/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #11005040

119KiB, 1200x800, 8fb194b53bd4ff6d6513056a3ec91440eed74f4e.jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 05:56:34 2019 No.11005040 View Reply Original Report

Ok so climate change is real and it's man made.
How do we stop it? Is it even possible?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 05:58:20 No.11005043 Report

Quoted By: >>11006794 >>11009272

The most important thing about the human spirit is that we never stop trying till the bitter end.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 06:01:09 No.11005048 Report

Quoted By:

>>11005040
I recommend raising taxes

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 06:01:59 No.11005051 Report

Quoted By: >>11005055

>>11005040
Post on /x/. This board is for science and math.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 06:02:00 No.11005052 Report

Quoted By:

>>11005040
Nuke China.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 06:03:09 No.11005055 Report

Quoted By: >>11005074

>>11005051
Why? I didn't say global warming is a hoax.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 20190903_153825.jpg, 102KiB, 417x417

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 06:06:11 No.11005062 Report

Quoted By: >>11005664 >>11005793 >>11006669 >>11006688

>>11005040
>Ok so climate change is real and it's man made.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 06:10:02 No.11005068 Report

Quoted By: >>11005069 >>11005632 >>11005867 >>11005871 >>11005908 >>11006744 >>11008360 >>11011424

>>11005040
There's like a shit ton of other climate change threads, and all the posts in these threads are regurgitated ad nauseam.

>How do we stop it?
Make the general public more aware. Tax the %1, fix public transpiration in countries (such as America) so that they can compete somewhat with cars, incentivize environmentally conscious habits, etc.

It's a global thing. Protest. Vote for representatives who acknowledge the existence of it, and if they back away from their promises. Protest, but with civil disobedience or else they won't care.

>Is it even possible?

Yeah. But it's definitely not easy.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 06:11:03 No.11005069 Report

Quoted By:

>>11005068
Sorry for the typos it's late here and i'm tired

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 06:12:17 No.11005074 Report

Quoted By:

>>11005055
That would be /pol/.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 10:38:11 No.11005385 Report

Quoted By:

>>11005040
Go protest, speak with people you know about it. Change your own behavior (has a very very small effect on climate and strengthens your point). Globally, we need to stop getting our energy from burning fossil stuff, stop breeding so much animals that produce methan and require a lot of energy and food to mantain and a few other things.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 10:41:54 No.11005391 Report

Quoted By:

>>11005040
We could reduce its effects if we started now but we will deliberate about it for 20 more years and by then it will be too late. At this rate we had just better hope for desert farming tech and arcologies.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Fig-2.8-01_16x8_a.png, 37KiB, 1039x520

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 10:50:11 No.11005408 Report

Quoted By: >>11005490 >>11005495 >>11007725

>>11005040
Not gonna happen. It's politically impossible not to hit 450 and very likely to hit 500 within this century.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 10:58:53 No.11005424 Report

Quoted By: >>11006782

>>11005040
NU
CLE
AR

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 11:05:48 No.11005436 Report

Quoted By: >>11005687

>>11005040
>Is it even possible?
Good question. I am not sure. But I will be able to tell me kids "I tried" when speaking about this 30 years from now.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 11:12:28 No.11005455 Report

Quoted By: >>11005568

>>11005040
https://www.livescience.com/64183-solar-dimming-air-spray-climate-change-cost.html
Cheap, easy solution that won't ever get off the ground as long as climate change can be used to fearmonger up political power and redistribute wealth.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 11:12:54 No.11005456 Report

Quoted By: >>11005461 >>11005574 >>11005630 >>11007485

The climate is changing that isn't a bad thing. They used to call it global warming but that fell through because it's a lie. Also before you post some retard level 'global temperature since X year' graph feel free to find one that uses data points from all over the world and not just large cities, the numbers are always horribly skewed because they do this for fear mongering.

Alas, I'll see you all in hell in 40 years when the globe is 2 degrees hotter and everything is dead because people lants and animals can't adapt. Oh wait...

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 11:16:05 No.11005461 Report

Quoted By: >>11005486

>>11005456
Why are you so arrogant as to think you, a nobody, thinks you understand the issue better than 10's of thousands of people who have devoted their lives to studying this? I notice this trend a lot...

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 11:33:20 No.11005486 Report

Quoted By: >>11005493 >>11005598

>>11005461
1. There are already several peer reviewed papers with methods to reverse the effects of climate change

2. There are processes by which the ecosystem can correct itself as it is, acidification is the main concern bit as the oceans get more acidic certain species of phytoplankton bloom in excess reversing the negative effects

3. Those "10's of thousands of people" have degrees in pseudoscience, we can barely predict where a hurricane is going to land yet you think people in essentially a branch of that field can predict what will play out in 10 years let alone when they start talking about 100's.

4. As per the mention of the fudged data you can see places like LA are significantly hotter than the surrounding areas due to huge amounts of concrete and millions of cars on the road constantly (the heat lost from the cars before you start bitching), so when they are blatantly being lied to with shit data why would you take them seriously.

5. Just because there's a massive amount of people who believe something doesn't make it true, even in hard sciences this turns out to be the case with even some of the most basic concepts getting revisited and changed decade after decade

Tldr if you care that much about her environment quit using cars, dont eat meat, dont buy plastic products or any sort of electronics or anything similar otherwise your bitching about a problem while simultaneously contributing.

Also next time leave the down syndrome out of your post

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 11:35:15 No.11005490 Report

Quoted By: >>11005974

>>11005408
What are the assumptions for the different curves?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 11:37:53 No.11005493 Report

Quoted By: >>11005500 >>11007279 >>11007293 >>11007325 >>11007364 >>11009909

>>11005486
There's not a single evidence based scientific concensus position throughout history that turned out to be wrong. Why would this be any different?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 11:38:31 No.11005495 Report

Quoted By:

>>11005408 You realize once there's enough in the air people will start building filter mines? If not I'd suggest waiting until you get to the age of 18 to post here.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 11:42:19 No.11005500 Report

Quoted By: >>11005505

>>11005493
Really? How about aether, Earth as the center of the solar system etc.. What you're failing to account for in you idiotic question is that there's always been evidence for what people believe, just because we know it's wrong now doesn't mean it wasn't a valid idea back then with their limited resources. You have to be 18 to post here if I'm not mistaken.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 11:45:40 No.11005505 Report

Quoted By: >>11005518 >>11006192

>>11005500
>aether
Wasn't an evidence based notion. They simply intuitively believed that light had to be relative to some 'absolute' field.

>Earth as the center of the solar system
Was never a scientific position. It was a view imposed by the Church without evidence. Actually this pre-dates modern science (which arguably began around the time of Newton).

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 11:48:08 No.11005513 Report

Quoted By: >>11005515 >>11009635 >>11009696

Well Trump is going to be the last Republican president so we effectively don't need to care about them. Given that the problem lies in China and India, we need to start there. The Chinese Communist Party is the single largest funder of Democratic candidates (in terms of number of candidates funded, not actual dollars given), while also the number one source of basically every environmental issue on the planet. As such, you need to start murdering (and I am not condoning or advocating this) Democratic politicians until the fear of being murdered outweighs the benefit of taking CCP campaign funding.

