An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power

>>136449557
If you don't believe in Climate Change, ACTUALLY show some proof it is fake

And hey, at least this is a general discussion on /pol/ instead of the constant shitposting I see on here

File: un_population_projections_steve_sailer_2.png (87KB, 1234x852px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 1234x852px

>>136449601
nah but the discussion is fake so wgaf? Not until the debate is scientific and rational will I support climate cucks policy. Right now the debate is on how to displace and marginalize whites. There can be no discussion about CC unless we discuss population growth and immigration and the left wont do that so no discussion.

>>136449742
>That's not how it works, Chaim.
REALLY? You won't bother to tell me why you think it's fake despite all the floods around continents

the problem with climate change is that by the time even the last retard realizes that it's real and a threat, it will be too late to do anything at all about it

>>136449492
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iE7k--I0f7I

>>136449601
Watch this old faggots first movie and see that absolutely none of it came true.

File: Chink.png (74KB, 370x379px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 370x379px

>>136449492
Inconvenient or not, you must

SINK
THE
CHINKS

>>136449492
>China is one of the most polluted countries ever where people have to walk around with gas masks
This film will end up motivating western nations to have a carbon tax and China will continue to be unregulated.

>>136449492
but its not real trump said so and he's the president i think i trust the president over some shitposter on /pol/

>I am pretty sure climate change is real
it's hard as fuck to get a clear opinion on that. That said we don't need climate change to see that environment is fucked and that all they're proposing to do about it is retarded and will end up costing me money for shit I didn't do

File: 1472838480480.png (55KB, 436x425px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 436x425px

best thing about the climate meme is that you fags will be butthurt either way

Option 1: Climate change is real and we need to stop all the bad goys in Africa and Asia from mass industrialization. (even though it was cool when we euros did it)

Option 2: Climate change is a hoax, Africans and Asians, particularly China get no restrictions or sanctions on their mass production. India potentially a superpower if they can learn to use toilets. Coal mines in the US open again and poor white bois die of black lung and cancer rates skyrocket

>>136452008
Pretty much this. It's almost like environmental socialism. All nations that are advanced will be regulated to hell and less developed nations like India and China won't have any restrictions on them allowing them to grow.

>>136449977
A flood doesnt equate melting ice caps.
I have yet to see the correlation, though I'm sure if you compare Al Gore's videos, he conveniently included floods to his predictions after the fact since "muh rising oceans" was bullshit

>>136449601

Rather than argue schemantics using straw men we should say what we actaully beleive.

The climate is changing currently. Humans have had some effect although this may not be the main reason its changing. Humans are definaty fucking up the environment, although climate change could be irrelevant to this.

Its clear from historical data that the changes we see are not something new and co2 levels are no where near being the only cause of these cycles. even if humans have had a tangible effect on it i doubt we can stop it now. We should concentrate on things that can actually help rather than legislation that just looks good on paper.

>>136449742
do you think it will ever be possible for mankind to significantly negatively effect the climate via pollution and industrial/developmental activities?

Maybe in 50 or 100 years, signs might show? 200 years?

>>136452523
Why is this such a topic to reject like TOP KEK almost every nation in the world came together to sign the agreement, what? Everybodys a jewish agent. You guys are dumb, the science is there and proves it if you don't want to believe the scientist then fine live ignorantly, people can still have national borders and cooperate together to SAVE THE ONLY PLANET WE HAVE. Try having a white ethno state when when the majority of white homelands are underwater because those are the only places it'll hurt if you look at the data.

File: image.gif (16KB, 880x422px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 880x422px

>>136452731

In what way is that a reply to what i said?

I think we are effecting climate change. I also think some of the data being used is cherry picked and using assumptions.

For example; its undoubtable that co2 levels are unnaturally high worldwide, its less clear that these levels are the primary cause of global warming.

There is nothing wrong with sympathysing with both sides of a theory.

Can anyone tell me at what temperature did the earth decide it was just right? Did humans come along just as the climate settled right where it's supposed to be? Would the climate be changing if there were no humans?

I'm unimpressed by this drivel

half propaganda half sensationalism

>>136453047
what do you propose as the alternative mechanism that is warming the Earth right now?

>>136453239

See graph
>>136453047

It changes a fucking lot, on both large and small scales.

>>136453047
Fair enough but the more you count the longer this will take, some people say where already fucked and its a non issue now, we just have to ride the wave when it comes. Some studies show that your native Britain will be almost engulfed, London will be gone, parts of Scandinavia will be gone, a lot of American coastline gone. Not fun
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2609338/Would-YOU-underwater-polar-caps-melted-Map-reveals-planet-look-like-sea-levels-rose-260ft.html

>>136453287

one of the many things that has changed our enviroment historically, plus co2 levels caused by humans.

