is there any fucking coal to be found in Iceland?