Why cant global warming be good?

>>8723927
https://youtu.be/Mc_4Z1oiXhY?t=21m

>>8723927
>Will they all be bad or will some also be good?
Better crops, better climate in general where I live. I wish this global warming bullshit was real.

>>8723927
>Global warming is real and human caused.
[citation needed]

>>8723927
Most of the worlds population lives in areas that will be rendered uninhabitable, massive population movement from the South to the North will happen leading to denser populations and political unrest

>>8723927
Nature will always find a way. It always does.

>>8723968
>>8723972
kys

>>8723938
very interesting, thanks

>>8723978
are there world-maps which show roughly which areas will still be habitable at certain global temperature increases?
or is this too complicated to extrapolate?

>>8723972
https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

#33 #57 #73

>>8723982
https://youtu.be/Mc_4Z1oiXhY?t=48m40s

https://www.iceagenow.info/geologist-exposes-climate-change-hoax-video-3/

there will be more food:

http://www.co2science.org/about/position/globalwarming.php

>>8724096
>>8724110
>co2science
>Iceagenow
>legitimate sources

pick none.

File: wpbc.png (92KB, 1200x900px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 1200x900px

>>8723927
Land near the equator will become too hot for agriculture. Farming yields will collapse, right in the middle of Africa's population boom. In a given country, you might have 100 million people and food for maybe half of those. Inside Africa, obvious consequences are:

>conventional war between nations over arable land and water sources
>civil unrest, collapse of society as it becomes physically impossible to feed everybody
>mass (possibly total) migration to wealthier nations, sparking more civil unrest

There'll be a knock-on effect to Europe. How this plays out depends on the timescale and political reactions:

>Europe saves as many people as possible, becomes majority African
>Europe tries to save as many people as possible, finds it impossible to move so many people in the required time, hundreds of millions starve to death
>Europe goes full far-right, but finds it impossible to stem the tide, becomes majority African
>Europe goes full far-right, manages to close the border, hundreds of millions starve to death

At the same time, land currently too cold will become prime farmland. Russia and Canada are the big winners here.

>>8724274
kek no one's going to pay for 4 billion niggers

>>8723999
No habitability, just the surface temperature if the CO2 growth stops at 720 ppm

(Way beyond the 450ppm/2C no-return-point)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8sHvhLvfBo

File: Canadiafeels.png (212KB, 922x882px) Image search: [Google]

212KB, 922x882px

>>8724274
>land currently too cold will become prime farmland. Russia and Canada are the big winners here.
the Bearskis and Syrup Suckers might benefit down the road, agriculturally, but those new zones of good climate will be over fairly poor soils in a lot of places. it'll take decades to build up the soils...

do you think the koch brothers pay these people or are they just working on their behalf for free?

>>8723927
>Will they all be bad or will some also be good?
All of them will be good, to positive people: people learn from pain and suffering and even death.

>>8723938
anons never cease to amaze me

File: Meanwhile-In-AMERICA.jpg (68KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 600x450px

>>8723927
https://youtu.be/M1cMnM-UJ5U

> Lets assume humans burn ALL fossil fuels
Then we wouldn't have to worry about climate change. Our global economy, which relies exclusively on the burning of fossil fuels, would completely collapse. Think no imports, nothing plastic.

While the developing world faces climate-induced food shortages, the so-called "richer" nations will all but collapse as food is not able to be delivered to population centers.

Even if you were lucky enough to prepare independent crop plots, you would have to defend it against millions of starving city dwellers.

At the very least, martial law, the suspension of human liberties and mass executions in the streets. The streets that are still above water.

But, of course, there's nothing to worry about. Let's all go back to what Melania Trump was wearing to the Congressional speech. That will distract us while the food runs out.

File: 7ba.png (126KB, 500x320px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 500x320px

>>8724382
It's amazing how some /pol/tards will blame the Koch brothers as overlords over everything that is not their bottom line. Paid shill, they shout.

Yet, Trump appoints Mnuchin as Secretary of the Treasury. Mnuchin, who was Executive Vice President of Goldman-Sachs, Mnuchin, who owned failed IndyMac (which settled out of court for millions for illegally foreclosed properties). And nobody bats an eye.

Trump didn't drain the swamp. He just moved the alligators in when everybody was looking the other way.

>>8724452
they dont even pretend anymore. they just unironically take anything their cheeto-elect tweets as a god given truth and anyone who disagrees must be put in concentration camps

>>8723927
We actually have examples of what would happen since most of the Jurassic had extremely high CO2 levels. We know what that does.

1. it gets really hot. Obviously. Most of the land in the tropics becomes sandy desert where nothing lives. Keep in mind this is much of the planet's landmass. So billions of people are displaced. Billions of farms destroyed.
2. Growing areas move north. So do people. Countries like the US that now produce tons of food don't anymore.
3. Sea level rises. Like a couple hundred feet. This displaces huge cities and destroys islands.
4. Climate becomes homogeneous. Monsoonal. 6 months out of the year it doesn't rain, the other 6 it does. Half the year the land is desert, the other half it's flooded. This is bad for agriculture.
5. More food! Unfortunately the food is less nutritious because adding CO2 doesn't make the soil more fertile, nor could plants increase nutrient uptake if it did. This is because of the square-cube law, nutrients are absorbed at the surface of the roots but the plant mass increases faster than the root surface area. The effect is called "nutrient dilution," and we're already seeing it.

Other problems have been mentioned- half of the world's population is fed by the Haber process using fossil fuels so we can expect most people to starve.
water will be an issue, we won't have enough.
land will also be a problem, arable land will shrink.
War will be the biggest problem. It will happen. Most people will die.

human civilization may survive, but in much smaller populations with presumably much less technology. It won't be fun.

>>8724452
Still better than handing everything over to Soros like shillary would have.

>>8724452
Wrong, Trump is draining the swamp. He's been replacing the career bureaucrats who have zero clue how the real world works with businessmen who know how to keep costs down. It's about time the government learned to live within its means.