>>136453448
name a specific one

>>136453047
>Add CO2 and CH4 to atmosphere faster than they can be adsorbed by ocean and plants
>These molecules absorb infrared light
>This slows release of heat from earth to space
>bullshit, its muh sun cycles

>>136449492
Wtf? I love Earth now!

>>136453442

It seems pretty clear we have no idea what will actually happen, which is a great reson to worry.

>>136453367
And where not just talking about a bunch of people displaced and coastline gone, where talking serious damage to seasonal change as well, last time I checked we can't grow crops if we can't predict the weather but of course those are all worse case scenarios. Im no "its happening" type of person but we will be considered the most idiot generations by our grand children, and who will we blame then? The jews....yeah them jews done feed me the wrong info totally not my fault.

>>136453493

Various environmental incidents, lunar and solar positioning, and hundreds of other variables. What is your point exactly? That humans are the only thing to cause change?

My argument is that we as humanity have far too little understanding of these cycles to make any solid prediction.

>>136449492
>we predicted sea levels would rise and flood the 9/11 memorial
>a flood caused by a fucking hurricane floods the 9/11 memorial
>see we where right all along

Fuck off shill

>>136453538

Jesus christ man. I dont deny that co2 effects the enviroment. But we know that is one of many things, its fucking arrogant to act like we have something as complex and volatile as the environment figured out.

>>136449492

Climate change is real, they're called seasons.

Slide.

>>136452731
Do you seriously think politicians are gonna do anything to combat climate change? These people are scientifically illiterate power hungry goblins. There is no legislation they would pass that would make an ounce of difference, it's all just virtue signalling for the next election.
You think 3rd world shitholes like China and India are going to actually adhere to any climate agreement we come up with? These are corrupt shithole countries for a reason.

Do you have to pay money to see this movie?

Then there ya go

Are the other planets around us any more stable than the earth?

>>136453761
how does the position of the moon (which is a tidally locked body) change and what effect would that even have on the Earth's climate?
Changes in the orbital relationship between Earth and sun not only take place on much larger timescales (they don't induce a warming of 1°C in the matter of a few decades), but the current configuration would actually induce a very slow cooling trend, as was the case for the Holocene up until the industrial revolution.

My position is very clear: the changes in concentration of long-lived atmospheric constituents is the only forcing that fits in sign, magnitude and spatial characteristic to the observed warming.

File: article-2488452-193799BC00000578-659_964x694.jpg (144KB, 964x694px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 964x694px

>>136454104
I can't deny that maybe true, but we still must do something about the issue, unless end up like this

>>136450776

Al Gore has already said its too late. Why should we worry?

>>136454356
>>136454364
>>136454550
>>136454569

how large of a sea level rise is this predicting?

>>136454626
depicting*

>>136449492
greenland.exe

File: bj5134e462.jpg (41KB, 721x463px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 721x463px

Also a vast majority of middle and eastern Russia will be gone as well. In whole this would be the new world our dependents will be use too

>>136454626
About 260 feet, I believe

>>136449492
Pollution and climate change are two separate topics with little relation with each other, despite it seeming the contrary.

Local pollution (ie: particles) is a real problem. Anthropogenic climate change, on the other hand, is a bogus unproven theory that is only still researched and popular because it receives government money.

>>136453047
>>136453367
How certain can one be of the details of the co2 levels in the atmosphere 400,000 years ago? I know ice samples and deduction and stuff, but how close to certainty?

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2013/09/rising-seas-ice-melt-new-shoreline-maps/

File: commissar think.jpg (214KB, 2048x2048px) Image search: [Google]

214KB, 2048x2048px

Yes, before the industrial revolution floods were unheard of and climate was static. Thank you based Goreman, I will now give my money to you and the third world.

File: EemianEarth.jpg (530KB, 1440x720px) Image search: [Google]

530KB, 1440x720px

>>136454722
that would be for the ice-free state then, which is (as of yet) very unlikely and would take thousands of years

a much more likely scenario is a SLR of 6 to 9 meters. That's the condition that existed during the last interglacial, the Eemian (Ipswichian, Riss-Würm, Marine isotope stage 5e), which was a few tenths of a degree warmer than the present.

>>136453047
could this graph be evidence of ancient atlantean civilizations who grew as large as humans and man made their climate change to the point of calamity and then some of them became extinct and some of them traveled to another planet?

If not technological advance, could it have been particular types of animals and plant relations that drove those climates up back then? What left, natural atmosphere adjustments and settlings, and the output and potential slight changes in distance of the sun? Asteroid strikes? Moon wobbles?

