LOL

Earth warming is propaganda by the far left to waste money on renewable energy instead of giving it to our veterans.

>>9126227
On a more serious note, how do you remove that shit when we're done with it?

>>9126233
It will either slowly break down up in the atmosphere or fall to the ground.

>>9126235
On the other hand, I'll still have to verify that anyway. But thanks

>>9126231

t. exxonmobil

>>9126227
This reminds me i left my fridge door open.

>>9126227
The environment is fucked either way. Any progress at this point would harm the environment. No amount of climate plans or the like are going to change that.

By 2040 the issue of global warming being the principal threat to humanity will be mostly forgotten and relegated to historical trivia.

>>9126646
By 2060 this poster will be considered a genius commensurare with Einstein for discovering that one can substitute a baseless claim that something will be considered wrong in the future for an actual argument that it's wrong.

>>9126231
>not an argument

The problem with your statement is that it's true. But it's also true that global warming will fuck our planet over. Both are true.

And I know that sounds like a double think/oxymoron, but fact of the matter is that it's possible to have propaganda for stuff that is proven verifiable fact.

>people actually think Global Warming would have negative effects

File: Sea-waves-water-beach-sunset-sky-clouds-nature-landscape_1600x900.jpg (518KB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

518KB, 1600x900px

>>9126227
Have you noticed they aren't called it 'global warming' anymore, they're calling it 'climate change'? Well that's because the Earth isn't heating up.

Remember when 'scientists' wouldn't shut up about the 'ozone layer'? Well that's because it was a hoax.

It is late August and I'm in the UK. It's been the coldest August I've ever experienced.

>inb4 'well climate change can change drastically and the destabilisation is due to our co2 emissions'

Shut ya gob. The Earth has been through WAY worse stuff, and its survived. The real reason is because Oil is gonna run out pretty sharpish and we need to find a renewable resource so we don't all die. The global warming thing is to make people less scared about the impending apocalypse.

>>9126661
GW is literally unfalsifiable.

>>9126231
earth warming is a leftist ploy to make first world countries more habitable for africans and mudslimes while also giving a reason for them to leave their homes because they're "climate refugees"

>>9126808
>I'm fine, so clearly everyone else is fine!
you are the faggot who says "works on my machine" in every troubleshooting forum

>>9126231
Yeah and the earth ain't round

>>9126693
Except all the negative effects of course

>>9126808
>>9126231
>>9126609
>>9126646
>>9126693
Not an argument /pol/

>>9126808
>they're calling it 'climate change'
>they

>>9126824
>unfalsifiable
babby's new werd

File: oil_share.png (57KB, 400x248px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 400x248px

>>9126231
Renewable energy will take undue power out of the hands of the fossil fuel giants, namely OPEC and Gazprom. A lot of resources at the big car companies are going into battery tech research for the very purpose of weaning the transportation sector off of its dependence on oil.

It spells trouble for the Middle East, but it'll happen with the area in a very weakened state. Though to be honest, they really weren't ready for that kind of power in the first place. Go forward with renewable sources, and the international scene will be better able to control itself.

It's a big international political game playing out not just in the West, and the moderate left is pushing to level the economic playing field in the energy sector by taking power out of the hands of the oligopolies.

>>9126227
Even if man-made climate change is real (which it probably is but not necessarily guaranteed, you know, science), prediction of changing climates of the future DOES NOT equate to authoritatively enforcing mandates, forced reallocation of people's money, and that sort of thing.

Don't be a pawn for Crony Capitalism

>>9126874
The middle east wasn't mature enough for that much money. Send them back to the 3rd world so they learn to act human

>>9126678
>fuck our planet over
What a charming little piece of chauvinism. It'll screw humanity over, for sure, but our planet's biosphere has been through much worse shit, it'll do just fine afterwards.

File: exxonmobil-denial.jpg (21KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 300x300px

>>9126600
>exxonmobil
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa815f/meta

>>9126884
Yeah, there's always some circular logic going on with this shit.

