How do we convince him that climate scientists do not participate

>>8902840
>global warming should be taken seriously

Like "overpopulation", global warming and climate change are both made up boogeymen.

File: 1.1.png (140KB, 500x486px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 500x486px

>>8902840
>global warming hoax

File: 1114893-tommy_lee_jones.jpg (763KB, 1280x850px) Image search: [Google]

763KB, 1280x850px

>>8902842
>overpopulation is just a "boogeymen"

You gotta be kidding me.
So do you believe the earth can host an infinite amount of humans? do you even realize how insane you sound?

its not a chinese conspiracy

its literally just nothing tho. Global warming is, when analyzed closely, nothing more than a meme

>>8902846
No dipship. Overpopulation is a meme because it can support far more people than what we have and we need more workers anyways. Plus itll level itself out on its own as 3rd world shit skins stop pumping out babies

>>8902840
>>8902843
>Look at all this terrible carbon!!!! its going to raise the temp .000000000001 Kelvin!!!! Oh my god oh nooo lets destroy our economy to stop this!!!
Fuck off pebians

>>8902842
>>8902847
>>8902848
suddenly that Trump got elected makes so much sense. Even that tweet >>8902840 he knows how to play the morons like a fiddle.

You don't, part of the problem everybody makes with Trump is taking his words on face value.

The guy literally has access to the necessary resources to confirm climate science is legit. But unfortunately that awareness does not get him support from his base so he'll continue to with the denial.

If he falters on anything his supporters will turn on him.

>>8902848
You don't need to fill every empty area with humans in order to have an overpopulation crisis.

Humans consume resources and produce waste, all of which needs to be dealt with. if you have too many people you won't have the resources to support them, causing a worldwide crisis.

Also, stop calling black people "Shit skins". your hatred is not welcome here

>>8902847
Your denial is a meme.

>>8902851

you're so stupid if you think that global warming caused by humans is a "problem" lmao its embarrassing

>>8902852
>The guy literally has access to the necessary resources to confirm climate science is legit.
The guy LITERALLY doesn't read anything besides tweets and fake news. You utter moron.

File: laughing.jpg (39KB, 620x450px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 620x450px

>>8902859
>he thinks he isn't proving publicly he is retarded

File: 1433894022481.jpg (32KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 600x600px

>>8902859
Certain gasses have chemical properties which make them greenhouse gasses. here is a great article about this:
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/greenhousegases/properties.html

When we artificially increase the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, the atmosphere becomes more efficient at trapping heat from the sun, causing global warming. Global warming is going to have various effects: it's going to harm the growth of crops, raise the sea level, make hurricanes and tornadoes more destructive due to a warmer atmosphere, etc. it's really a pretty serious issue

Also if we don't stop global warming there will be a refugee crisis in Bangladesh because their country will basically drown

>>8902842
>>8902848
>>8902850
>>8902859
Back to /pol/

>>8902856
didnt say black people moron. just 3rd worlders.
>>8902851
Oberpopulation is a meme

>>8902886

>not believing in some very dubious science makes you a racist polack

no, I just don't see any meaningful trends in the temperature of the earth, sorry sweetie

>>8902886
lol. Dumb shits actually believe theyre better by ignoring reality. Overpopulation is for suckers

File: main-qimg-b58adcdf4066306d1365d5f45cd7e044-c.jpg (62KB, 584x550px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 584x550px

>>8902892
>Dubious

Let me understand your logic for a second. do you believe that artificially increasing the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere is NOT going to raise the temperature of earth?

If that is your belief, you are pretty stupid.

Also just take a look at pic related. global warming is not "dubious science", it's a well established scientific consensus

>>8902892
kill yourself or live up north for two years

One of these days we're gonna crack everything open in the field of chaos mathematics and notice that it was just a series of 3 coinflips that landed on heads in a row and everyone is going to feel super embarrassed about all this

>>8902868

>He actually thinks the president of the fucking United States just looks at Twitter and meme news shit all day.

Shove a cold pipe in your ass you retard. He definitely knows climate science is legit, even IF he didn't at first the moment he got the office he could have easily asked for proof and been provided it.

The problem is he can't convince the majority of his base this because that would mean giving the opposing side a "win".

The entire election and current presidency is about preventing the other side from getting as many "wins" as possible at this point. That's why they've been ham fisting immigration and health care reform because they can't fucking give the other side a win.

>>8902899
[[[[[[[CITATION NEEDED]]]]]]]]
Nice meme image dude. What next, ard you going to cite that "97% of scientists" bushit too?

>>8902911
Back to /pol/, trumpkin

>>8902899
they use 50 different complex models to track temp and ice mass. 49/50 got it completly wrong on ice mass as they thought itd decreasw when it has increased. All 50 were atleast 1.8 decrees C off in temp as of 2017.

>>8902912

this lmao

>>8902901

I live in NYC, or do you mean more north? that is not how the burden of proof works friend

>>8902919
Canada
every year we've been getting less snow
AGW is real

>>8902926
But it was kind of chilly here yesterday

>>8902912
The 33,700 VS 34 stat is originating from an analysis by James Lawrence Powell, from what i understand.

Here are articles about this stat, it was from some time ago:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/climate-change-the-greatest-challenge-of-our-time/5360852

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/10/31/1334180/-Global-Warming-We-are-the-99-99

The site of Powell is updating when new peer reviewed studies come out, which is why the numbers are a bit different now, but it still shows the exact same picture - there is a widespread consensus that climate change is real and manmade

http://www.jamespowell.org/index.html

>>8902932
fucking nothing compared what it used to be

>>8902852
Quit taking Trump at face value. When he says dumb shit he is actually smart. When he says retarded shit, he is super duper smart underneath. He just likes pretending to be retarded

>>8902918
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record

11 out of the 12 hottest years on record are all in this century, except for 1998 which is the 8th hottest year ever measured in human history

>>8902933
>dailykos

>>8902840
>implying this isn't a legitimate form of economic warfare and China hasn't neglected its Kyoto duties
You know you're on /sci/ right? This isn't a place for liberals.

>>8902960
>implying any country has followed through on the Kyoto protocol

>>8902960
Most scientists are liberal, but let's not get into that.

The concept of global warming has NOTHING to do with economic warfare. it originated from scientific research of the atmosphere and the effects greenhouse gasses have on the atmosphere.

Also, i would argue moving towards green energy will actually SAVE the economy, not harm it, because oil is not a renewable resource and we are going to eventually run out of it.

Moving towards green energy will also reduce the dependency of the west on oil from saudi arabia, which is always a good thing

>>8902840
You don't. There is absolutely no valid information or facts that would change his course of action. His arrogance and stupidity would shrug off such trivialities.
You have to convince him that there is money to be made in preventing global warming. Specifically, money *he* could make from the phenomenon. Then he'd listen.

>>8902941
out of the tiny amount of time we have measured them.
>what are solar cycles?

>>8902993
oh god, kys
the solar where the sun gets hotter until we die or the solar cycle where the sun periodically irradiates us until we die?

There's actually a small but growing conservative movement that accepts climate change and wants to take the necessary steps against it. The key to their argument is that even if the predictions are overblown, the problems that will be created if they are right are ones we cannot mitigate or fix. In business is called an "undiversifiable risk" and in risk management settings these are weighted even against more likely outcomes. Businesses will spend a lot of money to avoid an undiversifiable risk even if it is not a likely outcome because if it comes to pass, there's basically nothing they can do.

>How do we convince him that the scientific consensus about the impact of humans on global warming should be taken seriously?
Because there is no scientific consensus that it should be taken seriously, just that it's happening at some rate.

File: 1440398163133.jpg (119KB, 501x585px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 501x585px

>>8902840
>How do we convince him that climate scientists do not participate in a grand scale Chinese conspiracy?
good try chink.

>>8902933
Dude stop. Citations and scientific research do not work on deniers. They will always dig deep to find some idiotic reason to discredit any thing you throw at them. These are the same people that buy into the "fake news" bullshit that Trump spouts.

>>8903030
You ok hillary?

>>8903037
Hillary has nothing to do with this.
What he is saying is true in many cases. look how many evidence i gave to support man-made global warming in this thread, and people who deny it just keep denying it because they are partisan hacks who would rather believe a republican politician over the majority of climate scientists

You can't convince him about anything unless you convince him that he can make money off of it

>>8903043
Or because the evidence isn't damning on any kind of geological scale, and anybody over the age of 30 has been hearing about this eco-climate-global-meltdown for their entire lives, with "the next ice age!" just around the fucking corner, and then it was "shit we're all gunna melt!" and now its just "well some places are kinda changing in climate".

Hippies burned themselves super fucking hard with this one and you're not going to be convincing anybody who has seen how that happened because supposedly reliable studies "proving" it before weren't true then, so why should we think they are now?

>>8903043
>he
You mean me
The consensus is there's some manmade warming at some rate. Everyone agrees. Your opinions is that it's important enough to actively harm the economy to do more to prevent it compared to other countries. This is a controversial opinion for obvious reasons.

>>8903058
Moving to green energy will not harm the Economy, it will save the economy. Oil is not a renewable the source, the sooner we move to green energy the better.

Furthermore, moving the green energy will reduce the dependency of the west on oil from saudi arabia - wouldn't this be great?