>>136455076
A couple thousand years is nothing on the grand scale, monuments from this era will still be standing, and its actually 216 feet not 260, but if only 216 feet can cause billions displaced, seasonal change and food storage, then I would be worried about 30 feet which is 1/10 of that. Sounds like nothing on that scale but we are talking at the worst 30 feet in OUR lifetime, and it will continue because we are helping it along

>>136449492
>I am pretty sure climate change is real
I'm pretty sure you're a moron then.

File: SHOCKING photos by Shamans of Hooked Nose clan show the devastating results of domestification of Milkgivers and unchecked fishing, agriculture.jpg (196KB, 923x831px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 923x831px

>>136454356
>>136454364
>>136454550
>>136454569

>>136455076
to say its just a natural occurrence could be accurate but to deny that we are holding the hand of Mother Nature in her cycle of destruction is just a fallacy

>>136450776
the problem is that people like you still believe it and will go on believing it despite all the evidence proving it's bullshit.

The Al Gore townhall was fucking embarrassing

>>136455492
and what evidence would that be?

>>136455475
When there's not enough food in the forest, the deer begin to starve until there's so few that they can subsist off the food that still remains. Welcome to the forest, I hope you're not one of those metropolitan types that produces no food.

>>136454364
hahahahahahahaah COAST KEKS BTFO MIDWEST MASTERRACE

>>136455414
OMG WE HAVE TO PREVENT THIS

QUICK, LET'S SACRIFICE OUR CHILDREN TO THE RAIN GOD

>>136455569
The fact that there has and never will be a conclusive link between man made CO2 and climate change, unless you think that little ice age we went through was due to dark age summers tearing it up in the crusades.

>>136455569
https://realclimatescience.com/

start here.

this guy worked for intel on the i7.

>>136449492

>China is one of the most polluted countries ever

Then I guess its too bad UN's climate panel and the EU gives China a free pass on pollution all the time.
Wonder where all the money which is supposed to "fix the climate" goes..

Perhaps it has something to do with corruption.

File: arrhenius.png (150KB, 407x694px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 407x694px

>>136455686

>>136455757
Correlation doesn't equal causation, although if it does I would urge you to look into the cycle of sunspot activity and how much closer it matches global climate data than any CO2 based model ever has.

>>136455492
To completely deny that the earth is changing is just being dumb, some people believe that its a natural occurrence some thing its that plus human interaction others believe its just human interaction, but to sit there and say that the earth isn't getting hotter and colder in certain areas is not true, global warming isn't just everything getting hotter, despite the name. And certain places will unfortunately end up under water, and many people will not say I told you so because we don't got over a tragedy

>>136449846
This.

They want to breed more of the dumbest people so that they can have a more easily ruled populace.

The real "inconvenient truth", is that hand size is genetic, dick size is genetic, and yes, brain size (and intelligence) is genetic.

>>136455828
you are a fucking retard, please kill yourself or at least get sterilised.

The effect of man's CO2 emissions on climate is so small as to be effectively immeasurable.

>>136455964
proof

>>136455641
>We must tax Cow owners!
>Taxing my goats? THIS IS ANOTHER RAPERAID
FUCKING HOOK-NOSED CLAN

File: tyndall1861.png (169KB, 694x796px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 694x796px

>>136455823
the causation was discovered even earlier than that by the spectrographic work by John Tyndall

>>136456042
you can't handle the proof.

>>136455746
Three Reasons to Believe in China's Renewable Energy Boom
news.nationalgeographic.com/.../china-renewables-energy-climate-change- pollution-environment/
May 12, 2017 ... It has atrocious air pollution. It fears climate change. And it wants to be a " manufacturing monster" in renewables too.
China is now the world's largest backer of green energy - Business ...
www.businessinsider.com/china-green-energy-plan-2017-5
May 8, 2017 ... China's remarkable growth over the past three decades has elevated it to global superpower status. But its economic miracle has also attracted ...
Renewable energy in China - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China
China is the world's leading country in electricity production from renewable energy sources, with over double the generation of the second-ranking country, the ...
Sources - National laws and policies - CDM projects in China
China just ran an entire region on 100% renewable energy for 7 ...
https://www.sciencealert.com/a-chinese-province-just-ran-on-100-renewable- energy-for-7-days
Jun 27, 2017 ... There's been a lot of scepticism about whether renewable energy can produce all our future energy needs. So last week, a Chinese province ...
China Aims to Spend at Least $360 Billion on Renewable Energy by ...
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/.../china-renewable-energy-investment.html
Jan 5, 2017 ... China's announcement was a bold claim on leadership in the renewable energy industry, where Chinese companies are already among the ...