>I say that carbon emissions into the atmosphere can cause destablization to the climate, do you agree?
>Sure, that seems plausible
>Okay, so we're agreed that it's time to give the Chinese $100 billion to build new coal power plants that emit 10% less carbon than the coal power plants they're using right now
>What? Fuck off.
>WHY DO YOU HATE SCIENCE SO MUCH YOU STUPID RETHUGLICAN IT'S PROVEN AND SETTLED

File: 636013916429513313-2079379743_Broken-world.jpg (88KB, 1050x788px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 1050x788px

>>9126874
OPEC -> Sells Oil in US dollar only -> Foreign entities must have holdings of US dollar to buy Oil -> USA exports its inflation
To wean off Oil would mean the breaking down of USA hegemoney. (it'll also make the unbelievably rich Oil princes upset)

This presents a critical problem. How do you safely transition the world to a better and more environmentally friendly energy source?

I predict that (D-T) Fusion will have scientific proof of practicality in 2019, and on an economic scale where the power generation (steam plant, turbines, etc.) will significantly outweigh the cost of the Fusion reactor. I further predict that commercial Fuse-reactor designs will be drafted and installed for power generation worldwide by 2030, and will kick off a rapid, economically driven departure from fossil fuels.

The USA will be squeezed with a petrodollar collapse imminent.

"Science" needs to stop trying to fret 90 IQ plumber Joe's about turning off the lights, investing in solar panels, and indirectly paying carbon tax on his car. Instead, "Science" needs to get off its ass and start modeling with game theory a way out of the incoming shit show.

>>9126911
More like:
>Hey did you know we're probably causing global warming?
>NUH UH THE JEWS DID 9/11
>KILL ALL SHITSKINS
>THE EARTH IS FLAT
>HITLER WAS RIGHT
>TRUMP 2020

>>9126916
More like:
>Men can have periods
>Sex is a social construct
>Bringing in 1 million africans will have a positive impact on the economy
>We came, we saw, he died
>Hilldawg 2020

File: 1502734739815.png (8KB, 667x109px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 667x109px

>>9126916
I'm asserting that there are people who irrationally reject the premise of carbon emissions outright because they don't want to have the conversation about carbon taxes, redistribution, refugees, etc.

Because that's never a conversation, it's a list of demands.

Aside from that, >>9126913 is probably on to something about "plumber Joe" too. Climate change was a virtue signalling pop culture phenomenon as fleeting as Kony 2012 and absolutely nobody in the general public actually gives a shit anymore

ITT: Memeologists test a /v/ meme on /sci/

seems to be going well, parameters within acceptable limits

>>9126916
Nobody on /pol/ believes in flat earth.
It's known to be a psiop/disinformation campaign to try and discredit /pol/s other conspiracy theories.

>>9126911
You can believe in a scientific fact without believing in a specific government plan

>>9126930
Tell that to the people screeching "this is LITERALLY the end of the world" over the Paris Accords

>>9126929
They believe vaccines cause autism which is just as retarded

>>9126929
It's fucking crushing how you can't have a thread mentioning NASA or SpaceX there without seeing 200+ "the earth is flat" pics getting dumped in it

>>9126934
Those aren't scientists and global warming is currently the biggest threat to the earths life in a long time

>>9126231
>veterans

Literally, welfare. "GIB MONEY!"

Lmao, and as a daughter of a veteran, you know some veterans care more about the future for their families than money.

ICE AGE earth vs GLOBAL WARMING earth
Who wins?

>>9126808
Nigga what the fuck this entire year has been among one of the hottest. I live in the UK near the sea and shit's unbearable even though I spend most of my time naked

File: 1501502978158.gif (156KB, 536x440px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 536x440px

>>9126808
how many people do you actually convince with your sole piece of evidence being anecdotal, actually kys

File: 1503163927373.jpg (65KB, 640x720px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 640x720px

>>9126941
while it is a huge threat why do people always forget that nuclear devastation is literally right around the corner every second of every day, decades of recorded information with MULTIPLE right up to the brink events and no one cares lmao. I swear to god the soviet union broke up and the west was like k its fine now forget about it forever