After that, you basically use the USA's imperial power to simply block China out of the global economy. They collapse overnight and regress to an agrarian anarchist state as is usual of China after a dynastic collapse. That gives you a good 100 years or so to fix things in here, but then in doing so you basically cause the rest of the world (sans Europe) to regress to a similar anarchistic agrarian state.

So, I guess the question is, which do you value more, the liberal state or the planet's health? Because you can't have both; this whole liberal multicultural empire we've got going on is killing the world, but most of those who "believe" in Climate Change seem wholly unwilling to actually fix anything, and seem more focused on trying to make profit accrument for large international corporations more efficient.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Geological_TS_SL_and_CO2.jpg, 104KiB, 960x720

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 11:49:08 No.11005514 Report

Quoted By: >>11005528 >>11005548 >>11005600 >>11006303 >>11008145 >>11011424

Just gonna leave this here

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 11:49:40 No.11005515 Report

Quoted By:

>>11005513
The US should have invaded China over forty years ago and no one would have stopped us after the Sino-Soviet split.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 11:51:55 No.11005517 Report

Quoted By:

>>11005040
>climate change is real and it's man made
Brainlet

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 11:52:00 No.11005518 Report

Quoted By: >>11005522

>>11005505
Now you're just playing with semantics because of your low iq. Im still waiting only reasons why I'm wrong rather than 'becauae they said so!', I'll also take some non biased data as already requested.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 11:54:01 No.11005522 Report

Quoted By: >>11005533

>>11005518
Is it really necessary to name call? I guess you need to resort to that when your argument is weak... you still haven't given an example of an evidence based scientific concensus position that turned out to be wrong.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Temperature-T-and-atmospheric-ca (...).png, 127KiB, 850x566

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 11:55:48 No.11005525 Report

Quoted By: >>11005600 >>11006362

This too.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 11:56:20 No.11005528 Report

Quoted By: >>11005537

>>11005514
Wanna add solar irradiance to your graph buddy?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Screenshot_20190926-075605_Chrome.jpg, 239KiB, 1018x697

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 11:57:27 No.11005532 Report

Quoted By: >>11005538 >>11005602

>Imagine thinking measurements of CO2 taken on an active volcano and in a huge urban sprawl are valid.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 11:57:29 No.11005533 Report

Quoted By: >>11005541

>>11005522
>I'll take moving the goalpost for 1200, Alex.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 93617main_sun4m.jpg, 34KiB, 576x432

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 11:59:34 No.11005537 Report

Quoted By: >>11005543 >>11005544

>>11005528
Sure
>protip, it shows nothing

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 11:59:42 No.11005538 Report

Quoted By:

>>11005532
The source of CO2 can be determined from its isotopes.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 12:00:42 No.11005541 Report

Quoted By:

>>11005533
Funny how you can't give a single example...

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 12:01:02 No.11005543 Report

Quoted By:

>>11005537
>Last few decades
>Previous graph covered Earth’s geological history

???

Well, since it’s obviously not the Sun doing the warming, must be greenhouse gasses. QED

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Screenshot_20190926-125926.png, 335KiB, 1280x720

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 12:01:43 No.11005544 Report

Quoted By: >>11005675 >>11006339 >>11006375

>>11005537
>first graph is over millions of years
>pic related is from 1975 to 2005
Fucking retard
https://youtu.be/fpF48b6Lsbo

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 12:03:54 No.11005548 Report

Quoted By:

>>11005514
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature-intermediate.htm

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO v3Rksq-6luKuGY89wMaQD8QmSOo=.gif, 749KiB, 480x360

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 12:16:31 No.11005568 Report

Quoted By: >>11005670

>>11005455
>Cheap, easy solution
Except for the fact that it blocks sunlight needed for agriculture and natural ecosystems, more and more sunlight needs to be blocked to counter unmitigated CO2 emissions, ocean acidification continues to accelerate, millions of people continue to die every year from air pollution from fossil fuels, etc.

>climate change can be used to fearmonger up political power and redistribute wealth.
Oh of course, because governments don't already have the power to tax shit and redistribute wealth. Fucking retard.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 12:19:23 No.11005572 Report

Quoted By: >>11005610

Business idea: We don't, instead of blowing billions and billions on trying to prevent something that is inevitable. We put that money into adapting to climate change.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO figure-spm-2.jpg, 199KiB, 521x437

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 12:21:42 No.11005574 Report

Quoted By:

>>11005456
>The climate is changing that isn't a bad thing.
Rapid change like this is bad for humans and the ecosystems we rely on, according to the evidence.

>They used to call it global warming but that fell through because it's a lie.
Wrong. https://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming.htm

>Also before you post some retard level 'global temperature since X year' graph feel free to find one that uses data points from all over the world and not just large cities, the numbers are always horribly skewed because they do this for f isear mongering.
Please show me a global temperature graph that only uses data from large cities.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO cvbbmwwe4rzz.png, 53KiB, 403x448

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 12:36:36 No.11005598 Report

Quoted By: >>11008936

>>11005486
>1. There are already several peer reviewed papers with methods to reverse the effects of climate change
Yes, and the best method is reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

>2. There are processes by which the ecosystem can correct itself as it is
Then why are we rapidly warming? When ddp these systems kick in, what causes them, and how powerful are they? Please show me what every climatologist has missed.

>3. Those "10's of thousands of people" have degrees in pseudoscience, we can barely predict where a hurricane is going to land
The massive irony of calling climatology pseudoscience while confusing climate with weather... Get off the science board.

>4. As per the mention of the fudged data you can see places like LA are significantly hotter than the surrounding areas
This is called the UHI, is effect is minuscule and corrected by homogenization. If you only look at non- urban temperate data the global trend is exactly the same.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2012JD018509

>5. Just because there's a massive amount of people who believe something doesn't make it true, even in hard sciences this turns out to be the case
The only reason you know that to be the case is because scientists did the work for you and agreed on a new position. Your argument is self defeating since you rely on consensus being correct to argue against consensus being correct. And the consensus on global warming is not simply people believing it, it's the consensus of scientific evidence all pointing to the same conclusion.

>Tldr if you care that much about her environment quit using cars, dont eat meat, dont buy plastic products or any sort of electronics
If you actually cared about the truth instead of just attacking your opponent, you would admit that making fossil fuel emissions more expensive for everyone is a better solution than one person reducing their emissions.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 12:38:43 No.11005600 Report

Quoted By:

>>11005514
>>11005525
What exactly is your point?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 12:40:15 No.11005602 Report

Quoted By: >>11005696

>>11005532
yaaaaaaawn

https://skepticalscience.com/mauna-loa-volcano-co2-measurements-advanced.htm

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 12:45:02 No.11005610 Report

Quoted By: >>11005932

>>11005572
>We don't, instead of blowing billions and billions on trying to prevent something that is inevitable.
How exactly is it inevitable?