>>136456093
Please archive it

>http://businessinsider com/china-green-energy-plan-2017-5
https://archive.is/LPCFR

>>136456091
In other words you don't have any.

>>136456078
That we have proved the existence of the greenhouse gas theory does not prove all climate change everywhere is a direct result of man made CO2. Surely you don't believe that we're doing so horribly wrong that we line up perfectly with a cycle that's been going on since before the first nigger fell out of a monkey in the trees? It's almost like humanity hasn't been impacting it greatly or something.... woah, man

>>136455604
KEK I'm moving to Alaska bud, my potato farming skills will be on spot

>>136456093
>he fell for the green meme
>he didn't consider it costs more environmental pollution to create his meme panels than just burning the coal straight for the same energy produced

>>136456161
start here, though of course you will play genetic fallacy so what's the point.

https://realclimatescience.com/

>>136455964
with populations continuing to grow, and more and more nations, cities, developing more and more, would you ever suggest an attempt to decrease any types of pollution? If these trends continue, for 50, 100, 150 years, would you consider it possible then that maybe even C02 emissions could have a negative effect on earths current climate?

Starting nowish, and towards the ever future, would you ever for any reason suggest researching and developing and implementing 'greener technologies'?

>>136456284
Good. Remember you'll need about 12 efficient acres if you want to support a nuclear family. Good luck.

>>136456428
>let's just keep unsustainable growing even though I've already recognized there's a supply problem
No, let's start killing shitskins. White people don't overpopulate.

>>136456267
what cycle are you talking about?

>>136454356
>>136454364
>>136454550
>>136454569

didn't they say this would be the reality today like 40 years ago?

of couse climate change is real. it has changed many many times. i just think they're a bit nuts with their assumptions about what will happen due to it. goalposts are moved backwards constantly.

>>136456553
The naturally occurring cycle of climate change? What, did you think we seriously did all this by ourselves? Did no one ever teach you about that time we had megafauna for millions of years?

>>136456350
>>he didn't consider it costs more environmental pollution to create his meme panels than just burning the coal straight for the same energy produced

One is an investment for a long term future.

if you say (part a) 'a lot of pollution' now for very little pollution in the future, or a lot of pollution now and continuing into the future with no thought or care or plan to ever cut it back at all or consider trying part a

>>136454364
Good news - I'll soon have waterfront property!

>>136456602
No, thats the worse case scenario, no ice at all, max water levels rise 216 feet, what is reality is that within our lifetime sea levels will rise about 15-30 feet

>>136456697
No, I mean total pollution output. It is dirtier to produce the meme panels and use it to expenditure than it is to just burn that same amount of oil instead of mining the resources and turning them into panels. The "green" industry is that unclean.

>>136449492
Al Gore sure knows how to make a buck.

>>136456428
One of my big beefs with the CO2 hysteria is that real environmental problems are being ignored, and the proposed solutions just make everything worse.

>>136456695
does that mean humans cannot negatively impact their environment?

If it is possible for humans to negatively impact environment, that is what is being cared about and discussed.

How certain can one be of the details of the climate 400,000 years ago? a million years ago? 100,000 years ago?

>>136454216

Well thats extremely arrogant. You can take any number of enviromental trends over millions of years and will be unable to explain them, knowing full well humans had no part.

My standpoint is that we dont know enough about the complexity of the beast to be so confident of primary causation in the case of co2.

You seem to have it pretty sussed tho, maybe explain how it changed so violently historically without human intervention?

>>136456695
again, what cycle are you even talking about?
Does it have a name or is it simply *that* one?

>>136456602
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/sea-levels-rise-20-feet-19211

>>136456713
Great you'll be the richest man under the sea TOP KEK

>>136449492
Of course climate change is real. The earths climate has always been changing. It was changing long before we got here. It's still unclear how much we're effecting it because agencies like nasa have been caught telling bold faced lies. Not to mention this dipshit al gore who claims to have invented the internet and is now making a sequel to a movie where no of his claims about global warming came true. The real problem is over population. Retarded niggers,spics and asians will not stop breeding like jack rabbits. If it wasn't for overpopulation we wouldn't need all the energy that produces all the pollution. So get back to me when we start addressing the real problem of these retards having 10 kids they can't afford

>>136456899
The planet has been here long before we were, and our environment is one of decay. This is the fundamental law of our universe. Unique environments (vacuum content for this purpose) erode the earth inside it to varying degrees. Measuring the disparity between these reveals what the planet was like when it was being eroded by an environment that fits x conditions as evidenced by y geology.

You haven't looked into this much, have you?

>>136456796
but the green industry has to start somewhere. This is about the future, in case it is possible someday to create solar panels and windmills and other renewable energy mechanisms that can exist without the need for maintenance for 50 years or more.