>but wat what about all the missing materia-
>and the aging syste-
>what about rogue stat-
>what about incompent-
>and malfuncti-
>at least you can agree there is a small chance of an honest mistak-
FORGET IT
>plus there is the economic cost
>and the ethics
>also MAD is an idiotic idea to begin with
FUCKING FORGET IT RREEEEEE, IN FACT WE ARENT GOING TO DISARM BECAUSE THEY ARE REALLY FUCKING USEFUL TRUST ME

File: UKaugust.gif (46KB, 929x512px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 929x512px

>>9126808
>Have you noticed they aren't called it 'global warming' anymore, they're calling it 'climate change'?
Lie.

>Well that's because the Earth isn't heating up.
Lie.

>Remember when 'scientists' wouldn't shut up about the 'ozone layer'? Well that's because it was a hoax.
Lie.

>It is late August and I'm in the UK. It's been the coldest August I've ever experienced.
Lie. (see pic)

>The Earth has been through WAY worse stuff, and its survived.
No one is concerned about Earth's "survival," whatever you think that means. What an idiotic strawman. Climatologists are concerned because humanity and the ecology we rely on have never experienced warming this rapid. It's too rapid for our environment to adapt to and for our infrastructure to adapt to without incurring significant costs.

You are stupid and dishonest, and you should feel bad.

>>9127132
The fact that he thinks earth won't survive just shows he has no idea what the fuck he is on about.

Someone should break him the news that it isn't earth that isn't going to survive. It's us, humans who won't survive.

>>9127153
that would be good, unless humans reach life expectancy of 200 years or more, none will do shit about this.

File: Climate Change History.png (178KB, 996x810px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 996x810px

Seems I've rustled a few jimmies here.

>>9126844
Not an argument

>>9126869

'They being scientists... who else would I mean?

>>9126998

Speak for yourself.

>>9127106

And where do you get your information? From other people over the internet with graphs. intelligent and enlightened one you are.

>>9127132

>Lie.

Proof?

>Lie.

Proof?

>Lie.

Proof?

>Lie. (see pic)

Global warming/cooling is natural. (See pic)

>No one is concerned about Earth's "survival," whatever you think that means.

Yes, who cares about Earth's well-being. Moron.

>What an idiotic strawman.

Not an argument.

>Climatologists are concerned because humanity and the ecology we rely on have never experienced warming this rapid. It's too rapid for our environment to adapt to and for our infrastructure to adapt to without incurring significant costs.

Proof?

>You are stupid and dishonest, and you should feel bad.

And you are blithely following the consensus of your government. Like I said, its all because oil will run out, not because they care about the environment. If you want the truth, always follow the money.

>>9127153

The fact that he thinks earth won't survive just shows he has no idea what the fuck he is on about.

>>9127153

>Someone should break him the news that it isn't earth that isn't going to survive. It's us, humans who won't survive.

I think the Earth and Humans will survive, you are clearly a moron.

>>9128497
The year has been one of the hottest in recent history, that's just a fact, and some of the months have been *the* hottest in recent history

File: 1502974054849.jpg (45KB, 600x402px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 600x402px

>>9128497
>Proof?
>Have you noticed they aren't called it 'global warming' anymore, they're calling it 'climate change'?
Burden of proof is on you.

>Well that's because the Earth isn't heating up.
It is. See pic.

>Remember when 'scientists' wouldn't shut up about the 'ozone layer'? Well that's because it was a hoax.
Burden of proof is on you.

>Global warming/cooling is natural. (See pic)
That doesn't respond to what I said. This August in the UK is warmer than average, when you said it's the coldest you've ever experienced.

Your pic is fraudulent since it doesn't even show temperatures over the last 100 years yet it claims to show current global warming. You're really proving how dishonest and incompetent deniers are. It also fails to mention that the temperature in Greenland is not necessarily representative of global temperature, which is what we're talking about.

>Yes, who cares about Earth's well-being. Moron.
Can you explain what that even means? The earth is not alive you utter buffoon. Try to focus your little pea brain, the well-being of humanity is what we are concerned with.