> We put that money into adapting to climate change.
Because that would be way more expensive. Most economists agree that a carbon tax would pay for itself many times over in future savings. Your argument is like saying it's better to adapt to cancer than to stop smoking.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 12:56:25 No.11005624 Report

Quoted By: >>11005626 >>11005637

>>11005040
Well considering the fact that every single time the earth started warming or cooling, some factor came in and resets it back to an average. I say we don’t need to.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 12:57:28 No.11005626 Report

Quoted By: >>11005641

>>11005624
>some factor came in and resets it back to an average.

There is no “””average”””, and reductions in temperature take place over geological time scales.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 12:59:40 No.11005630 Report

Quoted By:

>>11005456
1.) there is no climate change
2.) there is climate change but it's not human-made
3.) human-made climate change is real but it only hits the shithole countries anyway, it's actually good for us <--
4.) it's real but we're fucked anyway with all these assholes around, nothing you can do
5.) geo-engineering will fix it soon, no need to change anything now
6.) ok, geo-engineering made it worse but now we learned and can stop it(it's too late)
7.) fucking leftists destroyed the world, as expected

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 13:01:09 No.11005632 Report

Quoted By: >>11005737

>>11005068
No moron. If cli:ate change if we actually believe what the climate scientists are saying then the upswing in temperature is mostly caused by human co2 emissions, than we have to believe that the amount of industry on the p,a net in the late 180ps was enough to increase temperatures. If that’s true than the only way to stop it would be to go back to a 1700s pre industrial model and kill off billions of humans. It’s impossible.

If man made climate change is true (it’s probably not) that he only solution would be making some new technological invention that extracts co2 our the atmosphere. Say make plankton hyper photosythesizers. Your globalist socialism would not do jack shit but harm and destroy the countries that implement it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 13:03:28 No.11005637 Report

Quoted By: >>11005645

>>11005624
This is so stupid I don't even know where to begin. There is no "average" geologic temperature that has relevance to humans. We have not been on Earth for very long. Temperature swings humans have experienced on Earth are much slower than current warming, which is caused by massive human emissions that completely dwarf the mechanism behind those temperature swings. The temperature will eventually cool back to pre-industrial temperature if we do nothing to mitigate emissions... after several thousand years of suffering and ecological damage.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 13:06:33 No.11005641 Report

Quoted By: >>11005656 >>11005745

>>11005626
If you look at paleoclimatology what does it show? It shows that when the climate warms or cools it will never continue on the same direction for long. In the little ice age or Roman warm period it always ends. Plus you see the beginning of a warming trend as soon as we enter the 1800s. What is to say that that natural warming isn’t just continuing and the the greenhouse effect just has little to do with it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 13:08:46 No.11005645 Report

Quoted By: >>11005767

>>11005637
Not really if you look at the smaller scale shifts in temperature. Like the ones we see from the past few thousands of years, it’s a very swift change from warmer to colder. What makes this specific change so different? I’ll give you that I shouldn’t of used the term average but temperature always changes. Why wouldn’t it change again this time too? How are we so sure that this trend is permanent or long lasting.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 13:14:50 No.11005656 Report

Quoted By: >>11005669

>>11005641
>If you look at paleoclimatology what does it show?

Periods of temperatures warmer than now that lasted for tens of millions of years and even hundreds of millions of years and also periods of temperatures colder than now that lasted for tens of millions of years and even hundreds of millions of years.

> It shows that when the climate warms or cools it will never continue on the same direction for long

It also shows that sweltering hot temperatures can be present for millions of years as well as chilly temperatures. The entire Mesozoic was warmer than today, and was preceded by the Permian, also hotter than today.

>What is to say that that natural warming isn’t just continuing and the the greenhouse effect just has little to do with it.

How do you think “natural warming” occurs, exactly? What factors are behind it?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 13:17:30 No.11005664 Report

Quoted By:

>>11005062
Well, bye

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 13:19:52 No.11005669 Report

Quoted By: >>11005685 >>11005697

>>11005656
Natural climate change can happen for a variety of reason, volcanic eruptions, a massive death of plant life, or even various other reason science doesn’t understand yet.
Why are you looking so far back? I was talking about recent changes, further back than s climate “scientists” looks but nit too far as to see really big trends that don’t have much to do with the small changes happening now. If you think that this warming is different from al, other short term and small periods of warming and that this is the beginning of a giant trend then why can’t you prove it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 13:20:35 No.11005670 Report

Quoted By: >>11005688 >>11005774 >>11005801

>>11005568
>thinks the government can't get bigger
>bitching because the solution isn't perfect
Bet you don't like nuclear either.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 13:23:03 No.11005675 Report

Quoted By: >>11005809

>>11005544
>demands materials irrelevant to man-influenced climate change
>screeches about it anyway

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO TectonicPlates.jpg, 180KiB, 960x641

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 13:27:01 No.11005685 Report

Quoted By: >>11005702

>>11005669
What's especially funny is the climate change tards never bother to account for plate tectonics

>protip for you leftist climate change tards: shifting plate boundaries release insane amounts of volcanic gases which then diffuse into the atmosphere

But hey, it's clear you want to feel relevant so go on and keep telling yourselves people make a significant impact

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 13:27:53 No.11005687 Report

Quoted By: >>11005917

>>11005436
>Good question. I am not sure. But I will be able to tell me kids "I tried" when speaking about this 30 years from now.

>My entire generation didn't give a flying fuck about it for over half a century. Then we tried to make some luxury electrical SUVs instead of the regular ones for a while and the government put a fucking tax on our carribean cruise in 2022. Anyway we tried. Get off my back.

FTFY

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 13:28:14 No.11005688 Report

Quoted By: >>11005703 >>11005709

>>11005670
Nuclear is garbage
It's just another, stupider way to boil water. Clean coal is the way to go.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 13:30:52 No.11005696 Report

Quoted By: >>11005818

>>11005602
>we have evaluated ourselves and concluded we are doing nothing wrong

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 13:30:58 No.11005697 Report

Quoted By: >>11005830

>>11005669
>Natural climate change can happen for a variety of reason, volcanic eruptions, a massive death of plant life, or even various other reason science doesn’t understand yet.

It’s all due to two different, broad things.
An increase or decrease in solar radiation
Or an increase or decrease in the Earth’s ability to absorb and retain solar radiation.

One of the most important factors in the second category is greenhouse gasses, which form a little blanket around the earth that prevents infrared photons from escaping into space. Humans are producing a lot of greenhouse gasses, which cause warming. Since solar radiation isn’t increasing, and humans are the dominant source of greenhouse gasses, it would seem that it’s us.