But ok, anyway. Solar panels are just one part of renewable energies. Youre statement holds true for all of them? Even though once they are created, like windmills, they may not be polluting? The amount of energy a windmill land in denmark or somewhere will produce in its lifetime in equal terms to oil will be more pollution?

>>136456987
It doesnt have a namr beyond the cycle of CO2 on this planet, it's literally as simple as those words in that order with 0 nuance in between any of them. I thought you guys were supposed to be all logical and sheeit, why's this hard.

We know for a fact that CO2 has existed on this planet in much greater quantities in the past. What we know of the time is that most organisms were actually much larger, and more successful.

The earth changes, has changed, and will continue to change with and without humanity's consent or involvement. Try not to stress so much.

>>136456806
it is impossible for C02 to negatively effect the environment? The climate?

Obviously if a sphere of 99999999^99999 C02 was tossed onto Earth it would negatively effect the climate. So work down from that number, and we need to find the range, where we admit its possible for this quantity of C02 or this quantity of whatever pollutant in this amount of space in this amount of time, can have a negative effect on the environment

>>136457234
I don't think you understand what I'm saying. I mean if you go and mine the materials, fashion then into oarts, pay some Chinese kid to put then together then ship it over here for our cosmopolitan friends to use, you could use that fancy junk until it breaks and you wouldn't get your pollution's worth of energy out of it. Just burn the fucking oil and shut up, because math shows you're only doing it to jack off emotionally.

>>136457127
How certain can one be of the details of the climate 400,000 years ago? a million years ago? 100,000 years ago?

>How certain can one be of the details

>How certain can one be


of the climate 700,000 earth revolutions around the sun ago?

>>136457364
In order for that statement to be true, we would need to agree upon what "negatively" affecting the environment might do, and we still don't have consensus as to CO2 even does greatly, let alone in any positive or negative direction.

>>136456952
See, your question is supposed to sound challenging and difficult but anyone who has spent more than 30 seconds thinking about the topic can realize how much of a softball it is.

the CO2 changes of the past are the result of changes between carbon sources and carbon sinks. Take a random example: in the early Paleogene, CO2 was on a general increase (as was temperature), which was associated with the fast movement of the Indian subcontinent through the tethys, which was a large depocenter for continental carbonates.

The trend of falling CO2 concentrations (and falling temperatures) that followed on the other hand is the result of the main phase of the alpine orogeny, which threw up the Himalayas and a bit later the Andes.

>>136457605
That depends, do you trust a chunk of ice that we dug out from under a mile of humanity tamper preventing Antarctic ice shelf? Or do you think that we're just pulling numbers out of our was because muh oil industry

>>136457318
I see. It's that one cycle which happens to be consistent with all the observations and explain everything.
I think everyone can see what's going on here

>>136457318
>We know for a fact that CO2 has existed on this planet in much greater quantities in the past.
vegetation consumes C02 right? So the vast dip in CO2 levels throughout history, could be a vast growth of vegetation?

Just because those creatures evolved to be larger and more successful doesnt mean the creatures that have adapted to current trends would adapt to be larger and more successful if ""suddenly"" CO2 levels drastically rose

>>136457740
You mean that cycle that has very clearly been going on entirely unhindered or aided by humanity for thousands upon thousands of years, but now that we exist on one arm of a swing we take full responsibility for everything it does?
Nah, man, we didn't hit pause when we evolved. We just happen to have made a vaguely correlating structure within a larger pattern that couldn't care less about us.

>>136457127
This is literally the smartest most well put comment I have seen on /pol/.

>>136457626
>In order for that statement to be true, we would need to agree upon what "negatively" affecting the environment might do

I said if you take 99999999^9999 (exaggerated for an appropriate arguments sake) particles of CO2 and tossed them onto Earth, we would imagine negative consequences? as likely if you tossed that quantity of any molecule into the atmosphere it would be bad effects. Just like maybe you can drink a water bottle with .001% of poison. Maybe .002% maybe .025% and survive, but you cannot drink a certain type of 100% poison and survive.

Obviously, there is a quantity of CO2 of which if introduced into the atmosphere would be bad.

Start at the largest possible quantity of obviousness, and work down till a safe number is reached.

>>136457650

I asked about global temprature changes, not co2.

Lets get this clear, there is a not a direct correlation between co2 levels and global tempratures. This means for a fact that other things effect the environment (not that anyone but you even disputes this seemingly)


And before you straw-man me again. I do not dispute that co2 plays a part in global tempratures, only that its one of many variables.