Most of the data reguarding global warming comes from west south America, honestly.

Then the research grants handed out by America...

Its not even funny.

File: ifallice.jpg (2MB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2048x1536px

>>8724274
southern europe will become more tropical in climate, so they're fucked, especially spain and greece
europe will have to build walls to save their coastal cities
this isn't counting ocean acidification and what it can do globally, hence to europe too

eventually

>>8723927
Temperatures can get to the point that the tropics become a dead zone. That's not good for anyone.

>>8725955
>europe will have to build walls to save their coastal cities
Would it be possible to close off the mediterranean sea?

>>8723982
No worries then unless it's a way that does not comprise humans.

>>8725931
>le soros boogeyman

>>8725942
>It's about time the government learned to live within its means.
>proposes massive tax cuts for big corporations while increasing spending
enjoy getting cucked by the plutocrats

you two really just proving >>8725876 point desu senpai

Even if global warming is real and caused by humans, there is no evidence that action to prevent it would be less harmful than the supposed warming itself. Destroying your own economy through inherently inefficient government intervention is a massive cost, and likely outweighs any downside of increased temperature.

>>8724452
You employ a thief to catch a thief, obviously.

>>8726154
Lowering rates can increase total tax receipts as a result of greater economic growth. Boosting GDP growth back up to 4-5% per year would more than make up for lowering the overall tax rate.

>>8726104
Yup, it even happened once, but then the water evaporated and turned the land around it into desert.

>>8726155
Where can I apply for a position on Arc B? Because it begins to look like it provides the better outlook in the mid-term, possibly even better survivability.

>>8726104
Artificially? Not really. To close off the strait of Gibraltar would require a wall 900 meters tall and 14 kilometers long. We have no way of building something that big that is capable of holding back that much water. The tectonic plates would need to close up again in order to do the trick.

The real reason people try and deny climate change or pretend it'll be good is because they view it as a threat to their way of life. This is why in America it's such a hard sell. We don't want to get rid of our cars, get rid of suburbia, get rid of the American dream of owning a home with a white picket fence and a two car garage.

We don't want to own up to the idea that something we base our culture on is killing people. It would be much easier if the science were wrong.

Well it's not wrong. Tough luck.

>>8726168
Even if the science is right, that's no reason to trust government regulation to solve anything. If the cure is worse than the disease, you're better off doing nothing.

>>8726154
> proposes massive tax cuts for big corporations while increasing spending
Typical leftist lies. The tax cuts that are being proposed lower everyone's taxes. And only the military is seeing an increase in spending, everything else is cutting cut back to more reasonable levels.

File: Trump vs Clinton tax plan.jpg (375KB, 620x696px) Image search: [Google]

375KB, 620x696px

>>8726154

>>8726178
What a shit system Trump created. And you really have to be retarded to even like Trump's plan.

Suppose you are a working class american and you see you will safe 6.78$. Isn't that great. But wait a minute...

While I am working my ass off and saving only 6.78$ why is my fucking boss, the fucking millionaire, saving 393.24 dollars. Why is he saving even more than me? What the fuck? I need that money more than him. He is already a fucking millionaire.

I would support Trump's plan if only the order of those savings were flipped. As in, the 20k earner saves 393.24 dollars, the 55k earner saves 173.88 and so on.

Holy shit. If you are a poor person you have to be retarded to support someone who is simply giving you two extra peanuts while at the same time giving billionaires what will amount to basically another free mansion after a couple of years. Fuck that shit.

>>8726171
>cure is worse than the disease because muh government gets power
You realize we live in a mixed-economy?
Big bad socialist bogey man wont hurt m9 we've already got socialism in our economy

>>8726178
one has healthcare $100/month

other has to pay $1500/month

>>8726203
You're getting $6.78 more because your labor isn't worth much in the first place. The labor of a 250k earner, however, is worth far more. He gets more because he earned it.

> I need that money more than him.
Doesn't matter. "To each according to his needs" is bullshit and always has been. If you really want to make more money, you should work harder and cultivate more useful skills.

>>8726157
Every-time this is tried it fails. Every-time you still hear this rhetoric.

The fact of the matter is corporations don't simply reinvest their increased profits into the global economy. Look at Apple, they have hundreds of billions squirreled away in tax havens that they can't even touch themselves for fear of paying tax on it.

And anyway, it's a retarded thing to suggest, that lowering the cost of operation for massive billion dollar corporations is a good thing while we defund agencies like the EPA and increase military spending (which was already exorbitantly high). The swamp wasn't drained, it simply got a more contaminated orange tinge with Trump.

>>8726211
Obamacare caused healthcare costs to increase, not decrease. So under the dims you're paying more in taxes AND paying more for healthcare, whereas under Trump's plan you're paying less taxes and paying less for healthcare.

>>8726212
>You're getting $6.78 more because your labor isn't worth much in the first place.

Nice way to cultivate the next communist revolution.

>Hey workers. Fuck you and your labor. You are not worth anything to us.

>The labor of a 250k earner, however, is worth far more. He gets more because he earned it.

Sure, this may be true, but why not help poor people too?

>If you really want to make more money, you should work harder and cultivate more useful skills.

It is hard to cultivate more useful skills when you are already poor. Skills don't grow on trees, they come from teaching facilities. Trade schools, universities, etc. The only way someone can afford to go these is one of two:

1) That person is financially stable
or
2) That person receives the education for free

And by fucking poor people, you are denying 1). And by not electing Bernie Sanders, you are denying 2). So you are talking about a fantasy world where everyone is able to just go and get more skills when in reality the system is way more complicated.

>>8726221
> Skills don't grow on trees, they come from teaching facilities. Trade schools, universities, etc.
> implying you need any of those things to learn new skills

The internet contains all the information you need, freely available to everyone. This idea that skills are hard to come by without money is outdated tripe used by the lazy to excuse their own deficiencies.