>I was talking about recent changes

All changes in the earth’s average temperature are due to changes in greenhouse gas concentration, albedo, and solar radiation.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 13:32:11 No.11005702 Report

Quoted By: >>11005717

>>11005685
>protip for you leftist climate change tards: shifting plate boundaries release insane amounts of volcanic gases which then diffuse into the atmosphere

I know this is bait, but volcanos have a puny CO2 output in comparison to humans, and actually release gasses that COOL earth as well.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 13:32:18 No.11005703 Report

Quoted By:

>>11005688
>Clean
The problem with coal isn't the soot and particules in the atmosphere anon. It's the shit ton of CO2 that's released.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 13:36:04 No.11005709 Report

Quoted By: >>11005722

>>11005688
>clean coal
Oh no it's retarded

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 13:37:58 No.11005717 Report

Quoted By: >>11005733 >>11005834

>>11005702
I said plate tectonic boundaries, not the individual cone volcanos that geologists deign to measure

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 13:38:59 No.11005722 Report

Quoted By: >>11005746 >>11005753

>>11005709
Yeah you're right, placing nuclear plants near major bodies of water has NEVER gone wrong before and clearly never will again

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 13:40:59 No.11005733 Report

Quoted By: >>11005741

>>11005717
>I said plate tectonic boundaries

Please quantify the amount of gasses released from them.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 8d6.jpg, 48KiB, 645x729

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 13:42:17 No.11005737 Report

Quoted By: >>11005952

>>11005632
>industry = CO2 emissions
Ever heard of nuclear and renewable energy?

>If man made climate change is true (it’s probably not)
It's directly observable: http://asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/journals/nature14240_v519_Feldman_CO2.pdf

>Your globalist socialism would not do jack shit but harm and destroy the countries that implement it.
Oh, another alarmist.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 13:43:37 No.11005741 Report

Quoted By: >>11005744 >>11006318

>>11005733
>wow it's almost like limestone subduction results in CO2 emission and that geothermal tectonic zones release huge amounts of methane

How about you go do a little reading before posting any more.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 13:44:03 No.11005744 Report

Quoted By: >>11005787

>>11005741
Please quantify the amount of gasses released from them.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 13:44:31 No.11005745 Report

Quoted By:

>>11005641
>In the little ice age or Roman warm period it always ends.
LOL these are barely noticeable compared to current warming.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 13:44:38 No.11005746 Report

Quoted By: >>11005769 >>11005785

>>11005722
You know what's more dangerous than an almost non-existant risk of negligible close-proximity nuclear fallout in modern, fail-safe equipped and self-limiting nuclear reactors?

Rising sea levels threatening most human cities that happen to be build on a coastline, mass starvation, extreme weather phenomena and flora and fauna mass extinction.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 13:47:51 No.11005753 Report

Quoted By:

>>11005722
I'm not shilling nuclear, idiot. Nuclear is as stupid as coal and the equivalent of clean coal is "this time, nuclear is perfectly safe, trust us"

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO shakun_marcott_hadcrut4_a1b_eng.png, 15KiB, 899x713

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 13:52:09 No.11005767 Report

Quoted By:

>>11005645
>Not really if you look at the smaller scale shifts in temperature. Like the ones we see from the past few thousands of years, it’s a very swift change from warmer to colder.
The past few thousand years have barely changed until now. The fastest "recent" warming was interglacial warming 10000 years ago, but today's warming is an order of magnitude faster than that. Not to mention that according to the natural cycle we should be slowly cooling but instead we are rapidly warming. So please explain what natural mechanism is going to magically reverse this.

>How are we so sure that this trend is permanent or long lasting.
Because we know it's caused by rapidly increasing CO2 concentration via radiative spectroscopy and we know the ratio of manmade CO2 to natural CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing via isotope analysis, meaning man is the cause of the increase in concentration. We don't know of any magic mechanism that reverses this naturally, yet you keep referring to it as if we do.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO fukushima__noaa_rad_plume.jpg, 44KiB, 610x318

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 13:52:32 No.11005769 Report

Quoted By: >>11005783 >>11005788 >>11007731

>>11005746
Your existential (and unproven) fearmongering takes a backseat to real disaster. Take a look at what the damage projections were to Europe had they not been able to successfully place the cooling slab.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 13:53:30 No.11005774 Report

Quoted By:

>>11005670
>Bet you don't like nuclear either.
Then why would I mention it? If that's all you have for a response then we're done here.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 13:57:22 No.11005783 Report

Quoted By:

>>11005769
I'm not saying nuclear is perfectly safe and unproblematic but as long as we need energy as a civilization it#s far superior to coal and other fossil fuels.

More people already die every day from from fossil-fuel burning and fine-particle related respiratory ilnesses than in the entire history of nuclear energy.

And here I'm not even mentioning global warming.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 13:57:35 No.11005785 Report

Quoted By: >>11005791

>>11005746
>Humans and animals cannot notice sea levels slowly drowning them at a rate of rise that is slower than hair growth.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1.15.jpg, 274KiB, 1436x1600

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 13:58:00 No.11005787 Report

Quoted By: >>11005794

>>11005744
"A lot"

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 13:58:24 No.11005788 Report

Quoted By: >>11005798 >>11005800

>>11005769
>This chart from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration shows the tsunami's expected path across the Pacific Ocean. The dark black and purple indicate the highest rise in sea level. The light gray lines indicate the tsunami wave's expected arrival time.
Do you just post random images without knowing what they are or are you deliberately lying about what it shows?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 14:00:48 No.11005791 Report

Quoted By: >>11005805

>>11005785
You're right. We should just move all coastal cities a few kilometers inland when the water levels rise.

Why didn't we think of this before?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO fWx327(2).gif, 895KiB, 320x156

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 14:01:35 No.11005793 Report

Quoted By:

>>11005062
Yeah you should probably leave a science board if you don't understand science and are unwilling to learn

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 14:01:36 No.11005794 Report

Quoted By: >>11005811

>>11005787
Please quantify the amount of gasses released from them.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO e45e162ad90f443da478d2230e7493df.png, 823KiB, 1271x723

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 14:02:36 No.11005798 Report

Quoted By: >>11005864 >>11005868 >>11007999

>>11005788
Ah yes, Snopes would never lie.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 14:03:14 No.11005800 Report

Quoted By: >>11005873

>>11005788
>lying
The use of this word is a recent phenomenon since you came along and started samefagging all over. Just say what you gotta say and stop acting like a girl about it.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO ce8.png, 56KiB, 621x702

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 14:03:22 No.11005801 Report

Quoted By:

>>11005670
>The government doing something it does every day in numerous ways is going too far
>We must accept massive damage to the economy and ecosystems to prevent the government from "getting bigger"
>oh and by the way the government should tax people in order to dump aerosols into the atmosphere and decide what the temperature should be, but that doesn't make the government bigger
>and just ignore the negative effects, it's not a perfect solution

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 14:04:17 No.11005805 Report

Quoted By: >>11005948

>>11005791
We have.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO y2uNb2I.jpg, 77KiB, 645x729

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 14:05:08 No.11005809 Report

Quoted By: >>11005821

>>11005675
>posts temperature and CO2 in timeframes irrelevant to humans
>balks at posting solar irradiance on same timeframes because it's irrelevant to humans

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 14:05:51 No.11005811 Report