>>136457824
The bugs and birds weren't the only big organisms back in the day, you know. Long necked animals need tall trees with an unholy fuck ton of vegetation to exist. CO2 is basically a nutrient of the air to most organisms, it would appear as though if allows for atmospheric gigantism. CO2 dropping made things shrink, but I'll be honest when I say I don't know what started the downward trend, the same way we don't know what caused the current upward trend we're on now.

>>136458055
>>136457951
>>136458078
>>136457740
Nice debate fellow keks, I'm glad that people actually discuss the topic

>>136458055
>I said if you take 99999999^9999 (exaggerated for an appropriate arguments sake) particles of CO2 and tossed them onto Earth, we would imagine negative consequences?
That's not a question, it's a statement with an improper punctuation mark. I'm afraid I can't converse with you if we're not following the same rules of grammar.

That being said, allow me to reiterate. Your giant (something you have failed to specify entirely) of CO2 will do something. Probably. We're not sure other than it's confirmed effect as some kind of greenhouse gas. This effect may be positive or negative. Same thing as before, we're not sure, but taxing us doesn't help anything.

>>136458078
my post not only explicitly includes temperature, but it doesn't even have to, since temperature followed CO2 concentration very closely

you're not going to win a flower pot with climatologists for pointing out that there are other mechanisms that influence surface temperature in the present and past - they have been discussing this for decades now.

>>136457951
>we take full responsibility for everything it does?
>full
No one is arguing for full. People are arguing for preventable bad.

You do not believe human activity has any considerably detrimental effect on the climate.

Other people believe it does. Lots of attempts of proofs. Difficult to determine the truth.

>>136458206

Its just a shame that global warming has become like idenity politics. You have to be on one side or the other with no diverging opinions in-between.

>>136458546
Yeah, but thats life, which is why I'm more about the facts instead of choosing a side and having to align myself with that sides beliefs

>>136458472
how can correlation between CO2 quantities and temperature be proven? As the poster you responding to claims they have not seen ample evidence of this being the case

>>136458475
>no one
Eeeehhh. Don't make absolute statements, it's easy for lesser debators to detract from the greater argument.

That being said, I'd say it sounds like we've fully articulated these thoughts and you're right, at the end of it all it all comes back to a single axiom of logic. Does man-made CO2 affect the environment greatly. I'm glad we didn't have to spend 3 hours slugging it out with links and graphs, but it basically boils down to whether you build your foundation on the supposition that that statement is affirmative or negative. Beyond that, the logical extensions don't go too much farther.

And then it turns out that we're both wrong and everyone gets eaten by a giant space frog next month or something.

>>136454356
will istanbul get BTFO?

>>136458930
Don't they already do that by existing?

File: sawyer1972.png (43KB, 1764x496px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 1764x496px

>>136458866
by modern observations and radiation physics
see here >>136455757
and here >>136456078

and the paleoclimate record

>>136458979
think of all the climate roachfugees!

>>136449846
exactly

>>136458384
A new question then that I think is an interesting one. Lets pretend it is possible that man made climate change is possible. Lets pretend its happening now as result of the past 300 + years of continually increased industrial developmental history (or whatever is claimed), and/or lets pretend it is possible that another 100 or 200 years of these trends would result in it being possible for man to negatively (to semi drastically negatively) effect the climate:

Would you support any attempted discussions and measures to attempt to curb it, if it was at some point provably true?

>>136459060
>references the climate record of prehistory
>ignores that were just the end of a larger wavelength
So you ignore basic facts, then. Glad I haven't been wasting my time giving you (you)s this whole time.

>>136459137
There won't be a Constantinople to retake!

>>136459175
You're building a great flaming strawman and you're doing it for your side, not mine.

Where exactly do you think man made CO2 is entering the environment environment masse prior to the industrialisation of western civilization. And yet, we have extensive records of an ongoing cycle of rise and fall of CO2 in the environment.

The argument is that humans managed to fuck things up totally in THAT short amount of time, and ignore all the evidence that says we entirely coincidentally managed to fit into a larger even and flow that we don't understand yet.

>>136459196
>>ignores that were just the end of a larger wavelength
what utter bollocks
It's always really strange when people on /pol/ start to sound like esoterics when the topic of climate change comes up

>>136458472
>>136458472

>>you're not going to win a flower pot with climatologists for pointing out that there are other mechanisms that influence surface temperature in the present and past - they have been discussing this for decades now.

well it feels like it was to you that i had to clarify this. My view is simply that its far too complicated for us to quantify co2 levels to cliamte change itself given these historical variables and general lack of understanding.