File: 1430211271103.png (195KB, 364x397px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 364x397px

>>8726212
>people are poor because they're lazy

>>8726178
>get 7$ more biweekly which is basically meaningless
>your boss who probably makes WAY more than 250,000$ gets a percentage cut too which is also meaningless to him but which significantly impact tax revenue and government services

Why don't tax brackets have more layers than that?

250,000 as the cutting off point is retarded.

>>8726212
>He gets more because he earned it.
He earned it at your expense though. He doesn't do more work, or better work, he simply exploits other people's labor who have no real choice. Most people don't choose to be poor, your argument doesn't hold up against basic logic. Basic logic says that we're a society, and that the millions of people who you say don't do anything of value are acting like civilized society...and not murdering the few people who exploit all of them. Meanwhile those people are not acting in accordance with the society which benefits them (keeps them not murdered) and exploits said people. In a society you pay your fair share.

File: 1480946859463.jpg (45KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 640x640px

>>8726225
>all we need is more skills

http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20151208175803561

>Poor people are lazy again

I only have so many anime reaction images onii-chan. Try not to use them all

>>8726225
>The internet contains all the information you need, freely available to everyone.

>No free internet in the US

Whoooooooops.

I suppose you are also a filthy socialist, proposing government funded high speed internet for everyone, right? Great comrad, lets go out together and campaign!

Also. I suppose that by saying this you mean that you never went to university and are a completely self-made self-studied professional who learned everything for the internet.

I mean, you wouldn't tell poor people to just learn from the internet when you are at a university paid for by daddy's money right? You wouldn't do that. No one would do that. That is so contradictory, right?

>>8726213
> Look at Apple, they have hundreds of billions squirreled away in tax havens that they can't even touch themselves for fear of paying tax on it.
Because corporate taxes in the US are insanely high, so high that no reasonable person would subject themselves to that. Lowering taxes would bring that money back into the country and lead to massive growth, increasing total revenue.

> while we defund agencies like the EPA
The EPA is nothing but a weight around the economy's neck. What good does it do? Just look at Flint, the EPA did absolutely nothing to prevent that. So why should we pay for government bureaucracy that does nothing useful? At least military spending creates good paying manufacturing jobs. The EPA just gets in the way with useless regulation blocking people from starting new businesses and hurting existing ones.

>>8726171
>hurr durr the government can't do anything right
And yet at the same time you trust the FDA to ensure your food isn't poison, and it isn't. To manage roads, the water supply, etc... The government does countless things right and the average citizen depends on that every single day but still comes out like a retard and says the government is incompetent. I mean, we have the best military in the world don't we? Everyone likes to say that, guess what...the military is a part of the government.

>>8726229
>Why don't tax brackets have more layers than that?
>250,000 as the cutting off point is retarded.
Having brackets in the first place is retarded. A simple flat tax can raise more than enough revenue to run a properly sized government without any of the inane complexity of the current tax code.

>>8726238
> And yet at the same time you trust the FDA to ensure your food isn't poison
I wouldn't trust the FDA to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. They're practically the poster child for worthless, obstructive bureaucrats.

>>8726237
>Because corporate taxes in the US are insanely high, so high that no reasonable person would subject themselves to that. Lowering taxes would bring that money back into the country and lead to massive growth, increasing total revenue.
Wrong, they are insanely low in shitholes like Ireland and so they obviously go their because we don't penalize them for it. If you want to sell your 800$ piece of shit that costs 100$ to make in America, you need to pay American tax rates. We should forbid them from selling their product here if they don't want to pay their taxes instead of setting up some phony 1 room headquarters in random shitholes around the world to dodge their responsibility while still doing business in other countries. Trump said a similar thing about putting tariffs on car companies moving to Mexico, and guess what? They came around. This needs to be applied everywhere.

>>8726237
>he EPA is nothing but a weight around the economy's neck. What good does it do? Just look at Flint, the EPA did absolutely nothing to prevent that. So why should we pay for government bureaucracy that does nothing useful? At least military spending creates good paying manufacturing jobs. The EPA just gets in the way with useless regulation blocking people from starting new businesses and hurting existing ones.

Completely WRONG.
>http://www.popsci.com/america-before-epa-photos
The difference between New York City's air before and after the EPA is measurable, and it is massive.

Also, the EPA couldn't do anything in Flint, they have limited governance, and that was up to the local government. You're suggesting the EPA doesn't have enough power so we need to remove it? What kind of logic is that? Shouldn't we EXPAND instead?

>>8726240
>I wouldn't trust the FDA to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. They're practically the poster child for worthless, obstructive bureaucrats.
You can say that, without citing any evidence at all or a source like you just did, but salmonella rates for example in the US, speak for themselves. Regulation works, deal with it. You trust them every single day you buy meat at the supermarket.

>>8726237
>The EPA is nothing but a weight around the economy's neck. What good does it do? Just look at Flint, the EPA did absolutely nothing to prevent that. So why should we pay for government bureaucracy that does nothing useful? At least military spending creates good paying manufacturing jobs. The EPA just gets in the way with useless regulation blocking people from starting new businesses and hurting existing ones.

Are you joking? NYC used to be like China with all its smog.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1966_New_York_City_smog

The success of the E.P.A is extremely well documented, the acidification of our lakes and the contamination of our air has all gone down significantly since its introduction.

>>8726242
You're wrongly attributing Prairie change to regulation, rather than the natural advancement of American industry and technology

>>8726242
>Shouldn't we EXPAND instead?
This so fucking hard. You dumb fucks have no idea the shit that's in your water supply

>>8726250
>>8726250
>You're wrongly attributing Prairie change to regulation, rather than the natural advancement of American industry and technology
What the hell is 'prairie' change?

And by natural advancement you mean regulated? How can it be natural if it's under under regulation? HAhaha....anon, that's a contradiction you know!

>>8726242
> The difference between New York City's air before and after the EPA is measurable, and it is massive.
> implying making jew york's air better is a good thing
The more of them who die from shitty city air, the better. Urban areas are already overpopulated shitholes that have been trying to dominate the country by breeding more voters. A little population control is just what the doctor ordered. Read up on Malthus. Without something to keep their numbers in check, the unproductives will breed out of control.