File: Report_Ignore.png (69KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 625x626px

>>8902840
>>8902842
>>8902850
>>8902859
Probably samefag trying to bait

File: maxresdefault.jpg (259KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

259KB, 1920x1080px

>>8903057
You are straw-manning the shit out of your argument. no one claimed that we are going to melt or that we are going to have next ice age within our lifetime. and also, current global warming advocates do not say that "oh, some places are kinda changing in climate".

Please quit the strawmen arguments.

The studies from years ago predicted that the earth is warming, and guess what? 11 out of the 12 hottest years in human history were all in this century.

The studies weren't wrong. they gave estimations of the rise in temperature and not exact number because there is always a degree of error in climate science, however we do have a strong grasp of the overall picture

>>8903066
>putting arbitrary restrictions, penalties and fines on certain materials and energy sources will not harm the economy
You dont even know the argument youre trying to have. All there is in your mind is "climate change is bad so stopping it is good" and you have no idea what that implies or what's currently being done about it

>>8903094
I actually know exactly what is the argument i'm trying to have.

Green Energy is a growing industry with a huge potential to benefit the economy. in the other hand, the oil industry is slowly running out of their oil reserves - this is maybe not a problem right now, but if you are young oil reserves running short is going to be a serious problem within your lifetime.

If the oil reserves run out BEFORE we make a transition towards green energy, you do understand its going to crush the economy, right?

And also, another benefit of green energy is that it will reduce the dependency of the west on oil from the middle east. wouldn't it be beneficial if the western world stopped being dependent on saudi oil?

>>8903066
>lets force everyone to use new and unreliable tech that costs a shit load to produce
>"it wunt hurt da economonies!"
Oh my god youre seriously fucking retarded

>>8903102
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Germany

Germany increased the production of Green energy from 6.3% of the overall energy consumption to 34% of their overall energy consumption, and this has been nothing but beneficial to their economy

In one year alone roughly 300,000~400,000 new jobs are created in the green energy industry. This honestly kills your argument

>>8902840
It was this moment that /pol realized they fucked it up.

>>8902911
>B-B-BUT MUH PRESI-DENT!
This means nothing you asshat. Trump is Trump, an idiot.

>He definitely knows climate science is legit
So he's a liar, great! And no he doesn't know shit.

> even IF he didn't at first the moment he got the office he could have easily asked for proof and been provided it.
But he didn't. If you weren't a faggot you would not be a faggot. But you are.

>>8903105
>germany shells out massive amounts of money to artifically raise their green energy to stop their reliance on eastern oil
>it cost a fuck load of money, the government did it, the power costs alot but is kept low by massive subsities.
My god you are actually retarded. Almost all of those "jobs" are temporary constuction jobs that were dead before the end of the year you faggot. Your article literally proved my point. Its harmful to do and the only reason germany could is because they sit on loads of cash

File: 1494464076014.jpg (64KB, 583x420px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 583x420px

>>8902899
>peer-reviewed climate change papers

File: Rapidly increasing polar ice loss .jpg (209KB, 1680x1172px) Image search: [Google]

209KB, 1680x1172px

>>8902918
>49/50 got it completly wrong on ice mass as they thought itd decreasw when it has increased.
WRONG.

>>8902993
>solar cycles
So solar radiation has increased since the industrial revolution? Because it hasn't and is currently at a minimum.

>>8903019
>no scientific consensus that a scientific consensus should not be taken seriously
Are you illiterate or just deliberately misrepresenting what was said?

>>8903057
>Or because the evidence isn't damning on any kind of geological scale
How about a human timescale? Why are deniers so retarded and/or deceptive?

File: FdzSOzFL.jpg (42KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 480x480px

>>8903113
Many countries in europe are making a transition to Green Energy.

Not even one of them experienced economic issues due to the transition, and every single one of them enjoyed economic benefits from the transition.

You get to save the economy and save the planet at the same time. it doesn't get much better than this.

>>8903058
So you would agree that if we can make net savings by mitigating future losses due to climate change, we should? I don't see how that's controversial unless you've decided from the beginning that there are no net savings to be made, which you deniers seem to have done.

>>8903113
So is Germany worse off? Because that was what you argued. I don't see how money being spent inside Germany for green energy is worse than money going out of Germany for oil.

File: 1494303584135.jpg (23KB, 284x284px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 284x284px

>>8903113
Investing in Green energy actually helps the economy grow
.
According to a study which covered 80 different countries who are making a transition to green energy, there is a link of causality between transitioning to green energy and economic growth:

Have fun reading the PDF of the study:
https://www.econjournals.com/index.php/ijeep/article/download/879/515

"The interdependence between renewable energy consumption and economic growth suggests that this type of energy source is important for economic growth and likewise economic growth encourages the use of more renewable energy source. The presence of causality provides an avenue to continue the use of government policies that enhance the development of the renewable energy sector."

>>8902840
>How do we convince him that climate scientists do not participate in a grand scale Chinese conspiracy?
>How do we convince him that the scientific consensus about the impact of humans on global warming should be taken seriously?
Why should we lie to him?
It is clear that what he said is completely true.

Anyway, I think it is too cold where I live, I would welcome a bit of global warming so even if this conspiracy about (((global warming))) is not just one of (((their))) lies atleast I don't have to freeze as much.

You can't reason with someone who can't be reasoned with

File: 1461915918425.jpg (63KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 500x500px

>>8903215
Explain this:
If global warming is a "Chinese hoax to harm the US economy", how come the Chinese themselves are also making a transition towards more green energy?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/05/world/asia/china-renewable-energy-investment.html?_r=0

Your retarded conspiracy was stupid to begin with desu, and this just destroys it even further

>>8903240
really makes synapses fire

>>8902847
You people always make these assertions that global warming is a meme but not once have any of you linked a study backing up your claim.

>>8903215
>global warming means everywhere will be hotter always

>>8902852
>If he falters on anything his supporters will turn on him.
not really, as far as I can see his supporters don't really hold him to a standard.

>>8902892
>very dubious
where exactly are the holes in the mountain of peer reviewed evidence against you?

Yes this is an appeal to authority but you literally have conjecture and nothing else.

>>8902840
How about the fact that I don't care about climate change?

The /pol/ infection(massive Reddit migration) has ruined 4chan. Just go back to your fucking board.

>>8902967
Not that I disagree, but simplified armcharm arguments usually aren't useful in something as complicated as the economy.

>>8903030
Scientific research can itself be pretty skewed and biased (confirmation bias is EVERYWHERE). They're too often presented as if they're perfect when they're far from it. If more science communicators pointed out the conservative estimates instead of the skewed current belief, it'd be a better landscape.

>>8902840
maybe it's not being taken seriously because it's wrong, or at least seriously flawed

there's more than one way to interpret data

>when the data is so wrong you have to change your hypothesis/predictions/name
>when the data is still wrong so you have to do it AGAIN
>and AGAIN!

climate "scientists", what will they think of next? i would go with "bipedal assisted weather modification"

all kidding aside, icebergs are definitely sexist. keep the papers coming

>>8902840
Since when is climatology considered a science? It's worse than psychology. Those retards can't into statistics and get btfo'd by burned-out stringmen like lumo

>>8903613
>LOLOLOL ITS THE FUCKING APOCALYPSE! WE ARE DOOMED!!
uh no.
>WHERE ARE YOUR STUDIES BACKING THAT CLAIM???

File: bill-nye-rachel-bloom-3.jpg (63KB, 640x355px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 640x355px

>>8902840
Show him this, that will surely convinced him

>>8902840
First you have to convince him that there's a scientific consensus on AGW meme

>>8902879
Except:
>Arable land will increase as we leave the glacial period, so warmer atmosphere + higher CO2 concentrations will increase agricultural productivity
>Sea levels will rise so slowly that we can real estate on coastlines, and inlet waterways will swell leading to overall more shore + river access by the peak of the warming period and lead to better real estate/trade options
>warmer atmosphere won't make weather worse if the change is as gradual as it's going to be
>etc.
It really isn't an issue at all. Not to mention, leading climate scientists believe that anthropogenic CO2 emissions account for possibly 2 percent of current temperature changes at the most. We'll be fine, get over it.

>>8903132
There is no scientific consensus that it's an extreme danger and needs to be addressed, just that it's happening at some undetermined rate.

Overpopulation is a meme because as humans reach the carrying capacity, they'll inevitably either war with each other, start breeding at a sub-replacement level, or crash as food supply can't keep up. In any scenario, the nation with the highest and most capable population will inherit control of the earth. Intentionally restricting your own nation's population is a losing strategy.

>>8903276
It's not a Chinese hoax, but it will disproportionately benefit the Chinese as Western countries don't allow the refinement of rare earths used in renewables within their borders. This is all outsourced to China. Also, you have to be kidding yourself if you ever take the Chinese at their word for anything lol.

>>8903675
>They're too often presented as if they're perfect
This is literally the antithesis of science. Science is peer reviewed precisely so people can pick holes in it: it offers a plausible explanation. "Proofs" are the realm of mathematics and only mathematics.

>If more science communicators pointed out the conservative estimates instead of the skewed current belief
Please elaborate how the current belief is skewed.

Or am I right and this is hyperbole from someone who actually hasn't read the literature and is spouting feeling based conjecture?