File: 1501938704635m.jpg (166KB, 1024x1020px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 1024x1020px

>>136449492
FLAT
L
A
T

Faggit

File: IMG_0184.png (2MB, 750x1334px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 750x1334px

Duh the climate is changing because we aren't taking care of ourselves and worshipping the developers of this simulation dumbasses forget that everything fractal based has a base key made of itself. What is this universe made of? Itself damn it that's why everything follows the same pattern. Give the respect to the developers and worship they deserve for such a beautiful world and stop taking your own power for granted

File: 1499848280496.png (597KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

597KB, 960x960px

>>136453278
That really tipped ny fedora

>>136459611
whatever the case may be, simply pointing out the complexity of the system and that there are other variables is not what we call a scientific hypothesis and it really is, I'm sorry to say, rather amateurish.

>>136459603
So you think we started the uptick we're currently on the end of? We're due for an ice age, in the next hundred years humanity WILL witness whatever mechanic makes things ebb or flow. I highly doubt humanity has much to do with it.

File: climatefreak9.jpg (436KB, 799x809px) Image search: [Google]

436KB, 799x809px

an inconvenient FREAKOUT
brought to you by the Climate freaks

>>136459704

That image's text just smacks of some insecure little fuckboy who needs a cuddle.

Grow up, learn a scientific discipline, advance the human race, invent something, acquire wealth, create a family and teach your children to do the same.

File: 1412238937343.jpg (4KB, 142x136px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 142x136px

>>136449492
>9/11 memorial gets flooded temporarily because of random hurricane + poor city planning
>see, climate is changing because of man

File: 1499956708485.jpg (2KB, 125x125px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 125x125px

>>136449492
>yes goyim spend your shekels at the holy cinematic jew
>only there will you be able to save the world and the environment hehehehehe

You see after a while of apocalyptic hyperbole people become desensitised to it.

Then there's the intellectual dishonesty that the World has already moved beyond reversing the inevitable destruction that will occur from rising waters.

In other words nothing we do now will stop what has been predicted - assuming what is predicted is scientific and accurate.

File: 1501943119460.jpg (117KB, 564x687px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 564x687px

>>136460275
>Memeflag

Your argument is invalid

I dont care about future generations. Is this an accurate holdable stance of a man made climate change denier?

If man made climate change did exist I would not want to do anything about it because it may effect my business profits. Is this an acceptable stance for a man made climate change denier?

File: 1497254133674.jpg (45KB, 352x395px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 352x395px

>entire narration is of a southern baptist preacher delivering a sermon
>Al Gore is from Tennessee
>near Baptist central

Climate dogma is cult worship.

>>136449492
> first shitty movie was full of outrageous claims
> extended length polemic against western civilization, technology and white people
> dat cherry picker
> muh hockey stick graph
> jew york will be underwater in a decade
> none of that shit happens
> time for a sequuel!

only retards listen to doomsayers who are constantly wrong, and only a fool listens to a man who tells you to kill your children so muzzies and niggers can have a brighter future

even the UN's IPCC reports no longer support the hysterical assertions of the lunatic eco-left.

you demonstrate that you are a retard and a foool, so i dont give a wet shit what you might feel pretty sure about.

>>136460711
>>136460800
oi mate put a nuther dingo on the barbie and toss me boomerang from one end of the earth to de udda mate

>>136454569
Nature's will cannot be avoided faggot.
If nature wants to reclaim the land it WILL.
If nature wants us to poison the sky with smog, It will happen.
Because you're retarded and haven't figured it out yet.
Nature controls subconsciously, causing every movement and change in human history.

>>136459939

Where did i claim it was a scientific hypothesis? I argue we dont have enough knowledge for me to take the entirety of the theory as gospel.

the ability to realize you dont know it all and discuss something in the aim of learning yourself is a great tool. You should try it rather than just act like im the idiot for being pragmatic over a subject nobody fully understands.

>>136449977
> muh floods!
> dis neber habbend B4!!

which floods in particular have your knickers in a twist sheila?
be specific.

>>136461004
>it is impossible for me to be wrong
>if I am, oh well

If they are wrong: Oh no, we cut down on pollution

If you are wrong: (I cant even think of the potential bad things that could come of it)

>>136461031
so if nature wants to reduce man made climate change causing pollutants...?

>>136452731
> the science is there!
where?
> and proves "it"
proves what exactly?
> look at the data!!
to which data are you referring

be specific.
science and claims related to science require a certain level of specificity which the hysteriical gaggle of alarmists never achieve, and when they DO attempt to give a little specific data, it turns out to be 100% wrong, just an outright fabrication, or both (google "hockey stick graph).

>>136453442

Even if the absolute worst happens according to their predictions (which have not been anywhere close to spot on in the past 30 years), humans will adapt. We always have and we're better capable now than we've ever been.