>>8726250
>rather than the natural advancement of American industry and technology
You just moved your smog to China
what a tremendous advancement

>>8723927
>Why cant global warming be good?
It is good. The weak will die and the strong will survive. The free market will decide who is strong and who is weak. The billions of people who will be brutalized and killed by war and starvation were simply too stupid and lazy to not get killed, they wan to die.

>>8726253
>Read up on Malthus
>Malthusians still exist
>current year
You have to totally lack any understanding of modern food production or science to think some 18th century cleric's thoughts on the matter are relevant at all. The United States alone can produce enough food to feed the entire world several times over, the problem is food distribution not production, we've solved hunger a long time ago.

>>8726217
[citation needed]

and no, fox news doesn't count,
wikipedia would be nice, as they list their references

File: 1484971497924.jpg (24KB, 250x374px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 250x374px

>>8726253
>NYC
>not literally the best of America
I understand you want retarded inbred hicks who live a hundred miles from civilization in either direction to vote along your lines of ignorance anon, but come on. New York is awesome.

>>8726266
> New York is awesome.
It's shitlib central, full of idiot millennials who want to import even more shitskins. Nuking it would do the whole country a favor.

>>8726263
Malthus is even more relevant now than it was in the 1700s. Now the poor are allowed to vote, and of course they vote for the dims and their promises to give them even more free stuff. Allowing them to continue breeding out of control gives them even more votes with which to get more free stuff and breed even more, driving the country to bankruptcy.

>>8726248
> the acidification of our lakes and the contamination of our air has all gone down significantly since its introduction.
Your mistake is in assuming that the EPA did any of that. They didn't, industry improving technology did. EPA just took credit because that's what bureaucrats do.

>>8726268
not to mention it smells like shit

>>8726212
the 250k guy gets 250k because someone thinks his work is worth that much. Fine, no problem.

The question is why should he be additionally rewarded by the state with a low tax rate? why shouldn't he pay more because HE gets more out of the infrastructure and still has more left after taxes than the poor guy?

>>8726315
because idiots have been brainwashed by oligarchs into being concerned for the well being of said oligarchs against their own interest

>>8726225
> internet, freely available to everyone

Where is that? I don't know a single country with free data plans. Next, who pays for the computer? Finally, look up how many people are cut off from electricity every year. I suppose your PC runs on air?

>>8726315
> The question is why should he be additionally rewarded by the state with a low tax rate
The rich already pay a higher tax rate. Really, it would be better if everyone just paid the same flat percentage of their income.

> why shouldn't he pay more because HE gets more out of the infrastructure and still has more left after taxes than the poor guy?
Lolwut? The poor get way more from the government than the rich do. Just look at all of the free stuff that the government hands out to the poor. If anyone should pay a bigger percentage (which is dumb, everyone should pay the same percentage) it should be the poor because they are more reliant on government than anyone else.

>>8726252
>industry and technology
>natural

>>8726324
Fucking everyone and their dog has a smart phone these days, even the supposedly "poor" people.

File: giphy.gif (1MB, 480x287px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 480x287px

>>8726329
>The poor get way more from the government than the rich do.
This makes zero sense unless you have brain damage. Take road maintainence for example, a staple of tax spending.
>own a business
>suddenly roads are hugely good for you
>hurr durr that homeless guy over there benefits more from the public service of roads than you do, even though it allows you to conduct your business and make millions

>>8726281
> industry improving technology did
And exactly why did industr improve? Out of their good hearts or because regulation?
Remember that poisoning the river is cheaper with your waste than keeping it clean, so shareholders can sue you if you waste money on a treatment plant that isn't mandated.

>>8726329
>Lolwut? The poor get way more from the government than the rich do. Just look at all of the free stuff that the government hands out to the poor. If anyone should pay a bigger percentage (which is dumb, everyone should pay the same percentage) it should be the poor because they are more reliant on government than anyone else.
>be rich by fundamentally siphoning money from community
>community doesn't band together and take you from your bed at night with pitchforks and tortures because the government affords them a pittance to live on despite your exploitation
>the government basically subsidizes your evil and keeps you safe while barely allowing the poor to subsist
>they benefit so much more than you
what

this is econ 101

government spending on the public contributes to corporations and business owners in a massive way

>>8726338
>And exactly why did industr improve? Out of their good hearts or because regulation?
>Remember that poisoning the river is cheaper with your waste than keeping it clean, so shareholders can sue you if you waste money on a treatment plant that isn't mandated.

>mfw Trump literally just repealed legisltation to allow coal companies to dump their waste in water again
>http://www.vox.com/2017/2/2/14488448/stream-protection-rule
natural industrial improvement everyone

>>8726337
The rich get to use the same infrastructure that the poor do, while the poor get the benefit of that infrastructure plus housing, healthcare, food stamps, and a ton of other welfare programs providing basically everything for them. The poor get more from the government than the rich.

>>8726349
>>8726349
>The rich get to use the same infrastructure that the poor do,
Yes, but they also benefit from it more.
>>8726349
>while the poor get the benefit of that infrastructure plus housing, healthcare, food stamps, and a ton of other welfare programs providing basically everything for them.
The rich also benefit from this, as all of this govt spending on the poor comes back to the rich since the poor need to use this aid to buy things from the rich
>>8726349
>The poor get more from the government than the rich.
completely untrue, see above, learn to read, etc...

>>8726329
The rich guy uses an infrastructure that creates a job that pays 250k (assuming that's for going to work). The poor guy gets almost nothing out of that infrastructure, even if some stuff twards his basic needs is free. The rich guy uses disproportionately more of the infrastructure to get to 250k, so tax him more.

>>8726349
>The rich get to use the same infrastructure that the poor do
But do they get to use it as much? I don't own millions of delivery trucks the way Amazon does, is it reasonable to say I use the road as much as Amazon does? Obviously not, so Amazon gets more out of road maintenance taxes, which they dodged, and leave the cost to the average citizen -- who they then sell shit to using those same roads. It's simple abuse, corporations cheat, and then try to convince people they're the lucky ones.