>>8902840
We don't.

They are a stupid dishonest people and they do not care about logic or reason or evidence.

You'll have more luck cleaning up a heroin addict. They are a lost cause.

Who are all these C02 = doom idiot savants? You realise not just /pol laughs at the chicken little's of the world. Why would you need even a single paper to refute this, and why there is no 'proving it' papers either if you care to search. It's political hot potatoe. Reasons to dwell on 1) C02 in the atmosphere exists in a negative feedback cycle due to PLANTS. So we could burn the oil fields day and night the grass would just grow quicker. Green houses operate at 1000ppm C02. Above this plants would evolve to use the abundancy of C02 as it is the integral component of PHOTO-SYNTHESIS.
2) Scale models cannot predict more than 7 or so variables in play at once with any accuracy, this is engineering 101. So how can computer models (scale models in the virtual sphere) with 100's, 1000's+ variables of error compounding shit ever produce anything but confirmation bias???
3) Climate gate 1 and 2, massive fraud and whistleblowing exposed. Alot of smoke! No field of science has ever been so controversial for a settled science!
4) Think about what this means. This is the greatest oppurtunity in science yet! Sort yourself out, get on the right side of history and question everything! Maybe all that is 'settled' isn't! Humility and critical thought is much more liberating than political arrogance, appeal to authority. Makes me choke.

>>8904040
>leading climate scientists believe that anthropogenic CO2 emissions account for possibly 2 percent of current temperature changes at the most.
Where do you even find this bullshit? Or are Monckton and Willie Soon "leading climate scientists" now?

>>8904120
>CO2 is good for plants!
>CLIMATEGATE
>All models are worthless!
>Czero2
Oh fuck. This is just getting dumber.

>>8902840
How do we convince you that AGW is a myth?

>>8904136
>Oh this is getting dumber

C02 used for plants is dumb? Inncorrect syntax destroyed my argument? Models that having proven to be incorrect to this date are to not be criticized? Climategate has been debunked has it??? WTF?? MORON

File: 1492699150832.png (422KB, 1520x1230px) Image search: [Google]

422KB, 1520x1230px

>>8904172
>C02 used for plants is dumb?
Plants are almost never limited by available CO2.

>Inncorrect syntax destroyed my argument?
Yes.

>Models that having proven to be incorrect to this date are to not be criticized?
They've not been proven to be wrong, despite the whining of a small handful of denialists.

>Climategate has been debunked has it???
Multiple times, actually.

>>8904139
Scientific evidence.

>>8902840
The man is mentally ill. He can't help it.

>>8904040
>Arable land will increase as we leave the glacial period
We are not in a glacial period, we left one thousands of years ago. Now we're warming again. Arable land globally will decrease due to warming and population growth.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/6/1/014014/meta

Additionally there is a high cost associated with shifting agricultural operations to new areas.

>Sea levels will rise so slowly that we can real estate on coastlines, and inlet waterways will swell leading to overall more shore + river access by the peak of the warming period and lead to better real estate/trade options
Yes trillions of dollars in barriers, flood mitigation, and construction costs can be ignored because it's GRADUAL.

>warmer atmosphere won't make weather worse if the change is as gradual as it's going to be
It's already making weather worse. See droughts in the warm season followed by massive flooding in the cold season in California.

>Not to mention, leading climate scientists believe that anthropogenic CO2 emissions account for possibly 2 percent of current temperature changes at the most.
Stop lying asshole.

>>8904239
>complains about costs
>the idea to combat a meme skyfalls and another fad of the week apocalypses involves murderous costs and offshoring the western economy to third world shitholes that don't give a fuck about environmentalist memes anyway
You guys really are retarded bunch, aren't you? Now, before you go "I won the internet argument because you rightfully called me a faggot ha!", I'll just mention I'm not the guy you were talking to.

>>8902850
you have obviously never looked at the science involved
please stop contributing when you're this ignorant

>>8902856
Your using a strawman argument.

Man made global warming is real. Overpopulation is real.

What isn't real is that the us, or even the whole world combined is currently producing enough emissions to change anything.

What isn't real is the idea that 7 billion people is too many.

We have no idea what the true carrying capacity of the earth is with current technology, let alone what it will be in 100 years.

>>8904277
>What isn't real is the idea that 7 billion people is too many.
the world is right now literally in the middle of a mass extinction event just as sever as the one that ended the dinosaurs. Pretty good evidence that 7 billion is too many imho.

>>8902840
Cut the white house air conditioning systems.
>>8904300
Not him. But 7bn isn't too much.
We are just all assholes who are also wasteful and full of hubris.

>>8902846
Populations start to plateau at carrying capacity, so overpopulation isn't really a problem. Many first world nations are actually turning to immigration to curb negative birth rates so their demographics aren't fucked.

Global warming, however, actually is a problem.

>>8903057
>I've been hearing retards in mass media pedal sensationalism for years, so I'm going to reject actual science without actually looking at it

Maybe turn off the television and actually learn about the science behind global warming?

>>8904322
thats too hard

>>8902846
I don't think he means that the Earth has infinite carrying capacity, I think that he just means that we are currently not facing an overpopulation crisis like many people believe.

>>8903080
I'm not strawmanning anything, I'm saying that while climate change is occurring, listening to anybody who says its the next doomsday is stupid because they've been doing it for 50+ years and changing what the scenario was every single time because they ended up being wrong.
It's happening but it isn't a big deal.

>>8903134
If it isn't damning on a geological scale how could it possibly be damning on a human scale you idiot?

>>8904322
>BUT NO WE'RE TOTALLY RIGHT THIS TIME GUYS! PLEASE LISTEN TO US! FIFTH TIMES THE CHARM!
Again, not denying climate change is occurring, but I don't believe anybody who says it's going to kill us all if we don't switch to pure solar power and water-wheels after destroying all cars

File: lemmings.jpg (68KB, 640x479px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 640x479px

>>8904314
>plateau
>not knowing how this shit actually works

File: pg040b.gif (11KB, 258x208px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 258x208px

>>8904406

File: pc15.jpg (11KB, 420x284px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 420x284px

>>8904411

File: fig5_2overshoot.gif (2KB, 329x254px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 329x254px

>>8904412

>>8904398
>I don't believe anybody who says it's going to kill us all
Again, turn off the television and actually read up on the science behind it.

File: fennec!.jpg (72KB, 718x720px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 718x720px

>>8904060
I think saving the planet is more important than money, but I argue investing in Green Energy makes sense even from a purely economic sense.

According to a study which covered 80 different countries who are making a transition to green energy, there is a link of causality between transitioning to green energy and economic growth:

Have fun reading the PDF of the study:
https://www.econjournals.com/index.php/ijeep/article/download/879/515

>>8902840
Scientists are playing along with the US conspiracy on 9/11 with publishing "science" backing the official account, what's so hard about thinking their playing along with the chinks?

>>8903105

energy cost so much now that many industries relocated to other countries
they lost millions of jobs for this

http://notrickszone.com/category/alternative-energy/

>>8902879
Read the whole article in Bill Nye's voice thanks to your pic.

File: Fib2sWc.png (78KB, 282x300px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 282x300px

>>8904569
Bush didn't do 9/11, son

>>8903141

type these 3 words on your preferred search engine:

green energy bankrupt

File: fennec fox.jpg (34KB, 500x334px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 500x334px

>>8904663
That doesn't prove or disprove my claim. it is to be expected that not every business venture is going to be successful.

Did you even look at the reasons those few businesses went bankrupt? In the case of Solyndra, as an example, they went bankrupt because they couldn't compete with other solar panel manufactures, not because green energy doesn't work.

There is competition in the Green Energy field, that's what capitalism is about. not every Green Energy business venture is guaranteed to be successful.

Honestly the right-wing websites who made articles about this while pretending that green energy doesn't work are partisan hacks of the worst kind

>>8902856
Go cry about it on reddit shit skin

>>8904663
Furthermore, you cannot deny that overall the Green Energy industry is experiencing growth. the fact that SOME green energy ventures did not work is the nature of capitalism and competition

I encourage you to read this study which covered 80 different countries who are making a transition to green energy, there is a link of causality between transitioning to green energy and economic growth:

The study:
https://www.econjournals.com/index.php/ijeep/article/download/879/515

File: tb3kTDy.jpg (24KB, 480x336px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 480x336px

>>8904663
Type these 3 words in your preferred search engine:

oil company bankrupt

I will help you:
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/28/oil-bankruptcies-100-down-maybe-100-more-to-go.html
http://fuelfix.com/blog/2016/12/23/three-more-u-s-oil-companies-plan-bankruptcy-filings/
http://fuelfix.com/blog/2016/09/12/135-oil-companies-are-on-the-edge-of-bankruptcy-so-why-is-that-good-news/

You see? your point is so retarded it can be flipped against you THIS easily

>>8904060
>Western countries don't allow the refinement of rare earths used in renewables within their borders. This is all outsourced to China.

don't forget that China uses coal power plants to give energy to industries that build solar panels

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2013/april/pv-net-energy-040213.html
>The energy used to produce solar panels is intense. The initial step in producing the silicon at the heart of most panels is to melt silica rock at 3,000 degrees Fahrenheit using electricity, commonly from coal-fired power plants.

hilarious!