File: 1501898006967.jpg (30KB, 500x376px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 500x376px

>>136461014
>Have some refugees Mr Trump, make sure they're given the best gibs
T. Turnbull

le "america will be underwater by 2014" man makes another movie you MUST spend money on

>>136453538
> humans producing so much methane!!!
> doesnt know that termites outproduce human activity in methane production by an order of magnitude
> unaware that swamps jungles and even forests produce massive amounts of methane, making termites look like pikers.
> never questioned why "rainforests are the lungs of the planet" narrative fell by the wayside
> inconvenient scientific research destroyed your most precious narrative and now you seek guidance from your fat bald messiah riding in a gulfstream 4
lefties are so predictable.

File: 1498302096148.png (138KB, 871x871px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 871x871px

>>136461443

Even if you believe that we arent affecting temperature, youd have to admit that burning coal for energy and having a high number of fuel hungry vehicles introduces a lot of pollutants. Sensible short term fixes are a shift to natural gas and nuclear, filters on coal plants to trap the airborne pollutants for safe solid disposal and more fuel efficient/hybrid vehicles. Hybrids would be excellent for city and highway commuters.

>>136461179
> implies i claimed infallibility
> cant point out where i said this
> seeks to claim the high ground of "science"
> completely illiterate about the sciences.

if REAL science demonstrates that the unrestricted release of jjism is destroying the ozone layer, ill be the first one to go on a No Fap, but your hysterical claims and al gore's hypocrisy are insufficient grounds for me to make any decision, not even what im having for lunch.

your inability to imagine what might go wrong if the left's wet dreams come true is a failure of your imagination, not a lack of consequences.

the paris accords would have ended america's economy while doing absolutely nothing to stop the biggest polluters, china, india, africa, etc.

if your neighbors complain because theres dog shit on the streets, do you
A: pass an ordinance requiring dog owners to clean up their dog's shit
or
B: impose an exorbitant tax to fund an elite team of ninja dogshit scoopers to patrol the streets 24/7 and secure the dogshit in platinum lined, hermetically sealed waste disposal bags

lefties always choose B

>>136461709
>Coal burning

Down the hall, to the left. Traitor!

>>136452250
>"muh rising oceans" was bullshit

News flash: It isn't.

I live on the coast and i go to beaches constantly. Sea levels are rising steadily.

>>136462242
>Trying to justify refugee status

Umm sweetie

>>136452731
You do realize what the Paris accord said right?

You do realize that leaks showed that the climate NGOs fudge their numbers regularly.

You do knownitsnno longer global warming, it's now climate change which works better for confirmation bias than as a real ecological phenomenon.

>>136462169
>al gore's hypocrisy are insufficient grounds
This isnt about al gore, this is about the totality of unbiased scientists (...I know) the totality of currently living humans, their children, and their childrens childrens children.

>your inability to imagine what might go wrong if the left's wet dreams come true is a failure of your imagination, not a lack of consequences.
Can you fill me in on some potentials?

>the paris accords would have ended america's economy while doing absolutely nothing to stop the biggest polluters, china, india, africa, etc.

If doing the opposite of absolutely nothing to slow the biggest polluters, china, india, africa what would you think then?

5 wrongs dont make a right and if your friends jump off a bridge yada yada. But ok, all nations agree to curb hazardous environmental pollution, to some small degree which the totality of unbiased climate scientists agree on, as something of a start, for the fear is we are attempted to patch a tire while on the move

Over the span of earth, (not even talking raising taxes here) the taxes that are collected from the companies that are considered to potentially be the greatest contributors to pollution are directly used for this sort of research, so it doesnt come out of your pocket?

>>136449492
>It's time to put America first!

Got chills at this moment, what a fucking hero.
10/10 best pro Trump video out there.

>>136462564
>You do knownitsnno longer global warming, it's now climate change which works better for confirmation bias than as a real ecological phenomenon.

because the biggest fear was the warming, but then from there is was realized there would be more effects then just warming, like more extreme, different, weather phenomenon. Not everywhere in the world might just get warmer, and if places here and there do get warmer, that can have potentially climate effects on a different here and there.

The theory seemed to be, its alarming that it might be true that at several places across the world temperatures might be rising, global warming... but this is not the only factor, global warming itself would be able to be called, climate change. If the globe warmed, climates would change.

File: tVU-q_-fDSLKMb2u5Qe0J-5JjfRx1kXDYtZ11tDn_OU.jpg (50KB, 691x767px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 691x767px

>>136453671
>What will our grandchildren think?
>Who will we blame?
Communism detected. Men don't think that way shill

>>136464490
>raises glass of oil
>guzzles
cheers

>>136464490
Cherrypicking my words I see, I'm using that as relation to the people who scream deny from the rooftops, who will they blame then?