>Not an argument.
False, and not an argument.

>Proof?
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page3.php

>And you are blithely following the consensus of your government.
Not an argument.

>Like I said, its all because oil will run out, not because they care about the environment.
Proof?

You are a proven liar, and you have no counterargument.

>>9128608
I can photoshop a graph like that in a few minutes too kiddo

>>9128608

>Burden of proof is on you.

You're a silly billy. The burden of proof would rely on the first mover in this argument, e.g. the governments that espouse such accusations of global warming; of which there is no solid proof. it is conjecture due to rising co2 emissions that have always been happening and therefore is unreliable data. They lied about that and they lied about the ozone layer.

Your responses are ill-informed, dogmatic and arrogant. You don't even think oil will run out... you are an idiot.

>You are a proven liar, and you have no counterargument.

Why argue with a retard like you? People like you are always so sure of themselves, so arrogant, so 'I've done reading from science men so it must be true!' But what you fail to look at is the big picture. The Earth has been alive (and it is alive you pathetic mong) for 4.6 billion years. Do you honestly think that 250 years of industrial smoke will even so much as dent this big blue ball? You are too stupid to insult. I bet you're one of those loony green living advocates.

>>9128666
trips of truth

>>9126826

This desu.

>>9128634
Utterly BTFO. What a pathetic comeback.

>he thinks climate change is a problem
good for you now stop trying to convince everyone else to vote democrat

>spend the money currently spent on fighting global skyfall on moon infrastructure instead
>use moon infrastructure to build either solar collector array/shade
>regulate climate from the fucking source
Benefits are more numerous than putting eco-friendly recyclable billboards left and right. But that is actually good so we can't have that.

File: 1286769099554.jpg (55KB, 432x412px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 432x412px

>>9126808
>The real reason is because Oil is gonna run out pretty sharpish and we need to find a renewable resource so we don't all die.

It's actually nothing that dire.

Very wealthy people like to play games with supply and demand because even a minor up- or downturn in a commodity's price can have enormous gains if you have the inside track. Hedge funds make it possible to make money off a commodity NOT being sold.

Right now, the idea of demand stagnating because of the Saudi/US/Russia oil price war and climate change is draining interest from boosting exploration...this is a mistake, objectively speaking, but someone's going to make a killing from it.

Not us...we'll be paying gasoline markups from 150 to 200 percent...

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/iea-warns-of-potential-shortage-of-global-oil-supplies-in-3-years-2017-03-06

>>9126808
>Have you noticed they aren't called it 'global warming' anymore, they're calling it 'climate change'?
END THIS MEME.

The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) was established in 1988 you ignorant faggot. So called because temperature changes are not the only changes we can expect to be having. Global warming means global warming and climate change means climate change. Neither term is new and neither has replaced the other.

>>9128666
>You're a silly billy. The burden of proof would rely on the first mover in this argument, e.g. the governments that espouse such accusations of global warming
That doesn't respond to what you're replying to. Do you need to go back to elementary school to learn how to read? I asked for proof that

a. "they" aren't calling it global warming anymore
b. ozone depletion was a "hoax"
c. the government is doing this because oil is running out

None of these claims would be settled by governments providing proof of global warming, which they have in copious amounts.

So you won't accept scientific research because "muh gubmint" yet you demand that they have the burden of proof. You have no argument.

>it is conjecture due to rising co2 emissions that have always been happening and therefore is unreliable data.
Ah well we've always been falling towards the earth so gravity must be "unreliable data." Never mind that we know exactly how much warming is coming from CO2 due to radiative spectroscopy. You haven't done the slightest bit of research on the topic you are trying to talk about and it shows.

>You don't even think oil will run out... you are an idiot.
Another baldfaced lie! Do you really think this is helping your case?

>The Earth has been alive (and it is alive you pathetic mong) for 4.6 billion years.
Peak stupidity.