File: 3e1.png (20KB, 640x461px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 640x461px

>>8904806
The production of anything requires electricity you fucking moron.

The whole point of make a transition towards Green Energy is getting the energy from renewable resources instead of oil and coal

>>8904260
So you would agree that if mitigating climate change resulted in a net savings, we should do it right?

>>8904873
>it's shit right now but I promise we'll do it properly when it starts to work
aka never

>>8904895
Green Energy does not even harm the economy, it actually leads to growth

Posting this again:
According to a study which covered 80 different countries who are making a transition to green energy, there is a link of causality between transitioning to green energy and economic growth:

Have fun reading the PDF of the study:
https://www.econjournals.com/index.php/ijeep/article/download/879/515

>>8904277

>Man made global warming is real
>What isn't real is that the us, or even the whole world combined is currently producing enough emissions to change anything.
What did he mean by this?

File: f14ab2fed5cd8a2be707a57b7a0dda6e.gif (1018KB, 499x374px) Image search: [Google]

1018KB, 499x374px

>>8904898
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Iceland

"n 2015, the total electricity consumption in Iceland was 18,798 GWh. Renewable energy provided almost 100% of electricity production, with about 73% coming from hydropower and 27% from geothermal power."

Iceland is powered almost exclusively from green energy and they have a solid economy.

Yet again your argument got rekt

>>8904916
not that anon but can the system in Iceland scale up for larger countries
I'm guess no because you can't get geothermal everywhere and you also can't get hydro power everywhere
being able to store energy would be super dope

>>8904922
Hydro power and geothermal power can be used in many places which are not using it right now.

And those are not the only types of renewable energy, there is also solar power and wind power, both of which can be used almost everywhere in the world

Renewable energy is the future of humanity because non-renewable energy is well... not renewable, which means we are going to run out of it eventually

If the west genocided Africa, a bit immoral, I know, how much would it help prevent climate change?

>>8903037
>You don't like Trump, that must mean you are a Hillary supporter.

Your mind on black and white politics. If eugenics were to come to America, I'm pretty sure you and most of /pol/ would be the first to get sent to the camps.

>>8904939
1. The carbon footprint of Africa is almost nothing compared to the carbon footprint of Asia, Europe and America. third world countries just don't use as much electricity

2. It's not just "a bit immoral", something like this would literally be the destruction western culture and values and everything we believe in. please get out of this board

>>8904939
not as much as developed countries

File: Global_emissions_by_country_1990-2008.jpg (102KB, 1280x880px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 1280x880px

>>8904959
whoops, I meant to post pic related

>>8904398
>If it isn't damning on a geological scale how could it possibly be damning on a human scale you idiot?
What are you talking about retard? Global warming is concerning due to the effects on ourselves. The entire history of humanity is a blink in the eye of the geological timescale.

>>8904398
>I'm not strawmanning anything I'm just making up things that never happened and my opponents never claimed and then pointing out that those things are wrong in order to argue against them.

>>8902899
>le science is a democracy

Reminder to stop wasting your time arguing with deniers. Their beliefs are motivated purely by partisanship, and if the current body of evidence isn't enough to convince them then nothing ever will.

>>8904899
Notice how none of them will answer the question. This indicates they are arguing in bad faith. If mitigation efforts were proven to be net savings, they still would be against it because of their preconceived ideology.

>>8905026
commie

>>8905026
>Hurd I think consensus is about votes instead of the majority of evidence

>>8903613

that is not how the burden of proof works, my friend : ^)

File: 1363606173846.gif (1MB, 325x320px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 325x320px

>>8902856
>your hatred is not welcome here

I'm cool with it.

>>8904959
Perhaps not, but genociding developed countries is unrealistic.

>>8904965
What does Africa's bar look like if you add them all up? And on top of that, you have to factor in how much co2 non-African countries produce to create products for 1.2 billion Africans.

>>8904952
I'm sure a population of 1.2 billion produce a lot of co2, directly and indirectly (e.g. non-African countries producing products for Africans).

On top of helping prevent climate change, all the resources would be there for developed countries to take. I know it's slightly wrong, but I'm just wondering if it would benefit our planet and provide a good future for our children.

>>8905063
So this is what a /pol/tard who accepts climate change sounds like.

File: 2f7.png (26KB, 487x380px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 487x380px

>>8905063
Not only that Africans use very little electricity and have a tiny carbon footprint, African countries also invest in renewable energy:

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

Now stop being stupid. you are just trying to shift the blame to africans out of racial contempt, not logical reasons.

>>8905073
Are you saying, if we got rid of 1.2 billion people there would be almost no effect on climate change at all? Seriously?

Surely it would keep us well below the 2 degree increase in warming which is the de facto target for global climate policy.

File: Dog.jpg (28KB, 397x600px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 397x600px

>>8905084
It would have almost no effect when african nations are responsible for like what, less than 5% of the overall carbon emissions?

Please quit being retarded and get out of this board. your ideology is hazardous to human society and anything that makes the western world great

File: AfricanCo2emissionsinfographic.jpg (113KB, 1019x1280px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 1019x1280px

>>8905063
I managed to find this
looks like all of Africa that's quantified is about a million kilotons of CO2 in 2007, still less than Japan

There are nuances that these graphs may or may not capture such as emissions from sources other than direct pollution, like land use changes and waste disposal so take these with a grain of salt

>>8905099
pretty sure cutting down pretty much the whole Congo Rainforest and burning it all is really really bad too.

>>8905099
Hmm, I see, perhaps climate change isn't a good reason to do it, back to the drawing board.

>>8905111
>this is the /pol/ mentality

File: 5870c83a8483e1df8b0177043758feb9ca769d4f6acadc6ed47062c4aa830a7d_3.jpg (28KB, 245x245px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 245x245px

>>8905111
You do understand that genocide 1.2 billion people is going to harm western society, not help it, right?

It's going to be a war that will last at least several decades and it will fracture human society for centuries to come

It's also going to destroy the current way of life in the western world because all the resources would go to war instead of the welfare of the citizens.

you are a fucking idiot.

>>8905116
>all the resources would go to war instead of the welfare of the citizens
America says hello and we already spend all our spare money on war. No fancy health care for our citizens, nope, we let the weak and sick fend for themselves, and we put as many people as possible into slave labor camps (prisons) where they provide free labor to our major corporations.

>>8902840
We don't. Nobody in power changes anything and we plod along until we run out of fossil fuels and our society is fundamentally changed/destroyed.

>>8905161
That's in America

but in europe, they move towards green energy in a decent pace

File: climate change.png (689KB, 1891x4901px) Image search: [Google]

689KB, 1891x4901px

>falling for the global warming meme

File: 893812_1322906916011_full.png (152KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 500x375px

>>8905193
Sure anon, /pol/ is the most trustworthy source of scientific data.

You sure showed me!

File: d205614c9e64cd4faca77a6553d5869e.png (12KB, 160x160px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 160x160px

>>8905193
One anon shitposting in /pol/
VS
The entire scientific community

Gee i really wonder who is right about the subject of global warming

File: red_vs_blue_by_fellows_house-d385vl3.jpg (254KB, 750x574px) Image search: [Google]

254KB, 750x574px

>>8902840
>How do we convince him that climate scientists do not participate in a grand scale Chinese conspiracy?
He is convinced. This is called "pandering to your base".

And that's true of most politicians that are climate change deniers. They have the data, they know their counter data is fundamentally flawed. There's whole myriads of people, both working for them and against them, that alert them to all these things constantly. In the end, it isn't about what they believe, but what they believe will keep them and their party in power - what they can sell.

The only real consequence to admitting to global warming is that certain manufacturing and power generation prices will go up as they are modified or replaced by more pollution efficient mechanisms... ie. The same thing that's been happening since the dawn of the industrial revolution. So even if it were a lie, there's no rational reason to fight it so vehemently... Only an economic one - and a very short and narrow economic one at that. But that's where the money is, so nadda you can do.

It would have helped a lot, however, if the Democrats hadn't made green part of their party platform. A good chunk of the problem is that it's become the narrative of the enemy, and thus it must be fought, regardless of whether it is the truth.

>>8905201

Why are you guys so susceptible to the "appeal to authority" fallacy? As people interested in science you should know that something isn't true just because much of the scientific community endorses it

>>8902840
>How do we convince him
Don't bother
send your mail to Mike Pence, who will be the new president in a few months

>>8905247
>Why are you guys so susceptible to the "appeal to authority" fallacy?
Very ironic coming from someone who takes /pol/ as his authority.

>>8905285

This was my first post in the thread. Yet again you come with another logical fallacy.

>>8905247
Realistically, you shouldn't have to be an expert to have an opinion. If you don't like appeal to authority, then go debate an actual expert on the climate.

File: followong.jpg (52KB, 594x599px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 594x599px

>>8905247
Let me explain to you why this isn't a fallacy.

You go to the hospital. a bunch of doctors are examining you. the doctors tell you that you need an heart surgery as soon as possible or that you will die young.

You go to 4chan and make a thread about this story. someone in the thread tells you that you shouldn't worry and that all the doctors are just lying to you.

What are you going to do - listen to the doctors and go through the heart surgery, or trust the anon in 4chan who is completely clueless about medicine?