Quoted By: >>11005832

>>11005794
>gib
Educate yourself, Captain Bigthink.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/CarbonCycle

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 001.jpg, 51KiB, 600x467

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 14:07:44 No.11005818 Report

Quoted By:

>>11005696
>I have not evaluated anything but concluded you are wrong

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 14:08:01 No.11005821 Report

Quoted By: >>11005946

>>11005809
>screeches about humans causing climate change with CO2 emissions
Moves the goalposts to solar cycles when confronted on his misrepresentation

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 14:13:25 No.11005830 Report

Quoted By: >>11005837

>>11005697
>All changes in the earth’s average temperature are due to changes in greenhouse gas concentration, albedo, and solar radiation.
All long term changes you mean. Over the short term (sub-decadal scale) average temperature is determined primarily by the flow of heat in the atmosphere and oceans.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 14:14:49 No.11005832 Report

Quoted By: >>11005841

>>11005811
“Without human interference, the carbon in fossil fuels would leak slowly into the atmosphere through volcanic activity over millions of years in the slow carbon cycle. By burning coal, oil, and natural gas, we accelerate the process, releasing vast amounts of carbon (carbon that took millions of years to accumulate) into the atmosphere every year. By doing so, we move the carbon from the slow cycle to the fast cycle. In 2009, humans released about 8.4 billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuel.”

“Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, when people first started burning fossil fuels, carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere have risen from about 280 parts per million to 387 parts per million, a 39 percent increase. This means that for every million molecules in the atmosphere, 387 of them are now carbon dioxide—the highest concentration in two million years. Methane concentrations have risen from 715 parts per billion in 1750 to 1,774 parts per billion in 2005, the highest concentration in at least 650,000 years.”

Thanks for this source I’ll keep it on hand

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 14:15:31 No.11005834 Report

Quoted By:

>>11005717
Annual emissions from all volcanic sources, not just above ground large volcanoes, are dwarfed by human emissions.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 14:15:52 No.11005837 Report

Quoted By: >>11006160

>>11005830
>Over the short term (sub-decadal scale) average temperature is determined primarily by the flow of heat in the atmosphere and oceans.

That only influences the whereabouts of thermal energy, not the total amount of it present in the system.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 14:16:34 No.11005841 Report

Quoted By: >>11005843

>>11005832
You're welcome, just be sure to remember the parts detailing limestone as a C02 reservoir and what happens to it during plate subduction as tectonic activity increases

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 14:18:02 No.11005843 Report

Quoted By: >>11005846

>>11005841
Chemical weathering erodes CO2 concentrations on timescales far beyond ours.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 14:19:16 No.11005846 Report

Quoted By: >>11006273

>>11005843
Plate subduction involving leading edges of thousands of square kilometers of limestone != weathering

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 14:23:38 No.11005849 Report

Quoted By: >>11005850 >>11006771

>>11005040
>be carbon-based lifeform
>notice there is other carbon in environment, in a carbon rich universe
>uh oh this can't be a good sign
I'm going carbon free guys!

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 14:24:12 No.11005850 Report

Quoted By: >>11005852

>>11005849
i don't get it

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 14:25:04 No.11005852 Report

Quoted By:

>>11005850
Don't lose the forest for the trees.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 14:32:57 No.11005864 Report

Quoted By:

>>11005798
>an anon on 4chan would never lie
>you can't trust the description of the image given by the organization that made the image
So you're doubling down on the lie?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 14:35:01 No.11005867 Report

Quoted By:

>>11005068
Have fun getting non-whites to be environmentally conscious.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 14:35:08 No.11005868 Report

Quoted By:

>>11005798
>image shows cesium quickly dilutes to nothing
>but it sure looks scary so I'll post it as if it supports my lie

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 14:37:10 No.11005871 Report

Quoted By: >>11006394

>>11005068
does america have a transpiration problem?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 14:37:56 No.11005873 Report

Quoted By: >>11005948

>>11005800
>retard claims image showing tsunami heights showed radiation levels
>retard gets triggered because I called this a lie
What the fuck?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 14:58:39 No.11005908 Report

Quoted By: >>11005915 >>11005930 >>11006673 >>11006680 >>11007932 >>11010988

>>11005068
>Tax the %1
>1% lowers wages the equivalent to the tax
>Oh but we rise minimum wage
>1% hire less people
>Oh but we hire people in the state
>economy collapses
Enjoy your marxist utopia anon

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 15:01:30 No.11005915 Report

Quoted By:

>>11005908
Just kill them then if they're so stubborn

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 15:02:30 No.11005917 Report

Quoted By:

>>11005687
high IQ post.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 2018_AQAL_Group_variwide_chart_& (...).jpg, 384KiB, 3315x2150

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 15:02:32 No.11005918 Report

Quoted By: >>11006743

>>11005040
>Ok so climate change is real and it's man made.
> How do we stop it? Is it even possible?

It's simple and hard at the same time.
Anthropogenic climate change is caused by CO2 emissions. So we just need to stop these emissions. But this means to stop burning coal and oil and gas. Coal and oil lobby will fight with every dirty trick. But it is necessary.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 15:06:55 No.11005930 Report

Quoted By: >>11005963

>>11005908
Not how reality works.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 15:08:06 No.11005932 Report

Quoted By: >>11006801

>>11005610
>Most economists agree
>just a few paid by lobbists
yeah, no

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 15:14:20 No.11005946 Report

Quoted By:

>>11005821
What goalposts? It's hard to tell what the point is since only an image was posted but it appears to be that CO2 is not correlated with temperature on geologic timescales. Showing solar irradiance would clarify why there is a lack of correlation. But this has little relevance to AGW anyway.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO IMG_0201.jpg, 44KiB, 732x466

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 15:15:39 No.11005948 Report

Quoted By: >>11006781

>>11005873
Im not the retard. Call retard a retard and set retard straight. You are still acting like a bitch by turning matters towards me instead of having a discussion like you have a pair. Do you have an actual vagina?
I'm this>>11005805 guy.
These people didn't make it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 15:16:50 No.11005952 Report

Quoted By: >>11006607 >>11006806 >>11007736

>>11005737
>nuclear
no fusion for at least 30 years and fision has a lot of cons. Placement, resource cost and radioactive waste.
>renewable
Cannot make a dependable grid entirely of renewable energy. Maybe store some on bateries like Elon's Musk industrial complex. Still its not cost effective.

Stop shilling this utopian stuff.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 15:17:19 No.11005953 Report

Quoted By:

>>11005040
Yep. Total obliteration of the human race or a Thanos-Style random and fair cull of the species down to about 60% of its current size. That and crippling the coal and oil industry will fix the problem.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 15:21:31 No.11005963 Report

Quoted By:

>>11005930
Actually how authoritarian meassures work. I know this is /sci/ but god read some economics please.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 9b076ca4325f2fe096e24f80847c1ba3.jpg, 345KiB, 2048x1536

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 15:25:43 No.11005974 Report

Quoted By: >>11006307

>>11005490
RCP 2.6 assumes that global annual GHG emissions (measured in CO
2-equivalents) peak between 2010–2020, with emissions declining substantially thereafter. It also assumes negative emissions after 2070. Emissions in RCP 4.5 peak around 2040, then decline. In RCP 6, emissions peak around 2080, then decline. In RCP 8.5, emissions peak around 2100, then decline.