>>8726338
> "Guys! Businessmen are totally heartless and will do anything for a little bit of money no matter how evil!"
Liberals always trot this out to justify more government regulation, ignoring that government is far more likely to fuck you over than a business. Businesses at least are upfront about wanting to make money. Governments want control "for your own good." I'll take a selfish but all around reasonable businessman over a government utopian any day.

>>8726358
>Guys! Businessmen are totally heartless and will do anything for a little bit of money no matter how evil!"
But they are
http://www.snopes.com/2017/02/06/dump-coal-waste-into-streams/

lmao at you anon

there's nothing reasonable about polluting local water supplies because it will be cheaper and raise your stock a fraction of a percent

idiot

>>8726203

fucking idiot. your boss being rich is not why you are poor. you are poor because you are worth very little. your boss is worth a lot. you don't get 'what you need'. that's communism. you get what you EARN.

>>8726363
> post story from snopes
> call someone else an idiot
40 keks

>>8726363
> there's nothing reasonable about polluting local water supplies because it will be cheaper and raise your stock a fraction of a percent
And the government will just as happily do that and fuck you over in ten more ways. Just look at Venezuela. That's the sort of thing that leftist dogma gets you. A starving, rundown shithole.

>>8726363
Businesses have never polluted water, or the environment in general.
Such pollution has never resulted in reduced quality of life, disease, cancer, death etc.

Fuck off, leftist.

>>8726358
Stay in China for a year or so and see if you still think that's a ridiculous statement. The entire country is a massive testament to the perils of unregulated business and corrupt, irresponsible government, a polluted hellhole where you can literally get away with murder as long as you grease the right wheels.

This is what the hardcore laissez-faire Republicans genuinely want a MAGA US to look like, hence their hard-on for crony-friendly dictators like Putin. And you still think handing over the country to people who got rich by not giving a shit is a good idea?

>>8726382
wow obvious lame troll

>>8726382

>what was the Exxon Valdez oil spill
>what was the Deepwater Horizon explosion
>what is Minamata disease
>what was the Sandoz chemical spill
>what are Chinese 'cancer villages'

Private industry and agriculture is THE main cause of water pollution anywhere you go in the world, because only they have enough money to make the government look the other way, and enough pull to force them to subsidise their activities and spin damage control when things (literally) blow up.

Heal thyself, you stinking shill. You're more Goyim than any 'leftist' you've put down in your life.

>global warming is real and human caused
Stopped reading there

>>8726225
and who is gonna employ somebody who has no formal education and "learned the stuff on the internet"?

>>8726443
this place is under the bridge of the internet where most trolls and tollas reside

>>8726167
Is that really so hard? Just dump a lot of sand or whatever in gibralta strait

>>8726480
yes but usually they have some class
>>8726382 was fucking lazy

>>8726225
Then more fool you for wasting your money on a degree. Oh wait, don't employers actually look at qualifications before hiring people?

>>8723927
the forests of the US are experiencing unheard of growth from higher concentrations of CO2. the timber industry literally can't keep up.

land that wasn't slated to be harvested for another 20 years is getting put under the saw.

My guess is it won't be bad all around, and the more northern and southern formerly marginally inhabitable zones will become more lush

the equatorial zone is going to get fucked though

>>8726357

>Get to

This is a terrible way to look at it. Businesses weren't gifted anything but were rather built upon carefully by ambitious people. The bum has the same opportunity to do so, he just isn't the same cut of person.

While it isn't healthy to vilify the poor it isn't exactly smart to celebrate them either over the successful, since the successful are the actual tax base of the country

>>8726358
> Guys!
Please do not put words in my mouth that I did not say.
> reasonable businessman
Reasonable is a variable judgment, and I pointed out that at least share-holding companies may not have the choice to be reasonable.
> my own good
Clean water and air etc. ARE for my own good. Yours too.
The meaning of liberal has certainly changed in an interesting way. For you at least.

>>8726504
Not him, but this is not about vilifying anybody.
It is just a fact that infrastructure costs money, both for building and maintenance.
And isn't it only fair that the ones who use it more regullary pay more money for that?

>>8726415
> China
> The entire country is a massive testament to the perils of unregulated business
China is nothing but big government regulation. Every aspect of the entire country's economy is government controlled. No shit it's a polluted hellhole where you can literally get away with murder as long as you grease the right wheels, that's what big government gets you.

File: brainlet.jpg (305KB, 1500x1100px) Image search: [Google]

305KB, 1500x1100px

>>8726157
>Laffer curve
>>>/x/

>>8726177
>tax cuts that are being proposed lower everyone's taxes
>only the military is seeing an increase in spending, everything else is cutting cut back to more reasonable levels.
Typical fascist lies. Orange Guy's tax plans would give the wealthy a 13% break, and the little guy would get 2%, and over 8 million families with children would actually see their taxes RISE.
>http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2016/11/27/some-middle-class-trump-plan-would-mean-tax-increase/94427186/
>http://www.npr.org/2016/11/13/501739277/who-benefits-from-donald-trumps-tax-plan
>https://www.rt.com/usa/367846-trump-tax-plan-deficit/
this
and when your increases to military spending (which is far more than the Pentagon has asked for or needs) is greater than the comparatively small cuts to things like food stamps and education, you're still increasing spending overall. you can't spend an extra dollar, save an extra dime, and claim you're trimming the budget.

this is why we can't get along with /pol/acks; they live in their delusional little fantasy world that doesn't even obey the rules of basic arithmetic. contra principia negantem non est disputandum.

>>8726509

>And isn't it only fair that the ones who use it more regullary pay more money for that?

This kind of statement will probably only serve to support the privatizers since there's no accurate way to determine level of use otherwise

File: Klimazonen-Prognose.gif (390KB, 800x448px) Image search: [Google]

390KB, 800x448px

It doesn't look too bad, does it?