>>8905193
This pasta has been BTFO thoroughly on the last climate change thread.

Check the archive.

Ain't got time to BFTO them again

>>8905247
look up the dunning kruger effect

>>8905319
Semmelweis was the first to link poor hygiene to hospital deaths, the medical establishment at the time rejected his arguments.

The consensus isn't always right and you shouldn't just blindly believe something because most scientists, or even a doctors says it's true.

Climate change sceptics could be the Semmelweises of today, currently mocked by the scientific community but will be vindicated in the future.

What if I acknowledge climate change exists, and is probably gonna be worse than the projections, but just don't give a shit?

I use solar and wind power, if you don't use them for purely economic reasons you're pretty damn stupid. Already have saved around $60k in bills for my street.

I've already started planting crops that require less water and more sun, otherwise I don't give a shit about global warming. Seriously why should I care about already starving people getting flooded in Bangladesh/etc? Seems honestly rational, they're getting a quick end to their suffering. I don't see many arguments against it.

Even if you do all these carbon/eco taxes they go to NGOs/private companies/"research studies"---all are corrupt as fuck. The intention is nice, but you all need to understand climate change is just a buzzword at this point. Find a different solution.

>>8905365
Dunning kruger effect. You're high on confidence and low on competence. This is why sceptics are not the semmelweisian heroes they arrogantly hold themselves up to, as they don't actually understand the topic they're attempting to radically change. The difference between today's sceptic and Semmelweise is that Ignaz had great knowledge on the topic he was studying, and backed up his claims with theory backed data. Denial by a non-scientist is simple, as they don't understand how a milankovitch cycle works, or what it is, or how it affects climate, or what the difference between climate sensitivity and weather.
>>8905372
Inherently wrong. Why are they more corrupt than the oil companies who support flawed research from the heartland institute who just distributed papers with graphs on the lack of climate change effects with data that ends BEFORE the industrial revolution began.

>>8905365
>The consensus isn't always right
Neither are arguments despite how fallacy-free they may be.

>>8905365
could be, only climate science isn't a new thing, scientists aren't just guessing so it's pretty safe to side with them

As if American capitalists don't know climate change is real . All they care about is profits. Till global warming becomes profitable in some way they'll keep denying it.

>>8905199
>>8905201
>posts data along with arguments
>"haha /pol/ BTFO"

>>8904277
You're*

>>8902840
You really think he'd give a shit? Rich people are already making plans to control resources and exploit the coming chaos to their own ends. Most that would happen if he understood would be to swap out properties and investments while pushing the world right off the cliff.

>>8905456
>posts data with arguments
You realize this only works if the data actually supports the arguments being made, right? In this case it doesn't. Just a bunch of retarded long-debunked denier memes with graphs attached to give an illusion of authenticity. Typical /pol/ degeneracy.

>>8905456
>posts data along with arguments
Half of the data doesn't support the arguments they're trying to make, and the other half is well-known bullshit.
"Climate-Model-Predictions.jpg" in particular has been refuted so many times in so many of these threads, that posting it is basically an automatic disqualification from being taken seriously.

>>8905296
>another logical fallacy.
Read the post again poltard, so the irony isn't wasted on you.

>>8902848
>we need more workers
What do you mean by "we", Peasant?

File: no-U-girl.jpg (38KB, 465x620px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 465x620px

>>8902859
>you're so stupid
no U

>>8902918
>it has increased
found the fake news junkie

>>8902999
>kys
good advice, Anon
take it

>>8903019
>>8904055
>no scientific consensus
Lrn2science fgt pls

>>8904057
>breeding at a sub-replacement level
...against the wishes of Allah and the God of Abraham? Good luck with that fantasy, Anon.

>>8904092
>hyperbole from someone who actually hasn't read the literature
Bingo!
...but it's not fair to expect the illiterati to read, when they can just listen to the talking heads on Fox News.

>>8904120
>/pol laughs at the chicken little's
>political hot potatoe
/sci/ laughs at illiteracy, Anon.
Guess at whom we're laughing now.

>>8904172
>Inncorrect syntax indicated my ignorance?
duh, and don't forget the spelling

File: claims.png (2KB, 250x125px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 250x125px

>>8904305
>7bn isn't too much
[citation needed]

It's hilarious how anti science leftists have become

>race doesn't real
>gender doesn't real
>the climate is changung we're all gonna die

>>8905736
>we
I'm laughing at climate alarmists with no arguments

>>8905116
>Muh western society
I don't give a shit, western society is dieing, read some Spengler. Uronically, what made the West great is killing it now, so good riddance.
Furthermore, given the projections for nigger population increase within the next 50 years, do you really think that, even though they don't contribute much to co2 today, the niggers won't shit up the world when they grow to outnumber the asians?

File: citation-needed.png (552B, 163x96px) Image search: [Google]

552B, 163x96px

>>8904314
>Populations start to plateau at carrying capacity
What is a J-curve?
>Many first world nations are actually turning
>to immigration to curb negative birth rates
[citation needed]

>>8904569
>what's so hard about thinking their playing along with the chinks?
It's not hard at all, which is why you do it.

File: no-U-girl2.jpg (10KB, 200x300px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 200x300px

>>8904717
no U

>>8904398
>I'm not strawmanning anything
>I'm not, I'm not, I'm not
Yes, you are.

>>8905745
>no spelling errors, correct grammar
good job, Anon

>>8904806
>>8905743
>>8905745
pointless hilarity is a sign of psychosis, Anon

>>8905723
TIL nasa is fake news

>>8905758
Climate science is not supposed to predict exact numbers. the climate is too chaotic to make this kind of predictions.

Instead, climate science predicts trends and estimates what the temperature is going to be

Climate scientists predicted the trend of global warming correctly. global warming is something that is happening right now

>>8905757
>sea level rises an inch
>temperature rises a half a degree >humans responsible a millionth of that change
>HOLY FUCK WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE

Y am i laffin

>>8905801
1. 11 out of the 12 hottest years on record have been in this century. The temperature increase is much more significant than what you are trying to make it sound

2. Humans are not "responsible a millionth of that change!", they are the root cause of this change

See >>8902899

>>8902840
More important problem: How do we convince the greens that all of their "experts" are liars and frauds, and best and practically only hope is fission nuclear power?

>>8905839
Iceland is powered 100% on geothermal and hydro power. much safer than nuclear energy

>>8905840
Hydro has killed more people over the world than nuclear has.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam

Hydro cannot scale to our needs.
https://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/11/pump-up-the-storage/
It's good for countries with low population densities.

Geothermal similarly doesn't work everywhere.

>>8905840
nuclear is much safer than what global warming can bring about

we have no choice, but to use nuclear and green and whatever energy that isn't coal, oil etc..

>>8905840
>Iceland
Irreveland

>>8905841
Well, few things:
1. I agree Dams can be dangerous when they placed in bad places. the placement of Dams should be in safer locations

2. Geothermal, Solar and Wind energy are safer than nuclear energy and dams. you cannot ignore the fact that nuclear energy comes with a serious level of danger

But yes, we must leave coal and oil. not only that they ruin our atmosphere, they are not even renewable, which means we are 100% going to run out of them eventually.

>>8905365
Generally to refute the consensus -- which as you say is occasionally very important -- you need a strong argument supporting your position.

Where is yours?

>>8905743
wonderfully strawman'd, well done

>>8905847
>2. Geothermal, Solar and Wind energy are safer than nuclear energy and dams. you cannot ignore the fact that nuclear energy comes with a serious level of danger

The worst accident ever, Chernobyl, killed at most 4000 people. The worst dam accident ever killed 170,000 people. You're just not dealing with reality. It's safer than solar, wind, and hydro. It does less environmental damage than solar, wind, and hydro - especially solar cells. The production of solar cells is nasty. Nuclear produces equal or lesser amounts of CO2 than solar, wind, and hydro too.

Everything you think you know about nuclear power is probably a lie.

>>8905850
1. You forget to consider the fact there are a whole lot more dams than nuclear energy plants. Also, Nuclear waste in the air is never a good thing

2. Explain how nuclear energy is safer than wind and solar. that's just not true.

Also, you can use Solar Energy on the top of any building, that's a huge advantage imo

>>8905852
> You forget to consider the fact there are a whole lot more dams than nuclear energy plants.
Not really.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption
> 2014 World electricity generation (23,816 TWh) by source (IEA, 2016)[2]
> Hydro (16.4%)
> Nuclear (10.6%)

> Also, Nuclear waste in the air is never a good thing
Neither is a wall of water that kills hundreds of thousands of people in an instant. Neither is the toxic sludge from solar cell manufacture.

It seems like you wanted to make a point, but you stopped early. Just as well, because your implied point is probably wrong.

> 2. Explain how nuclear energy is safer than wind and solar. that's just not true.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/

http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html

>Also, you can use Solar Energy on the top of any building, that's a huge advantage imo
Not really. Rooftop solar is a joke. It's way too expensive. If we're serious about solving global warming, you need to think bigger. Like, quarter or half of South America, if we were to power all of the world with solar. Also, putting it on a rooftop vs making a dedicated installation in a desert just raises installation costs, maintenance costs, for basically nothing.

Rooftop solar is just a feel good thing, with little to no practical value.