Right now only scenario RCP8.5 and worse seems to be likely. As a result global temperatures will rice by about 5°C in 2100 and 12°C or more in 2200. Icecaps will melt away. We need to give up al coastal cities. The entire state of Florida will be flooded. Entire nations like the Netherlands will cease to exist.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 16:37:02 No.11006160 Report

Quoted By:

>>11005837
Yes, but average temperature over the short term is influenced by the flow of energy and not just how much energy there is in the system. This is the chaotic element of global temperature.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 16:45:58 No.11006192 Report

Quoted By:

>>11005505
*moves goalposts*

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 17:10:46 No.11006273 Report

Quoted By:

>>11005846
what are you even arguing right now? Your own source claims the increase in CO2 and methane observed over the past few centuries is entirely due to human activity. Are you saying in the near future plate tectonics will release even more CO2 further adding fuel to the fire?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 72307737_2360004870929993_123360 (...).jpg, 339KiB, 1328x1875

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 17:15:03 No.11006294 Report

Quoted By: >>11006298 >>11006308

>>11005040
Why do people believe everything this fetal alcohol syndrome teenager says?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 17:16:24 No.11006298 Report

Quoted By: >>11006304

>>11006294
She cites her sources

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 17:18:53 No.11006303 Report

Quoted By:

>>11005514
Completely irrelevant to our situation

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 17:19:02 No.11006304 Report

Quoted By: >>11006314

>>11006298
If she had decent sources she would think nuclear power is the way of the future, instead she's acting from a position of pure emotional thinking and cherry picking sources that align with her thinking.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 17:20:10 No.11006307 Report

Quoted By:

>>11005974
>will rise by about 5°C in 2100 and 12°C or more in 2200
Ya that's fucking game over if that happens lol. A few hundred thousands years later the last amino acid breaks down.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 17:20:32 No.11006308 Report

Quoted By:

>>11006294
her story is totally worthy of a south park reinterpretation with cartman in her role

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 17:22:52 No.11006314 Report

Quoted By:

>>11006304
>the way of the future
literally every single person in history who has used that term is human fucking garbage.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO file.png, 253KiB, 750x462

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 17:24:20 No.11006318 Report

Quoted By: >>11009039

>>11005741
Good thing we have isotopic measurements to confirm that the massive increase of CO2 is caused by fossil fuels.
Learn what you're talking about before you spout shit

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Screen Shot 2019-09-25 at 11.42. (...).png, 182KiB, 2154x1044

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 17:30:22 No.11006339 Report

Quoted By: >>11006353

>>11005544
Why are you posting reconstructions of deep time like it has any relevance? The data points in that graph are tens of millions of years apart and reconstruct cycles far larger than the ones active today. Not to mention the the planet was under completely different tectonic and oceanic regimes.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 17:34:03 No.11006353 Report

Quoted By: >>11006362

>>11006339
>everything i don't like is irrelevant
/pol/tards everyone

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 17:34:49 No.11006357 Report

Quoted By:

>>11005040
socialism and reparations of course
it's only logical

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 17:37:03 No.11006362 Report

Quoted By:

>>11006353
>>11005525
Misclick btw. How can you read my post and think it was a /pol/tard?
There's the guy saying that because it was warmer in the cretaceous that means anthropogenic warming isn't real.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 17:42:28 No.11006375 Report

Quoted By:

>>11005544
Just wanted to make sure I remember this. "There is no correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentrations and global temperature." Thanks for showing the way.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 17:48:48 No.11006393 Report

Quoted By: >>11006396 >>11006494

It's caught in American partisan politics now. Conservative propaganda machines pumping out denialist propaganda, etc.
Locked in inaction, nothing will get done. We will lose. Everyone.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 17:49:04 No.11006394 Report

Quoted By: >>11006398

>>11005871
Public transit is looked down upon and it’s usually pretty filthy

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 17:50:41 No.11006396 Report

Quoted By:

>>11006393
It'll be okay.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 17:51:36 No.11006398 Report

Quoted By:

>>11006394
are deodorants too expensive?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 18:41:03 No.11006494 Report

Quoted By:

>>11006393
>Conservative propaganda machines
BAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA
NINETY SEVEN PERCENT AM I RIGHT?
LMFAO

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 18:41:58 No.11006496 Report

Quoted By:

>>11005040
Kill 95% of humans.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 19:41:34 No.11006607 Report

Quoted By: >>11006656

>>11005952
>Cannot make a dependable grid entirely of renewable energy.
Iceland can, Albania can, Congo can, Paraguay can.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 19:57:16 No.11006656 Report

Quoted By:

>>11006607
>Congo can
omg I laughed so hard I pissed and shit myself

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 20:01:54 No.11006669 Report

Quoted By:

>>11005062
>reddit meme
you have to go back

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO unsurebulbusaur.png, 39KiB, 159x163

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 20:03:51 No.11006673 Report

Quoted By:

>>11005908
that's why we should bow down to the 1% and do nothing to get them to actually pay taxes

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 20:05:49 No.11006680 Report

Quoted By:

>>11005908
There are people who really believe this

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 20:08:11 No.11006688 Report

Quoted By:

>>11005062
That's right /pol/ is two doors down.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 20:16:07 No.11006705 Report

Quoted By: >>11006841

>>11005040
Nope, because your conjecture is faulty and you'll not get any usable conclusions when you're working with a deliberately bullshit premise. Just raise taxes so everyone's living standard is more shitty and institute authoritarian central planning to collapse your society in a few decades, I'm sure you'll save the planet.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 20:29:06 No.11006743 Report

Quoted By:

>>11005918
The coal and oil lobby?

You're talking about how much of the economy? A quarter? More? We have built our economy around moving people around in cars (the US especially). And moving freight in trucks, and ships. All of this depends on burning oil: the infrastructure of our technological society is founded on burning oil. Oil doesn't need a lobby. It has the whole of the economy to lobby for it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 20:30:43 No.11006744 Report

Quoted By: >>11006798 >>11008310

>>11005068
Fact: The 1% pay the highest taxes, not just in absolute terms, but in relative terms too.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 20:39:17 No.11006771 Report

Quoted By:

>>11005849
>he thinks the problem is that there is carbon and not how much CO2 and other greenhouse gases are in the atmosphere
I can't tell if you're trolling or just being a fucking retard.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 20:41:55 No.11006781 Report

Quoted By:

>>11005948
>Im not the retard
There can be, and are, multiple retards. I have no clue what the rest of the incoherent babble in your post is trying to communicate

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 20:42:16 No.11006782 Report

Quoted By:

>>11005424
I think you mean
NU
CU
LAR

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 20:44:25 No.11006794 Report

Quoted By: >>11007319 >>11009272

>>11005043
and creating solutions that create bigger problems than what they intended to solve

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 20:44:42 No.11006798 Report

Quoted By:

>>11006744
Is it worth telling the truth to these people? Even after Obamacare showed them that, no, the rich aren't going to pay for it, they still cling to these disproven beliefs.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 20:45:14 No.11006801 Report

Quoted By:

>>11005932
>the experts disagree with me
>better lie and say they don't/are paid to say that
Yeah, no.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 20:47:16 No.11006806 Report

Quoted By: >>11007320

>>11005952
>no fusion for at least 30 years and fision has a lot of cons. Placement, resource cost and radioactive waste.
Nothing compared to the chins of fossil fuels, which literally kill millions of people annually from air pollution even if you ignore global warming.