Climate change is a hoax, we've known about this for years. Look up climategate and glaciergate.

>>8726517
>since there's no accurate way to determine level of use otherwise
What makes you think that?

>>8726518
climate (((researchers))) always use the least conservative models in order to fearmonger more funding.

none of their predictions have been even remotely close to what has actually happened.

File: Sour grapes.png (112KB, 688x1434px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 688x1434px

>>8726268
>grapes this sour
yanno, in actual cities there's more to do than go hang around the WalMart parking lot from 7 to 10. we have actual restaurants and museums and music halls and NIGHTLIFE. of course, you don't know what you're missing if you live in Bumfug, Alabama.

>>8726483
heard of tides captain /sci/? there's a lot of water going in and out of the med twice a day to take your sand away.

File: Socialism.png (149KB, 1409x521px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 1409x521px

>ITT:

>>8726529
sand was just an example. Maybe we could use concrete?

>>8726504
This is what libertarians actually believe

>>8726382
That's funny. I live in SE Louisiana, we felt the effects of Deepwater Horizon firsthand. That's just one of thousands upon thousands of environmental fuckups by companies, not even going to mention the tens of thousands of pipeline spills / leaks or dumping fracking wastewater into local water resources, or pollution in general from industry / energy generation.

>>8726522
for the uninformed: what actually happened was markedly worse than predicted.

>>8726534
A few thousand cubic miles of concrete might do the trick. Trouble is, concrete "exhales" significant amounts of CO2 when it gels.

Leaves one teensy problem. How do you stem the tides before you start building? Normally you take the water out, build whatever structure (dam, locks etc.) in the dry, then let the water back in. I'm not an engineer, but it sure seems difficult to me to get a 14 km wide strait under control.

>>8726522
>>8726974
Notice how when deniers speak, they always make vague, non-specific statements such as;
>none of their predictions have been even remotely close to what has actually happened.

It allows them to maintain there sense of denial without actually knowing what the predictions are, what the models project, or what changes are actually occurring in the Earth's climate system. They can't name any specifics because they don't know them, they're just circle-jerking with memes and buzzwords without any actual substance to their arguments.

It's truly pathetic honestly. They probably couldn't name a single model, or a single climate dataset, or any well known climate researchers and what they have published. It's just a bunch of misinformed idiots that get all their information about climate change from biased conservative media sources.

>>8726235
>No free internet in the US
This is wrong. You can get free internet in the library.

>>8726324
see >>8727037

>>8726522
https://youtu.be/Mc_4Z1oiXhY?t=9m50s

>>8727037
Libraries are communism.

>>8726382
Bhopal, anyone?

>>8727174
That just backs up his point. There's a huge amount of absurd fear mongering going around. In that video you've got some shill babbling about 6 degree increases when in reality the warming stopped two decades ago.

>>8726986
> They probably couldn't name a single model, or a single climate dataset, or any well known climate researchers
Wrong. There's James "coal is genocide" Hansen, who has literally been wrong every single time he has opened his mouth.

>>8726513
Why are you wilfully conflating stricter regulations with autocratic corruption? If anything, the CPC's governing style under all that Maoist bullcrap is exactly what makes Republicans moist; completely willing to buddy up to big business in exchange for lucre, and powerful enough to shield them from oversight from anyone else, most of all the little guys squatting in cancer villages. To the industrialists, all rules are merely price negotiations to be settled over a fancy banquet, as any businessman operating in Beijing can attest. The only thing 'enforced' at the end of the day is the class divide.

But this definitely can't happen in America, right? Even though the GOP hold Congress in the palm of their hand, support a President willing to give them free reign over the country, idolise Putin's kleptocracy, and could potentially trigger Article V to take the law into their hands, democracy will still triumph over crony capitalism, right?!

File: CC_1850-2016 agt.gif (3MB, 720x775px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 720x775px

>>8727399
>warming stopped two decades ago
sure buddy

File: monckton1.png (176KB, 720x324px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 720x324px

>>8727454
I see you don't let facts get in the way of your alarmist shilling.

>>8726213
Do you think these tax havens do nothing with the money? Investing in a bank account is not the same as hiding your money under your bed. The bank will take the money you invested and use it to provide loans to other people. It's not just sitting there doing nothing.

Fun fact, the US has the 3rd highest corporate tax rate on Earth. Only the UAE and Chad have higher rates. So tell me, how do European nations get away with it? Are they evil for allowing corporations to run roughshod over them?

>>8723927
Wildlife, including both animals and plants, have adapted to live in specific environments. Climate change can cause these environments to become inhospitable to 95% of individuals in particular species. Those higher up on the food chain will find a food scarcity and certainly risk extinction. The environmental repercussions thus consist of mass extinction, and the abiotic factors then regulated by the animals plants (Co2/o2 cycle, N-fixation) may then risk impairment, eventually influencing our lives as humans.

File: GISS temp.png (92KB, 1130x600px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 1130x600px

>>8727458
>Monkton1.jpg
You debunk yourself in your own post, using that crock of shit as a source, kek. Pathetic, keep on trying though.
By the way, your cute little narrative of using 1998 as a start point for measuring temperature data is so cute. The best part about it is that deniers like yourself like to whine and cry about data manipulation, when using 1998 as a starting point is literally the definition of cherrypicking and data manipulation to suit your own agenda. SAD!

>>8727450
> Why are you wilfully conflating stricter regulations with autocratic corruption
Because the former invariably leads to the latter.

File: welcome to sci.png (304KB, 527x308px) Image search: [Google]

304KB, 527x308px

>>8727410
Notice how when deniers speak, they always make vague, non-specific statements such as
>Hansen, who has literally been wrong every single time he has opened his mouth.
It allows them to maintain their sense of denial without actually knowing what the predictions are, what the models project, or what changes are actually occurring in the Earth's climate system. They can't name any specifics because they don't know them, they're just circle-jerking with memes and buzzwords without any actual substance to their arguments.

It's truly pathetic honestly. They probably couldn't name a single model, or a single climate dataset, or . It's just a bunch of misinformed idiots that get all their information about climate change from biased conservative media sources.