>>8905862
you are making pretty good points here. but please consider few things:

1. According to the article, the deaths from solar energy are almost purely people falling from rooftops. just compare this with the large-scale disasters that happen with other types of energy

2. The article only talks about nuclear energy in the US, which is a place where a major nuclear energy incident did not happen. if you would count Chernobyl and Fukoshima i assume solar would be safer.

you see, Nuclear incidents are maybe less common than people falling of their rooftop, but when they happen, they are far more catastrophic. entire towns were evacuated because of fukoshima

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

3. There is a silver lining for this. i heard that using Thorium for nuclear energy is much safer than Uranium, but the technology has not been tested in a large scale yet

4. Another problem with nuclear plants btw, is that whenever a country wants to invest in nuclear energy, enemy countries might think they are making a nuclear bomb. just something most people don't consider

>>8902846

Over Population/ Over Crowding has existed since the beginning of time, so it is a boogeyman.

>>8902991

This, if they made something that could limit climate change etc rather than say well "The world is fucking warming up" then he'll look into it more.

>>8905895
It's not a "boogeyman" you fucking idiot.
I can't even. do i really need to explain to you the earth does not have infinite capacity to hold humans and give resources to humans?

This level of stupidity should be illegal

>>8904172
>C02

>>8905840
>small tiny country over hot spot with perfect geography can use geothermal and hydro
Nice dude. Nuclear energy is far safer than hydro/gerothermal/wind/fossil. Retard.

>>8905852
>>8905875
1. "deaths dont count if i dont want them to!" Plus the creation of solar panels is an extremely dirty process that creates hard to contain contaminents. Solar energy itself is incredible but the production of panels is terrible and concentraited solar thermal isnt feasable in most areas of the world.
2. Maybe its because we arnt retards who ignore the fucking safety demands of nuck plants. Cherobyl was the russians wanting fast bombs so they ignored all of the safett features and Fukoshima they explicitly said to have a higher sea wall and japan declined because they thought no tsunami would come plus literally nothing other than some slightly irradiated grass was the consiquence. people are already moving back to their old places.
3.True. Nuclear funding is so low that they havnt had the opportunity to large scale test it. All of the features have been confirmed in laboratories.
4. >What is waste managment.
read up on the iran deal dude. You dont understand nuclear power so please educate yourself of the topics you're trying to shit on. They can measure the before and after products to see if any has been stolen. Plus we have satelites all over the world to detect gamma radiation in high amounts, which Uranium refinement causes a shit load of.
t. PhD Nuclear Engineer from Michigan

>>8905852
>nuclear waste in the air
What.... just what the fuck? since when did nuclesr waste get in the air? You know what the direct pollution from nuclear waste is? its heat.... just heat...

>>8905875
>1. According to the article, the deaths from solar energy are almost purely people falling from rooftops. just compare this with the large-scale disasters that happen with other types of energy
And those deaths are more important than rooftop falls because...? Hey I guess we should care more about stopping terrorism than heart disease and car accidents, because terrorists are SCARY.

Anyway the whole comparison is biased since solar cannot replace nuclear. If you want energy *everywhere, all the time* then solar, wind, geothermal, and hydro fail. Nuclear is the only clean option that can actually replace fossil fuels.

>2. The article only talks about nuclear energy in the US, which is a place where a major nuclear energy incident did not happen. if you would count Chernobyl and Fukoshima i assume solar would be safer.
Well your assumption would be wrong. Check the second link. Worldwide, the deaths per power produced is even smaller.

>>8905875
>you see, Nuclear incidents are maybe less common than people falling of their rooftop, but when they happen, they are far more catastrophic. entire towns were evacuated because of fukoshima
Yeah and only one person died. "Catastrophic" doesn't really mean anything if you actually want to talk about safety and not how scared you are by something.

>3. There is a silver lining for this. i heard that using Thorium for nuclear energy is much safer than Uranium, but the technology has not been tested in a large scale yet
This is a meme. What's safer is the type of reactor, which could be implemented with either fuel. The technology is just not practically developed yet.

>4. Another problem with nuclear plants btw, is that whenever a country wants to invest in nuclear energy, enemy countries might think they are making a nuclear bomb. just something most people don't consider
And then that country demands for international regulatory agencies to inspect the plants. So what? This is not a reason to reject nuclear energy, just more insane fear mongering.

>>8905895
>This, if they made something that could limit climate change etc rather than say well "The world is fucking warming up" then he'll look into it more.
It's called alternative energy sources. Unfortunately Drumpf eviscerated the funding of science programs like DARPA-E that were developing the technology.

You Drumpftards are so delusional it's not even funny anymore.

>>8905875
>2. The article only talks about nuclear energy in the US, which is a place where a major nuclear energy incident did not happen. if you would count Chernobyl and Fukoshima i assume solar would be safer.
No one has died from Fukushima from radiation poisoning or cancer, and excluding people who went on site to clean up (don't know about them), it's likely that no one will ever die from Fukushima.

> 3. There is a silver lining for this. i heard that using Thorium for nuclear energy is much safer than Uranium, but the technology has not been tested in a large scale yet

There's several next-gen reactor designs that look to be safer and cheaper. The particular family of designs that you're referring to are awesome because of the liquid fuel, which can use uranium or thorium. For an example, look up ThorCon. IFR also looks pretty cool. Both have been demonstrated pretty well, enough that we should be building a full scale commercial prototype of both right now.

> 4. Another problem with nuclear plants btw, is that whenever a country wants to invest in nuclear energy, enemy countries might think they are making a nuclear bomb. just something most people don't consider

This is possibly the biggest problem with nuclear power. I need to do a lot more research. My current position is that a country can get a bomb with or without a prior existing nuclear power base. It will help them get a bomb quicker. The question is: How much quicker? We need a strong international regime to control the spread of nuclear weapons, backed by military force, and this is true whether we use nuclear power or not.

>>8906342
>Yeah and only one person died.
From radiation poisoning from Fukushima? Someone finally died? Citations please. I have not heard about this yet.

>>8906827
Not from radiating poisoning. From the tsunami/earthquake.

>>8906845
Oh, well, obviously, lol.

>>8902840
I hear he isn't opposed to waterboarding
Surfs up boi

>>8905847
>>8905852
>>8905875
>>8906845
I thought we're on /sci/. You should know better than to reply to tripfags.

>>8905379
They aren't MORE corrupt, but they are corrupt. I know a few of the what I'd call "ground soldiers"--research scientists who publish climate change papers, activists, etc, they are all 100% clean. Actually most of them are poor, and it doesn't matter because they could never be bribed. But that doesn't mean administrators who actually decide where this tax money goes are clean.


Both sides are very corrupt, and the oil side is blatantly both incorrect and corrupt, but that doesn't mean the climate side is automatically the opposite.

>>8905905
the zero is right next to the O

>>8905810
>11 out of the 12 hottest years on record have been in this century
OH MY GODF

IT'S OVER

OH WELL

IF ONLY HUMANS NEVER BURNED THINGS. TOO BAD.

>>8907187
it's actually not impossible that it's over

if we somehow break 4-5 degrees (which some models predict depending on how some variables act) then it might actually be over

>>8907229
lol ok

>Mfw somebody near me believes this is what the scientific method is
>mfw it's chilly in may

https://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2014/05/08/john-broome/at-the-ipcc/

>>8907649
The IPCC reports aren't really a scientific process to begin with. They're closer to scientific reporting - they're a document that summarises the state of climatology, intended for non-climatologists to read.
The actual process of scientific evaluation, discussion and criticism goes on well before any of the publications reach the IPCC.

File: Exxon_Koch_466.jpg (98KB, 466x280px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 466x280px

>>8907165
I agree that theres not much logic in the distribution of funding, my old engineering lab got less funds for acknowledging climate change was behind sea level rise, so they were forced to remove that stance altogether.

>>8903277
It sounds circular, but at its heart, there lies a profound truth; one which everyone trying to 'convince' him of things is conveniently ignoring

File: SurfaceTempAnomaly.png (380KB, 3000x2400px) Image search: [Google]

380KB, 3000x2400px

>>8907649
it's chilly in fucking may. So you're going to disregard the hundreds of papers, with data validated by multiple sources, and theories that are backed by what the data finds and the understanding of physics that allow us to turn that data into theory, all because the IPCC has flaws in allowing philosophers to weigh in on the issues. Apparently that's changed the fabric of reality and disproved the entire field of climatology, good going. The IPCC is a tool to try and paint this research in terms as simple as possible to a layman like you. But this is obviously lost, as you don't understand the most elementary thing, that weather =/= climate. Your observation that it feels colder now has disproved the observed GLOBAL trend in positive temperature anomaly since the dramatic rise in CO2 output beginning with the of the industrial revolution.
People like you are the problem, not that somebody near you. I can't tell if you're actually stupid enough to believe the shitty arguments you're throwing out or if this is simply a straw man. In your defense I find the latter much more likely.

>>8904300
Lol what the fuck are you talking about. If this is what killed the dinosaurs then they were some fucking pussies holy shit. Why didn't they just build some goddamn bomb shelters and boats lol wtf. Oh right because we are bipedal and have very strong intellectual capabilities and opposable thumbs and fine motor skills and they had some sharp teeth.