>Cannot make a dependable grid entirely of renewable energy.
That would be a valid response if I only said nuclear, but I didn't.

Try again.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1311010641509small.jpg, 847KiB, 938x4167

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 20:47:35 No.11006808 Report

Quoted By: >>11006855

thorium reactors.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 20:57:08 No.11006841 Report

Quoted By:

>>11006705
>scientific facts are wrong bruh, just trust me

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 21:01:18 No.11006855 Report

Quoted By: >>11006884 >>11009347

>>11006808
Meme tech that has too little advantage over uranium based fission to be worth developing and will soon be rendered obsolete by fusion.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 21:05:28 No.11006870 Report

Quoted By: >>11006906

>>11005040

Let's try to talk about this like adults. The modern global economy is built on cheaply and easily moving things around with vehicles. These vehicles burn oil, because of energy density and ease of transportation and storage. In order to slow down the burning of oil, you have options:
A) Replace the oil burning vehicles with vehicles that use another power source. This transition will cost billions of dollars and those costs will be passed to consumers.
B) Tax the burning of oil. This will make moving things around more expensive and those costs will be passed to consumers.
C) Transport less stuff. Less supply means higher prices, that are passed on to consumers.
Wow, are we noticing a trend here?

So, the options are either bury our heads in the sand and let whatever happen, or accept a degradation to our material prosperity (without guaranteeing that the bad stuff isn't going to happen anyway). With those being the options, why is it so difficult to see why politics is going where it is going?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 21:09:27 No.11006884 Report

Quoted By: >>11006910

>>11006855

>and will soon be rendered obsolete by fusion

I doubt that.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 21:16:04 No.11006906 Report

Quoted By: >>11006922 >>11007194 >>11007289

>>11006870
>Replace the oil burning vehicles with vehicles that use another power source. This transition will cost billions of dollars and those costs will be passed to consumers.
Utter nonsense. Vehicles need to be replaced anyway. It's not like anyone is suggesting that we immediately trash all vehicles and buy new ones. That's like arguing we can't have higher fuel efficiency than vehicles from the 60s because we would have to replace all vehicles.

>Tax the burning of oil. This will make moving things around more expensive and those costs will be passed to consumers.
The alternative is much more costly.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 21:16:55 No.11006909 Report

Quoted By:

>>11005040
At this rate the only way is widespread ecoterrorism

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 21:17:06 No.11006910 Report

Quoted By: >>11006914

>>11006884
No one cares.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 21:19:05 No.11006914 Report

Quoted By:

>>11006910
based

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 21:22:58 No.11006922 Report

Quoted By: >>11007479 >>11007853

>>11006906
> Utter nonsense. Vehicles need to be replaced anyway.
Yes, but an 18-wheeler may last 20 years, and people are talking about taking them all off the roads by 2030.

> The alternative is much more costly.
But those costs are far less definite. It is far easier for people to see the change in costs that will occur when gas gets more expensive than the costs of vague natural catastrophes that may or may not occur in the future.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 23:27:02 No.11007174 Report

Quoted By: >>11009242 >>11009635

>>11005040
Literally nothing matters so long as Asia and Africa exist.
Paying higher taxes isn't going to stop Chang, Jamal, and Pajeet from continuing to pollute the environment.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 23:35:05 No.11007194 Report

Quoted By: >>11008463

>>11006906
>Utter nonsense. Vehicles need to be replaced anyway
This is equally nonsense. Making a complete vehicle is destructive to the environment. Joe blow can keep a car for 20 years and a company could keep them much longer. Hybrid drives and/or batteries can be retrofitted to existing vehicles. For most situations. It is best for the environment to keep what you have running. The rest is just a money game. Im not a warmer, myself but I think they would do better to adopt this

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 00:04:27 No.11007279 Report

Quoted By:

>>11005493
>There's not a single evidence based scientific concensus position throughout history that turned out to be wrong

https://scitechdaily.com/scientists-were-wrong-about-dna-it-is-actually-held-together-by-hydrophobic-forces/

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 00:07:15 No.11007289 Report

Quoted By: >>11008463

>>11006906
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/green-living-blog/2010/sep/23/carbon-footprint-new-car

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 00:08:21 No.11007293 Report

Quoted By:

>>11005493
>There's not a single evidence based scientific concensus position throughout history that turned out to be wrong
classical physics

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 00:16:58 No.11007319 Report

Quoted By: >>11009272

>>11006794
based and tedpilled

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 00:17:26 No.11007320 Report

Quoted By: >>11008466

>>11006806
You missed entirely both of those points but I guess its difficult to think with that low IQ

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 00:20:28 No.11007325 Report

Quoted By:

>>11005493
Bro, do you even scientific method?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 00:33:09 No.11007364 Report

Quoted By:

>>11005493
No slip boundary condition was initially thought to be incorrect

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 00:57:59 No.11007428 Report

Quoted By: >>11007443 >>11007445 >>11007446 >>11007450 >>11007463 >>11007492 >>11007497

>>11005040
Women are over 50 percent of the population and make 90 percent of the purchasing decisions. Ya climate change is man made.lol

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 01:03:44 No.11007443 Report

Quoted By:

>>11007428
Can't talk about that
ITS MYSOGYNY
https://www.bloomberg.com/company/stories/top-10-things-everyone-know-women-consumers/

You can only talk about the wage gap and #metoo. Without those serious issues + racism global warming literally wouldn't even be happening.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 01:04:36 No.11007445 Report

Quoted By:

>>11007428
based post

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 01:04:47 No.11007446 Report

Quoted By:

>>11007428
naomi klein is such a vapid cunt

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 01:05:14 No.11007450 Report

Quoted By:

>>11007428
Good point bro

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 01:08:30 No.11007463 Report

Quoted By:

>>11007428
Further confirmed

Wom*n are destroying the planet

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 01:13:19 No.11007478 Report

Quoted By:

I already don't do shit towards the climate (Not by choice though) I aint giving up meat though, no way

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 01:13:45 No.11007479 Report

Quoted By:

>>11006922
Those """people""" are politicians farming votes
Consideration of economics is beneath them

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 01:15:21 No.11007485 Report

Quoted By:

>>11005456
It's the other things that will get you

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 01:16:42 No.11007492 Report

Quoted By: >>11007498 >>11007558

>>11007428
We have a winner.