>Do you honestly think that 250 years of industrial smoke will even so much as dent this big blue ball?
Yes clearly releasing carbon that took hundreds of millions of years to accumulate underground over only a few hundred years can have no effect! Clearly the greenhouse effect can be handwaved away even though it's fundamental chemistry! Clearly radiative spectroscopy must be wrong because some idiot on 4chan can't understand how CO2 could warm the earth!

You are dumber than a rock, which you would believe is alive.

>>9128956
Problem is limiting sunlight is just as bad as trapping heat. Plants need sunlight. And how would a solar collector on the moon help? You need energy everywhere all the time, and you can't just transfer electricity halfway around the world or from the moon. The only way to cleanly produce it is nuclear.

File: Crash Course.jpg (405KB, 1590x1109px) Image search: [Google]

405KB, 1590x1109px

Time to get out the stick

File: gw-spectrum-tropical-pacific.jpg (119KB, 1024x763px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 1024x763px

>>9129270

File: Solar_Spectrum.png (36KB, 800x595px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 800x595px

>>9129272

File: cbook.png (41KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 800x600px

>>9129274

File: curve_s.gif (81KB, 974x781px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 974x781px

>>9129278

>>9126938
Wow, shitposting in 4chan? Who would have guessed!

File: cumulative_global_1751_2007.jpg (38KB, 792x612px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 792x612px

>>9129279

File: graph-co2-1200x720.png (62KB, 1200x720px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 1200x720px

>>9129283

>>9129284
tl;dr to deny global warming is to deny thermodynamics.

You cannot make an object absorb at the same rate while radiating less and have it not heat up, and unless a substantial fraction of all the coal, oil and gas ever extracted was actually secretly re-buried then the atmosphere has been doped with more than enough carbon dioxide to make it happen.

>>9126231
Veterans of what. The Great Oil Wars?

File: kill crab.jpg (112KB, 511x788px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 511x788px

>>9129283
>people knew about global warming in the 50s
>CO2 emissions have only skyrocketed since then

>>9126227
WTF IMPEACH DRUMPF

>>9129020
You can transfer it from the moon using microwaves

>>9126227
Pollution is the metaphorical penis of the metaphorical white Man, just another consequence of white supremacy and white democracy

>>9129011
Thank you anon, you are a legend

>>9129716
>pollution
>/pol/lution
GREENHOUSE GASES CONFIRMED NEO-NAZI EXTREMISTS

>>9126231
Partly true. It's perpetuated by them but I don't think anyone on the left side is capable of pulling off such a scheme. People with the money are behind it.

>>9129020
Collector is in space between the Sun and Earth. It doesn't need to be huge because you aren't doing Venus terraforming, just offseting supposed 1c or so temperature increase in a century or two. The Moon infrastructure is needed, actually a requirement for anything meaningful in space of any kind, because rockets on earth have to be really big and there won't be any meme antigravity star trek engines in the near and distant and far distant future. Forget the memes about solar arrays beaming power on Earth. This planet has atmosphere so it doesn't work. The thing is for spacey stuff and also doubles as a shade, that's all.

Of course, the alternative to all this is memeing.

>>9128608
>the earth had gotten 1.5F hotter in the last century, we're all going to die!
Actually retarded, please view a graph that goes back more than a hundred or so years

>>9126227
a lol thread on /sci/? Is this the end of the board?

>>9129708
LOL do you realize how inefficient that is? You could make many orders of magnitude more power by putting the solar arrays on the earth itself.

>>9129792
>Collector is in space between the Sun and Earth. It doesn't need to be huge because you aren't doing Venus terraforming, just offseting supposed 1c or so temperature increase in a century or two.
So how big would it need to be and what would be the other effects of the shadow it casts on the earth? You didn't really respond to what I said. Realize that you'd need to have this shadow roaming around the entire earth for it to work, otherwise you'd just be massively cooling one area while the others warm up.

So you would necessarily be reducing sunlight, which we need.

>>9129926
1.5F in only a century is unprecedented. So what exactly is your point?

>Actually retarded, please view a graph that goes back more than a hundred or so years
You mean like the graph in the link in my post you are responding to? The one you apparently didn't look at? When are you idiots going to start feeling some shame from being intellectually spanked over and over again?