Key words:
>any well known climate researchers and what they have published
by making a blanket statement to the tune of
>HURR THEY'RE ALL WRONG ALL THE TIME
you've just gone and proven that anon's point. congratulationsuplayedurself.djkhaled

File: number theory rage.png (75KB, 592x379px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 592x379px

>>8727458
>le 1998 meme

>>8727463
>the US has the 3rd highest corporate tax rate on Earth
only on paper.
>companies aren’t actually taxed at the statutory rate.
>Tax deductions -- on health insurance, pensions, and investment returns, for example -- allow corporations to reduce the pool of taxable profits. So economists often look at what they call the effective tax rate
>different, reputable organizations have published very different estimates of the effective tax rate that corporations pay.
>In 2011, the Tax Foundation published a survey of 13 prior estimates of the United States’ effective tax rate from 2005 to 2011. All 13 studies pegged the U.S.’s rate as above average, but none had the U.S. rate first overall.
>Another 2011 study by the Congressional Research Service put the U.S. effective rate at 27.1 percent, slightly lower than the OECD average of 27.7 percent.
>http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/sep/09/eric-bolling/does-us-have-highest-corporate-tax-rate-free-world/

>>8727573
>the former invariably leads to the latter
[citation needed]
:^)

File: john oliver.jpg (245KB, 1447x674px) Image search: [Google]

245KB, 1447x674px

>>8727590
> politifact
> bitches about other people needing citations
You people have zero self awareness

>>8727605
Let me guess, only breitbart or infowars for political citations?

File: goodbye fascist.png (320KB, 300x561px) Image search: [Google]

320KB, 300x561px

>>8727605
if you click on the friendly blue words you'll see the primary documents right there.
qq moar

>climate change isn't a problem
>climate change doesn't exist

I really wish there was some kind of disease that would target retards.

>>8726504
>The bum has the same opportunity to do so
simply false, capitalism is incredibly nepotistic and by the nature of the capitalist class, the majority cannot be a part of the capitalist class.

>>8724274
What the fuck? Too hot for agriculture? Overnight is it?

Most countries around the equator are hot and humid. Tell me, what is an increase in CO2 going to do to plants?

What happens when you give CO2 sink plants, and algae in oceans, growth hormones?

Variations in solar activity cause climate change. Not some fucking apes burning fossils.

File: typeracer.png (17KB, 332x136px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 332x136px

>Global warming is real and human caused.

Global warming isn't only a causation of what we humans have emitted, but global warming has been sped up by us humans with farming husbandry and carbon emissions via oil and other natural gasses.

It's not solely human caused.

> The question I am interested in is: what will its effects be? Will they all be bad or will some also be good?

I'm no scientist but I personally believe that due to us humans, and the other flora and fauna which roam Earth, have accustomed to the climate and environment of this planet. When we speed up the progress, and couple it with pollution then everyone's cucked and fucked.

I apologize if my English's screwed. It's my 2nd language.

This global warming/global cooling/climate change debate/issue/scandal/threat is just too much for my brainlet brain to handle. I mean, does it really matter? Isn't it just right and proper for each and every one of us to clean up after ourselves more and waste less?

>>8726324
>I don't know a single country with free data plans
Is this your argument? That you don't know? Cause there are countries with free internet. Not very fast, but still. Also, free wifi around most european city centres. Also, many libraries.

>Next, who pays for the computer?
Used computers are dirt cheap nowadays, but if you insist free than browse giveaway ads, or go through thrash. Also, again - library. You can use them for free.

>Finally, look up how many people are cut off from electricity every year.
Next you're going to say you need food to use a computer because you otherwise starve while using it? Yes, of course you need basic utilities like electricity. Your minimum wage job should take care of that. Or go to that fucking library already.

>>8727458
The RSS data set was admitted to be wrong in march 2016.
Try harder, retard.

>>8728388
> Variations in solar activity cause climate change

Alright, let's assume this for a moment. So you say there IS climate change. Now how do we get it under control? Change the solar activity? Or maybe, just maybe, we tune one of the variables we do have under control, such as CO2 output?

>>8725924
you say everthing anon

>>8725924
https://youtu.be/Mc_4Z1oiXhY?t=48m40s

tropical 0 - 23.5°
subtropical 23.5° - 40°
temperate 40° - 66°

File: whale-evolution.jpg (21KB, 660x495px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 660x495px

>>8728429
>clean up after ourselves more and waste less?
exactly. separate the climate change meme from what really can be changed. don't let them fool you, the human influence on climate (as in temperature) is tiny and behind their own back they know that it is a social conditioning exercise that has nothing to do with the environment and serves as a distraction from what really is important.

what is to be done?

large modern ships are extremely loud and deprive the whales of their (almost) global communication. this is a form of permanent acoustic terror against highly evoved mammals. the tech for a silent propeller already exists and is used for submarines. it could be achieved within a few years. no more beaching whales?

large modern ships do not burn diesel, they burn tar (called bunker oil) that has to be preheated to become semifluid and combustible. asphalt, the cheapest and dirtiest fuel in the world. just 16 of the world's largest ships emit more sulfur (largely into the hydrosphere) than all the world's cars combined emit into the atmosphere. this can be changed. picket www.imo.org, the united nations' international maritime organization?

fukushima: the nuke tech comes home to roost. This requires the urgent attention of all whose coasts are washed by the pacific ocean, else it will be done by cancer industries intl. a worthy cause to redirect the climate billions to?

>>8723927
If you think the world economy being wrecked by flooding major cities all over the world is good, then sure I guess.

Everytime I browse a global warming thread on /pol/ you can see a slight shift on the conversation after someone argues properly defending the AGW theory, so they go from "AGW is not real" to "pfft, okay, it's real, but it's probably not that bad you know" "look, this article said we could grow grapes on England!"
Then ignore any argument pointing out the bad side of it

>>8725954
Please don't post lies on the science board

>>8729136
Every global warming thread on /sci/ is the few nutjobs who left that /pol/ thread to repeat their garbage memes here.