>>8908127
That's a misleading pic, cunt. You could show an increase in anything that way.

>>8908282
>You could show an increase in anything by presenting a graph showing that it's increasing.
Okay.

>>8908286
I mean you can make it look like there is an unusual trend when there isn't.

File: Temp-sunspot-co2.svg.png (111KB, 720x540px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 720x540px

>>8908292
is this more clear for you faggot?

File: history.jpg (69KB, 750x371px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 750x371px

>>8908282
How about this?
It's a temperature anomaly, why don't you look up the definition of that word. This graph spells it out.

File: evidence_greenhouse.jpg (33KB, 500x285px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 500x285px

>>8908305
This is why CO2 is important in case you didn't know (it's a greenhouse gas)

>>8908305
Oh no! CO2! Less CO2 than Earth has thrived with in the past!

Why should I care. Let's worry when CO2 could reach over 30x current levels.

>>8908319
30x current levels? I don't even think there's that much CO2 on this planet. The last time we reached this level there was a mass extinction event. We are currently in a mass extinction event. The difference between the 410 ppm of today and the 1000 of the permian extinction event (which caused the permanent extinction of 95% of life on this planet) is the speed of the rise in CO2, as there is no comparison to this rise in CO2 in such a short time span - the PETM occurred over roughly 60 million years. The reason this is proving so dangerous is the speed of the warming, which leaves less room for organisms to adapt, and will greatly reduce phytoplankton stock by the end of the century, which needs only around 4C of temperature change to trigger a loss in oxygen that would cause the extinction of all multicellular lifeforms on this planet. The majority of the IPCC models predict we will reach 4C of temperature change by 2070. Put simply, we're fucked.

>>8908335
>I don't even think there's that much CO2 on this planet

Then what the hell is bill nye (sex junk oh oh oh) bothering us for?

I could not be less worried about the climate

>muh delicate ecosystem chain reaction effect

Pure assumption. Stupid too. This world is just FULL of life. And it constantly heats and cools. Too fast? Lol, no.

>>8908319
>>8908357
If CO2 was x30 times, it would be BY FAR the highest amount of CO2 the earth has ever had, even higher than the Cambrian period

>>8908319
>Earth has thrived with in the past!
Humans haven't though

But global warming is just a maymay

Climate change is a natural cycle. We surely might affect it a little, but only to such a degree that if we completely stopped all carbon dioxide-emitting activities, even farting and giving all humans a canister to expel their CO2, it still wouldn't stop the temperatures from rising. Only making this process slightly slower, though barely noticeable

this thread has been linked to on >>>/pol/125464167

brace for an influx of 85-iq trump-voting brainlets

at least this thread is almost at the bump limit

>>8908465

THHHIIIIIISSSSS

>>8908465
>>8908498
There is a natural cycle, however the current trend of Global Warming is not a natural cycle, it's caused by the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere.

You tell me, you really think climate scientists with decades of experience are really dumb enough to overlook the possibility that this is a part of a natural cycle?

This possibility was one of the first thing climate scientists thought about, and the whole reason we are talking about global warming is because it's been proven the current rise is not a part of a natural cycle.

Have a read here. the current warming patterns do not match previous warming patterns:
http://www.climatecentral.org/library/faqs/how_do_we_know_it_is_not_a_natural_cycle

>>8902840
you don't. AGW is bullshit

>>8902848
>we need more workers anyways
Nigga, you're gonna be out of a job real soon due to automation. No one needs more workers - this applies to all the fags shilling for mass immigration too, by the way.

File: bigcrater.jpg (415KB, 2048x1538px) Image search: [Google]

415KB, 2048x1538px

>>8908465
So it's just a huge coincidence that changes that normally take centuries or millennia are now taking decades or even years in the wake of the industrial revolution?

>make a point
>"HURRRRR DUUUUURRRRR BACK TO /POL/ XD XD XD XD XD"

huh, activates my almonds.

>>8904314
>Populations start to plateau at carrying capacity
isn't that because people starve horribly though? over population is a problem BECAUSE it's self-correcting

File: le monke.jpg (309KB, 2175x2185px) Image search: [Google]

309KB, 2175x2185px

>this thread

>>8908526
Only two people in this entire thread wrote "Back to /pol/", and in both cases the posts they were replying to had other replies which debunked them.

Stop using strawman arguments, son

There are plenty of posts in this thread explaining beautifully why climate change is real and man-made, please take your time and read them

>>8905247
you fucking children rattling off "logical fallacies" and not understanding WHY they are fallacies and when, are my pet peeve
just learn some formal logic to ACTUALLY evaluate an argument and build a counterargument, because that wasn't a logical fallacy
if you simply google "appeal to authority" you'll probably learn why

>>8903141
They've been trying to patch the hole created by ditching nuclear through using renewables. In practice, their emissions have increased since they're now burning more coal to compensate for the fact that wind is incredibly unreliable. People rarely stop to consider the fact that it's simply impossible to power any sort of industry or infrastructure with an intermittent energy source.

You greenshits should be shilling for solar power sattelites, not subsidies for wind.

>>8908554
He has a point, and I'm not even denying climate change. You'd go a long way by posting the actual articles and journals, instead "look how many scientists think this as opposed to that". In fact, I don't think I've ever seen someone post actual research in internet debates over this. It's always some stale old infograph or pdf from the denier crowd (which rarely if ever gets addressed) and a deluge of "99.9999% of scientists say this" from the believer crowd.

Everyone already knows that many people think climate change is happening, but plenty are curious WHY they think that. And yes, even though you're right, you're still using the appeal to authority fallacy. It's possible to make a shitty argument for the truth just as it is possible to make a good one for bullshit.

>>8908586
The point is that argument from authority is not a fallacy if the authority is actually an expert in a relevant field.
>Al Gore says climate change is going to kill us all tomorrow
Invalid since al gore is not an expert
>Climate scientists say climate change is anthropogenic
Valid argument, since they would know that if anyone

>>8908655
Then, the way to build an argument against that would be to point out if the authority is compromised, such as they get paid by certain groups to produce particular results. Appeal to authority is not a valid argument here though

>>8904933
>non-renewable energy is well... not renewable
pretty much this.

>>8909129
all energy sources are nonrenewable because entropy huehuehue lelelelleleelle got eem

File: image.gif (15KB, 350x300px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 350x300px

>>8908335
Don't forget that biodiversty loss degrades adaptive capacity aswell.
>>8908357
Brainlet

>>8902840
>how do we convince him
Well, first he would have to be a person willing to subject his ideas and opinions to an adult level of scrutiny, and upon examining them, be open to changing them in light of new information.

Since he is not, we don't.

>>8909209
In 4 years the problem will solve itself, though the bigger issue of "dumb retards think their opinions matter more than science" remains.

I have high hopes for america but I doubt they'll be able to keep dumb retards out of office forever.

>>8909171
>muh delicate ecosystem

No. Captain planet, fuck off.

>>8908503
>it's been proven
That's why you can't take a climate alarmist seriously

You've got no problem lying to defend this theory. You think it a moral issue, not a scientific one.

>>8905847


No. There isn't enough CO2 in Earth to "ruin our atmosphere."

We can make it a few degrees hotter. That's a good thing!

>>8909226
>muh
Gb2/b/
what's an ecosystem in your own words? How do they work?

>>8909216
Well, I don't know if you're from the US, but I'm burgerese born and raised and let me tell you, everyone here's a fucking idiot.

Still haven't heart a solid argument for why overpopulation is supposedly a meme.

>>8909258
>There isn't enough CO2 in Earth to "ruin our atmosphere"
what the fuck gave you this idea? source? you can't just make shit up anon

>>8909291
There isn't one but if they repeat it enough times we'll give up and they can feel victorious.

>>8909291
European populations expanded out of control then stagnated. Indian populations expanded out of control then stagnated. Asian populations expanded out of control then stagnated. African populations are currently expanding out of control, 10 points to whoever can tell me what the next step is

File: image.jpg (919KB, 4999x3488px) Image search: [Google]

919KB, 4999x3488px

>>8909314
Global supply chains run dry
But the problem isn't overpopulation, it's capitalism

Yup. Demographic transition is real.

https://youtu.be/ZDK1aCqqZkQ

Play from 9:00 and prepare to be BTFO

>>8902840
Until the libtards stop their anti-nuclear fear-mongering, I hope it all burns down. Solar and wind are dead ends.

>>8909341
>Dr. Patrick Moore
literally a Monsanto shill
also, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovKw6YjqSfM

>>8909341
Didn't even get past the /pol/tard ad that played.

>>8909361
The true redpill

>>8909341
>BTFO
>because 50 million, years ago it was hotter!
Yeah before humans existed. We are adapted to a much colder ecosystem which we are rapidly leaving thanks to manmade climate change. He mentions the Milankovich cycle but fails to mention that we are well into in an interglacial and thus the next change should be cooling according to the natural cycle. But instead we are warming. Gee I wonder why he didn't mention that? Additionally Patrick Moore is not a scientist. He is a lobbyist for fossil fuel companies. He had no research. Everything he says in the video is either a lie or deceptive.