>>9126227
Interestingly, that hides in a humorous package the answer to the climate debate. There are several ways to counteract greenhouse effects through geoengineering that mimic natural processes (such as injection of sulfur compounds into the stratosphere, just like large volcanoes do.) Most of these can be given small-scale trials with the ability to rapidly shut them down if there are adverse side effects.

They would not REQUIRE writing taunting messages in the sky but I suppose you COULD do that as well if it made you feel better.

File: sun.gif (41KB, 325x325px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 325x325px

>>9126678
I would tend to agree -- climate change happens all the time, and is real. Human impact on this is likely, given what we know about how climate and greenhouse gasses work.

But the scale of the problem has been blown completely out of proportion (if one scientist says the world my warm a few degrees in this century, and there will be some problems this will cause that we will have to solve, and another says that it might get so warm that millions will die in floods and famines and plagues, which one gets more time on the news? And the insane exaggerations of activists like Mr. Gore are well documented.)

Further, when the right went into denial mode, they abandoned the field of proposing solutions to the left, who are captive to green ideologues on this issue and will only accept solutions that do more to advance a political agenda than to combat any climate issue.

In an ideal world, the right would get in the fucking game, and the more insane wing of the left would calm the fuck down.

>>9126865
Sincere question -- presumably there would be positive effects as well, has anybody considered what they are, and how extensive they would be.

>>9126871
Would you like someone to explain it to you?

>>9130169
It's preferable to be right for the wrong reasons rather than wrong for the wrong reasons.

>>9130144
Not really senpai, the sunlight on the moon is constant and unaffected by earth shit and it wouldn't even be that

>>9130171
Cold places get warmer and maybe more tropical so they can farm crops they couldn't before, and there's no need to go holiday for the winter. But then, all the shit hot places lose demand for their crops and tourists, which likely leads to more immigration, so maybe that's not a good thing.

>>9126925
>Climate change was a virtue signalling pop culture phenomenon as fleeting as Kony 2012

Not THAT fleeting.

But I agree, a lot of the hype about it is leftists virtue signaling -- you can tell this when you see the climate bumper sticker on the back of their SUV.

As a case in point, presumably there are some people out there who sincerely concerned about climate change, no longer travel -- Al Gore, jetting around the world to attend climate conferences about how much doing what he does is killing the planes, is not one of them.

>>9130178
Wouldn't even be that inefficient if you choose the right range of wavelengths

>>9126929
>Nobody on /pol/ believes in flat earth.
>It's known to be a psiop/disinformation campaign


Source lacking.

Somebody on /pol/ probably believes it -- it gets posted there enough that kooks into that would eventually find it.

But mostly, /pol/ is a troll containment board, and flat Earth trolling gets guaranteed replies.

File: capt31.jpg (28KB, 321x387px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 321x387px

>>9126930
Underrated post.

I wish to associate myself with this remark.

>>9130171
Definitely, Russia would like to have the Northern Sea Route open for more than a couple months a year, for a minor example.

>>9126935
Some do, some troll about it, some argue with the morons and trolls. There is more than one poster over there.

Noe of which has anything to do with the climate issue.

>>9126916
>>9126922
>>9126911

Y'all heathens need to get to know the Ad Hominem Fallacy.

>>9129708
So, who do you trust to manage a giant microwave beam shooting at the Earth?

Also, I would envision some adverse environmental impact from that.

>>9130173
Yes, please explain how global warming is unfalsifiable. This is one of my favorite denier memes.

>>9130175
But your chances of being right go up if you get to know the right reasons. Arguing "I'm right even though I have all my facts wrong," or "You're wrong though you have your facts right" is not a strong place to make a stand.

>>9130205
I didn't say it was, I'm just saying why the left's position is preferable to the right's on this matter.

>>9130200
Private energy companies with a healthy degree of oversight from and transparency to the public and the state. As long as it's not based in Russia or China who cares

You'd envision wrong

>>9130202
Here's one example -- science tests a hypothesis by seeing if there are predictions that are a consequence of the hypothesis that do or do not turn out to be true.