>>8723927
were all going to die
-Ecologist

>>8728388
>What happens when you give CO2 sink plants, and algae in oceans, growth hormones?

Depends. Do you keep all other parameters constant, or do you actually factor in constraints such as water availability, precipitation cycles and soil erosion?

In case you're wondering - yes, it does make a difference. Putting a plant in a box, ramping up the CO2 while keeping the water supply steady isn't the most exciting experiment and doesn't tell you a lot we knew already.

>>8728654
> Or maybe, just maybe, we tune one of the variables we do have under control, such as CO2 output?
CO2 has a negligible effect on the climate, and man made CO2 is only a tiny fraction of total CO2.

Destroying our economy in the name of doing something that won't actually change the fact that climate changes with or without us is pure foolishness.

>>8729383
I totally agree.
Whether we have 30 or 20 million hispanics in America is more important than climate change.

This is the most important issue.

>>8724274

Climate change will heat things up but not increase the amount of sunlight you dingus

File: 1_5StagesofClimateDenieal[1].png (362KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

362KB, 500x500px

>>8729136
it's a well-known effect

>>8729536
It is an issue we can actually do something about. Climate changes. It happens, and trying to crash our own economy in a futile attempt to prevent it is pointless. The ethnic and cultural makeup of a nation, however, is something that we can control and that we should control.

>>8729383
Please don't lie on the science board. The effect of manmade CO2 emissions over the past century accounts for all of the warming trend observed over that time and would be even greater if not for natural sinks. Saying that man-made CO2 is only a small fraction of the CO2 while ignoring that natural sinks absorb more CO2 than they release is incredibly dishonest and misleading. Man is completely responsible for the change in CO2 causing the unprecedented rate of current warming; the source of a particular CO2 molecule is irrelevant since its the change in CO2 that's the problem.

>>8729383
How exactly will implementing a moderate optimal carbon tax and investing in alternative energy technology destroy the economy? Your hyperbole only signals desperation from lack a rational argument.

>>8723927
Probably large scale population displacement, net acidification of all surface water, and general ecological collapse. No big deal.

I still question if the nature of anthropogenic climate change is as it is said to be. It's certainly a thing, I just don't quite know how. Jets are spraying some substance in the upper atmosphere, perhaps it's for the purpose of accelerating and controlling climate change. Perhaps the world really does have the biological machinery to process fossil fuel burning etc, and it is the sole source outright. Would make a lot of sense from a perspective of controlling human behavior and cultural evolution.

However, it also appears that something is moving to kill off the bulk of the human species. So maybe not. Lot of branches to go down and few real means to prune it down.

>>8729663
>hyperbole
a better example of hyperbole is when you run news articles saying the ice caps are going to be gone in 10 years.

File: RSS Tampered Data2..jpg (85KB, 620x470px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 620x470px

>>8728489
>>>8727458
>The RSS data set was heavily tampered to fit pre-determined outcomes in march 2016.
ftfy

File: Private vs Government funds.gif (22KB, 600x497px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 600x497px

>>8727468
>>>8727458
>>Monkton1.jpg
>You debunk yourself in your own post, using that crock of shit as a source, kek. Pathetic, keep on trying though.

Government will make many $Billions off $Carbon $taxes. So trust Government Scientists!
Big tobacco will make man $Billions off $Cigarettes. So trust Big Tobacco Scientists!
Monkton is largely self funded. So he's a Evil Denier!, don't trust him!

File: NASA 2001 to 2016 Change.gif (87KB, 995x597px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 995x597px

>>8727468
>when using 1998 as a starting point is literally the definition of cherrypicking and data manipulation to suit your own agenda. SAD!
>SAD!
Demoralization. An excellent choice of Shilling techniques.
Hope you're doing better than when you worked for CTR

>>8729699
>you
Who?

>>8729915
>>8729923
>>8729945
Uh oh, Special Ed is having a "Tamper"-tantrum again.

>>8723927
>Global warming is real and human caused.
>human caused
And that's where you are wrong kiddo.

>>8727410
Hansen was only 'wrong' because people altered his data
http://grist.org/climate-energy/hansen-has-been-wrong-before/

>>8729915
More on how the RSS dataset is a load of crap

https://youtu.be/LiZlBspV2-M?t=3m55s

how can i pump as much carbon into the air as humanly possible to kickstart race war? will do whatever it takes to release massive amounts of carbon at once

>>8729136
thats because truth does not matter to these people. the only important thing for them is that we keep burning more oil and coal.

which is not surprising considering their "opinions" are sponsored by the interests of the fossil fuel lobby

>>8730968
It's not merely a question of short-term profit and convenience; it's the myopia and apathy that these two inflict on one's perspective.

Deniers by and large simply don't care about the world outside of their immediate reality (why else are wintery places like Ohio hotbeds for climate skepticism?), and are more concerned about maintaining a comfy status quo than safeguarding the future. Even if they're ultimately proven wrong decades later, so fucking what? Why rock the boat now if they'll be off it by the time it sinks?

In my opinion, the scientific establishment has failed and will keep failing to defeat denialism due to underestimation of their audience's incredible selfishness. Short-sighted policymakers will continue to make politically expedient decisions like gutting the EPA because they have everything to gain and nothing to lose. We have to make them worry over why their kids are going to get exactly the opposite deal.

>>8730349
Even if (a BIG if in itself) you could prove that we are not primarily responsible for changing the Earth's climate, do you at least concede that we are doing nothing to resolve this problem, and are in fact hastening our demise? Or are you willing to shirk even that responsibility?

Be a fatalist if you want to, but have the basic decency to respect the people trying to haul your sorry ass out of the fire.

>>8731014
>underestimation of their audience's incredible selfishness.

They are against a full blown military-level propaganda campaign with deep pockets. It's the same playbook that the tobacco lobby uses.

https://youtu.be/pRenGy0cg5s?t=4m

>>8723999
Checkd