File: seaabsorption.jpg (178KB, 1226x1047px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 1226x1047px

>>8909171
Good point, I didn't even mention the feedback loops that are underway (less sea ice - less reflected IR, more warming - thermal expansion - sea level rise - etc.) that will make the aforementioned 4C rise even worse for any resilient species. Ocean acidification will basically destroy the biodiversity of the ocean - 25% of all marine species who depend on corals + shellfish which make up the majority of ocean life are both victims to rising pH. Nice graph btw I'm stealing it.
>>8909258
Stop lying.

>>8903105
Also:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/03/14/germanys-green-energy-disaster-a-cautionary-tale-for-world-leaders/amp/

>tfw Christy / Spencer getting BTFO yet again:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/may/11/more-errors-identified-in-contrarian-climate-scientists-temperature-estimates

>>8909341
>Crowder
Aka, Crowder the Coward who is too scared to have a conversation with potholer54 since he's been BTFO by him so many times.

Funny how it's the same ((((scientists))) that conservatives parade around on their shows, always the same faggots. Monkton, Moore, Spencer / Christy, Curry, Singer, Happer, Lindzen, Michaels. It's always the same fucking people that these conservative bloggers / youtubers choose to interview, a revolving door of stupidity and ignorance to spread misinformation. Of course they won't ever invite non-contrarian climate scientists to discuss the topic on their shows, because that wouldn't maintain their echo chamber.

>>8909423
>hurt renewable energy is bad because Germany closed its nuclear power plants
Makes no sense, retard

>>8909269
>How do they work?
It's not balanced or delicate as climate alarmists imply


This system is vast. If one breed of algae can't handle these rapid changes (lol) then something else will fill it's place. Like always happens.

>>8909298
That's settled science. You some kinda bigot?

>>8909419
>some numbers and graphs

Uhm what is your argument? Sorry but statistics don't mean anything really. Just because you have taken some numbers and represented them in some form designed to support your argument doesn't mean it's true.

0/10 bait

>>8908655
It's actually the exact same thing. Yes, scientists are a better authority and therefore more likely to be right, but just citing numbers of scientists is still a pure appeal to authority. Qualified authority, but appeal to authority nonetheless. If someone is legitimately curious, you're just making yourself look like an arrogant cunt by not posting the actual reasoning behind the claim.

I guess you fags in western academia don't get it, but as someone who grew up in the USSR I can say with total certainty that even shit "everyone competent agrees on" can be totally full of shit. If you want to make a case, make the case. Citing numbers of scientists is only an argument so long as your audience considers it satisfactory. You shouldn't be an obtuse cunt about it, and post evidence instead.

>>8909463
controlled opposition, even climate skeptics aren't this retarded

>>8909480
>It's actually the exact same thing. Yes, scientists are a better authority and therefore more likely to be right, but just citing numbers of scientists is still a pure appeal to authority
Yes it's an appeal to authority, but appeal to authority isn't a fallacy if the experts cited are experts in a relevant field, it's a valid argument

>I guess you fags in western academia don't get it, but as someone who grew up in the USSR I can say with total certainty that even shit "everyone competent agrees on" can be totally full of shit.
This doesn't make argument from authority a logical fallacy
This is why i'm saying, people shouldn't be making arguments they don't even understand themselves, which is what knowing the names of logical fallacies, but not knowing why they are fallacies leads to.

Also good to know that anecdotal evidence from the USSR trumps western academia

>>8909453
>like it always happens
On timescales of millions of years, sometimes, if not more.

>>8909453
like >>8909527 says speciation takes a long time
and there is such thing as the background rate of extinction
scientists have thought of everything man, a lot of these criticisms just come from straight up ignorance

File: 1494692794559.jpg (106KB, 645x968px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 645x968px

>>8909510
>Yes it's an appeal to authority, but appeal to authority isn't a fallacy if the experts cited are experts in a relevant field, it's a valid argument
It is a fallacy. If you are asked for evidence, and choose to just keep repeating "muh everyone else" then don't be surprised your opponents just refuse to bite. Why do you think the concept of logical fallacies even exists? Lots of things can seem convincing when they really aren't. Next time instead of just repeating the same bullshit, drop a bunch of actual papers.
>This doesn't make argument from authority a logical fallacy
It does. Are you a brainlet or just pretending?
>Also good to know that anecdotal evidence from the USSR trumps western academia
It's not evidence, dumb nigger, I'm explaining why you are utterly unconvincing even though you are 100% convinced you're right (and in this specific case, I too believe you're right. But for entirely the wrong reasons)
Ok, one last time you dense tard:
>why should I believe in climate change?
>because all these other people do
>why do they believe it? Can you provide some evidence?
It is at this point you're supposed to bring some evidence, and maybe some pointers to finding other evidence on one's own. Instead, you double down and repeat the first retort ad infinitum. By all means, keep bitching about your opponents being stupid and dense, but all they see is someone who doesn't seem to understand their own position.

>>8909562
why don't you look up all the evidence that's readily available? or do you doubt those sources?

>>8909562
>muh everyone else
Not everyone else, qualified experts
>It does. Are you a brainlet or just pretending?
Literally fucking google "argument from authority". It's a perfectly sound argument, not a logical fallacy.
>why should I believe in climate change?
>because all these other people do
No, because relevant experts do. Why do you not see a fucking distinction between laymen and experts?
>It is at this point you're supposed to bring some evidence, and maybe some pointers to finding other evidence on one's own
You don't even understand the evidence, you have no hope of understanding the evidence. Can you explain to me "radiative forcing components"? or "Halocarbons"? These are just terms I found in the IPCC summary for policy makers. The result of people "finding their own evidence" and interpreting it for themselves is retards like mike pence who thinks the earth is 6000 years old. These issues have massive scientific complexity and nuance, and there are academic fields dedicated towards studying them, so policymakers and laymen don't have to. Your suggestion is that we should ignore them and draw our own conclusions from our limited understanding, which is nonsensical

File: a23ffa5f8e8dd9453bcacba129882981.png (35KB, 1051x310px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 1051x310px

>>8909615
>>8909562
This fucking winds me up, you're accusing me of "repeating the same bullshit" when ALL I FUCKING HEAR IS "APPEAL TO AUTHORITY APPEAL TO AUTHORITY APPEAL TO AUTHORITY" all day from these retards, not understanding why it's not even a fallacy in this case (pic). Same shitty argument from AGW deniers, same simple explanation of logical form

>>8909233
>You think it a moral issue, not a scientific one.
This is truly the biggest issue. Get your feelings away from my climate science god dammit

>>8909579
I don't doubt shit, faggot, learn to read. I'm attacking this smug facebook #IFLScience normie style of debate.
>>8909615
Yes, you can bitch about pseudoscience, but when you argue for good science you should do it by posting said good science, and explaining it. And impartial observer who sees a debate between one side asking for evidence, and the other side just saying "lmao ur a dumb boy all these cool kids say i'm right" is not going to be overly inclined to believe you.

If you want to convince anyone, post evidence and sound arguments, not imply the existence thereof through statistics.

>>8909631
I don't usually lurk AGW threads (cancer), so I don't know about others. But this specific thread pissed me off.

File: image.jpg (38KB, 785x757px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 785x757px

>>8909453
Sad. The climate alarmist you just replied to actually studies ecosystem dynamics and evolution. Needless to say, you're retarded. you can bait a hook but you have no idea how to catch a fish >>>/b/
science.sciencemag.org/content/336/6081/589
m.pnas.org/content/105/13/5134.short
www.nature.com/nature/journal/v486/n7401/abs/nature11118.html
For brainlets(You) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_capacity

>>8909658
>Post sound arguments
My point is that I am. Argument from authority is perfectly sound inductive reasoning
>lmao ur a dumb boy all these cool kids say i'm right
Not at all what I'm saying

>>8909672
This, appealing to authority is better than non-experts trying to explain research they don't fully understand

>>8909658
>hold my hand mommy I'm incapable or using google

>>8908530

No, modern societies regulate by raising the cost of having a kid.

Ethopian farmer can afford a lot of kids because they provide labor and the relative cost of raising them to adulthood is small. Additionally, it's a jackpot if the kid turns out to be in the top 10% and makes himself a "success" whereupon he can raise the tides for his whole family.

Meanwhile, a gender studies bachelors costs something like fuck you dollars in America. And since education is the next bubble, the cost of raising a child upwards is a lot more than our ethopian farmer.

>>8905084
>Are you saying, if we got rid of 1.2 billion people there would be almost no effect on climate change at all? Seriously?

If those 1.2 billion were buying meat on the market, maybe.

The inflation rate on meat would be a lot more than the 500-700% (5x-7x) rise since the 00s because of a rising global middle class.

On a somewhat related note, notice how most fast food even tastes worse than before? I remember when taco bell meat had a bit of savoriness to it. Now it tastes like cardboard.

>>8909642
>This is truly the biggest issue.
Yes yes my grandkids and polar bears i know

>>8909667
Not impressed by your implications

>>8909463
kek

Im late on this thread. But remember anons, some people literally live their lives by lying outright to peoples faces yo such an extent, that they believe their own bullshit.

Climate change deniers are generally in this category along with the retards who say "lmao but i love hot weather!!!!!!! 1111"

These are the same people who will selectively believe things or disbelieve them depending on what makes them look and feel like less of a retard at any given moment.
Consistency in belief is irrelevant. What matters is perception of yourself by others and yourself.