Predictions made about climate change/warming have been WAY off, repeatedly.

In science, untainted by politics, this would tend to call a hypothesis into question. In politics driven science it makes no difference -- evidence that the hypothesis is wrong is disregarded because the politics comes first.

I should note here, before anybody has a stroke, that I believe there is a human component to changes in climate on Earth, I do not believe there is a crisis or that the issue can only be addressed by massive redistribution schemes and other leftist nostrums which are largely irrelevant to climate, nor that freezing to death in the dark is going to be a viable strategy to urge on people.

>>9130215
>Predictions made about climate change/warming have been WAY off, repeatedly.
Like what?

>>9130215
If AGW makes predictions that can be way off, then clearly it is falsifiable. You just argued against yourself.

>>9126227
I can see this happening. Atmospheric seeding doesn't need incredible technology or resources. If, say, India is half underwater and the rest of the world is still bickering, how desperate do you need to get before you fire off some sulphur missiles?

>>9130208
To say that, this post would have been clear.

I disagree, though.

Assume human-driven change of climate drives the average temperature up a few degrees over this century, which seems to be the general consensus among scientists (as opposed to activists.)

Following the position of the right we see this slow change continue, and will eventually have to have to make some adjustments or do some simple engineering to address it.

Following the lead of the left, we have to have draconian changes in the world economy and doom billions to a worse quality of life, not to address the comparatively minor issues associated with climate change, but to allow the more loopy members of a political faction to try out their economic theories.

Obviously, if you see the magnitude of climate change to be significantly larger than I do, or if you are a leftist and think their goofier nostrums will do less economic harm than I do, you might reach a different conclusion.

Anyway, been fun posting with you, I'm heading out to the lake to immerse neck-deep in tepid water while sipping something cold. Enjoy your day.

>>9130214
>You'd envision wrong

The environmental impact statements just for the construction of the receiver alone would take years, if not decades.

And yeah, I am sure there would be no environmental issues raised by actually beaming significantly more heat to the Earth and adding it to the ecosystem. Most any use of your beamed energy would wind up as randomized heat.

You seem to have more faith in corporations and governments than I do. And I am not sure how you'd prevent China or Russia from building their own giant microwave beams aimed at the Earth.

>>9130222
It is only falsifiable if adherents are willing to accept contrary data. If they are not, it is not in any practical sense falsifiable, and belief in the hypothesis is no longer connected to science.

>>9130229
>Following the position of the right we see this slow change continue, and will eventually have to have to make some adjustments or do some simple engineering to address it.
It's not slow change at all though, it's an unprecedented warming in human history and beyond. See https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page3.php

>Following the position of the right we see this slow change continue, and will eventually have to have to make some adjustments or do some simple engineering to address it.
Those adjustments after the fact are not simple. They are incredibly costly. The entire point of recognizing global warming is real is to mitigate the effects before they happen, because that's more cost effective. That's what the scientists and economists are telling us.

>Following the lead of the left, we have to have draconian changes in the world economy and doom billions to a worse quality of life, not to address the comparatively minor issues associated with climate change, but to allow the more loopy members of a political faction to try out their economic theories.
Your bias is showing. The adjustments that would have to be made after the fact, after an ecology starts to fail because it has no time to adapt, after the sea level rise requires barriers be built across entire coasts, are what ruin economies.

>>9130234
>It is only falsifiable if adherents are willing to accept contrary data.
They are, you just haven't presented contrary data. I'm still waiting.

This argument is akin to any other ideology that denies scientific facts. Creationists claim evolution is an unfalsifiable dogma and that scientists ignore contrary data. Problem is, they haven't presented contrary data. How are you different from a creationist?

>>9130233
I meant as in if it's being transmitted to the west, don't have it manufactured and controlled by China and Russia. Chinks and ruskies can do what they like with their own energy,

Chemical bond absorption wavelengths aren't really in the microwave range to any significant degree usually, so nah