Now we have identified the problem. Solutions?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 01:18:37 No.11007497 Report

Quoted By: >>11007541

>>11007428
And even when they don't, most men are buying the shiny consumer garbage to compete with other men buying the shiny consumer garbage because they know that's what women like.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 01:18:45 No.11007498 Report

Quoted By: >>11007510 >>11007514

>>11007492
Get rid of all women.
Then we can touch each others' dicks without worrying about them calling it gay

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 01:23:28 No.11007510 Report

Quoted By:

>>11007498
I bet you drive a mazda miata or an austin mini.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 01:24:18 No.11007514 Report

Quoted By: >>11007519

>>11007498
>not touching dicks because you care about a woman thinks
fag.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 01:25:21 No.11007519 Report

Quoted By: >>11007563

>>11007514
wtf. did I have a stroke? that's like the eleventh post I've made today and accidentally left a word out

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 01:29:36 No.11007541 Report

Quoted By: >>11007554

>>11007497
I don know what kind of girlie men you hang out. The only shiny I have is tools.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 01:32:18 No.11007554 Report

Quoted By:

>>11007541
shiny = nice house, nice car, nice vacations, expensive dinners

girls ALL love that shit

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 01:33:52 No.11007558 Report

Quoted By:

>>11007492
MGTOW, sexbots

>>>> population control

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 01:35:31 No.11007563 Report

Quoted By:

>>11007519

the message box is too small and it makes it hard to properly edit your replies.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 01:36:20 No.11007568 Report

Quoted By:

Does fucking ANYTHING actually come close to being as good as oil or natural gas?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 02:36:08 No.11007725 Report

Quoted By: >>11007964 >>11008333

>>11005408
is there any way to test this prediction, or do we just have to believe it?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 02:40:01 No.11007731 Report

Quoted By: >>11008285

>>11005769

No.

Stop thus.

Chernobyl was not a "near miss" or "almost catastrophe".

It was the culmination of the worst-case nightmare scenario made real, same as Fukushima. They literally could not have been worse.

A reactor accident causing core damage that exposes the public to uncontained fission Products. There is literally nothing worse than that.

t. Guy who trains people how to operate nuclear reactors.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 02:42:31 No.11007736 Report

Quoted By:

>>11005952

>fission has a lot of cons

Only if you're retarded and only know about nuclear power from movies from the 70s and "I fucking love obnoxious memes".

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 03:11:08 No.11007781 Report

Quoted By:

>>11005040
>How do we stop it? Is it even possible?
It is not possible. Too much already needs to be done by too many people who are unwilling. Future generations are indeed doomed.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 03:22:54 No.11007798 Report

Quoted By:

Let's just have a giant fuck festival while we still have the chance!

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 03:27:42 No.11007808 Report

Quoted By: >>11007814

apart from china, first world countries produce the most greenhouse gases, so educate fat americans or make fat americans reproduce less.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 03:29:17 No.11007814 Report

Quoted By:

>>11007808
We are impervious to education. Suck fat D.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO gb2pol.jpg, 38KiB, 490x290

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 03:44:23 No.11007832 Report

Quoted By:

who the fuck let /pol/ in? brainlets need to go BACK

>>>/pol/

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 04:00:18 No.11007853 Report

Quoted By:

>>11006922
There is no need to completely remove trucks st some arbitrary date.

>It is far easier for people to see the change in costs that will occur when gas gets more expensive than the costs of vague natural catastrophes that may or may not occur in the future.
It's far easier for people to continue smoking than to think about the risks of cancer.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 05:04:18 No.11007932 Report

Quoted By:

>>11005908
>NO WE MUST PAY THE TITHE TO THE RICH OR THEY WONT EMPLOY US ANYMORE

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 05:07:15 No.11007936 Report

Quoted By:

Can we keep this out of the bump order while you talk to yourself?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 05:22:51 No.11007964 Report

Quoted By: >>11007974 >>11008083

>>11007725
are you retarded? have you ever heard of actuarial science? how do you think people predict the future of businesses, weather, etc?

ur question is "hurr it's in the future so how do we know it'll happen". multiple scientific disciplines more important than actuarial science indicate atmospheric CO2 levels rising, and will continue to rise as long as nothing is systematically done to reduce it.

denying this, you're simply /pol/pilled and retarded

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 05:32:28 No.11007974 Report

Quoted By: >>11007978 >>11007986

>>11007964
But there's no correlation between co2 and temperature.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 05:36:18 No.11007978 Report

Quoted By: >>11007980 >>11008950 >>11009103

>>11007974
ah, so you are retarded

personally as a doomer i dont really give a fuck about the fate of the earth, but the science and non-tabloid data is undeniable

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-warming/temperature-change#targetText=Temperature%20Change%20and%20Carbon%20Dioxide,past%20several%20hundred%20thousand%20years.

published by NOAA

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 05:38:50 No.11007980 Report

Quoted By: >>11007989

>>11007978
I ain't gonna read no global warming fairy tales. There's no correlation. Any correlation is cherry picking.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 05:40:09 No.11007986 Report

Quoted By:

>>11007974
before i go to bed
>inb4 looks like co2 levels fix themselves

yes, over periods of tens of thousands of years. we'll all be dead before the earth cleanses itself, and that isn't alarmist, it's just simply the truth if there isn't a systematic change

i purpose nuclear

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 05:41:24 No.11007989 Report

Quoted By: >>11007995

>>11007980
oh ur trolling

kind of disappointed. at least you may not be retarded though

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 05:44:33 No.11007995 Report

Quoted By:

>>11007989
I think you are trolling but you may not realize it. The board is way heavier with climate, racism, politics than it usually is.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 05:46:01 No.11007999 Report

Quoted By:

>>11005798
oh no not the highly water soluble cesium that decades of nuclear testing showed would never pose any short or long term radioactive pollution to the oceans. The same oceans which have uranium rich crust constantly diffusing into them.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 06:37:09 No.11008079 Report

Quoted By:

>>11005040
A scientist would propose a radical new solution to try that, let it happen to observe the results, or actively cool the globe to enable archeological finds on the former sea floor.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 06:39:11 No.11008083 Report

Quoted By: >>11008085 >>11008120 >>11008147

>>11007964
that faggot who replied to you isn't me, so fuck yourself faggot.
also you didn't answer my question, can we test this or do we just have to believe it?
I was a flat earther once, but I actually tested it for myself, and imagine that, the earth is actually a sphere 7900 miles in diameter.
so FAGGOT, can we test this for ourselves, or do we have to just have to believe these fucking cunts?
KYS nigger.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 06:41:14 No.11008085 Report

Quoted By: >>11008089

>>11008083
...If only I got a penny for every time I was called a faggot and retarded on this website...

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 06:43:50 No.11008089 Report

Quoted By:

>>11008085
so no answer then, i guess i'll just blindly believe it.
maybe you have a book I can read about it, maybe the climate bible?
published by the NOAA perhaps?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 07:03:05 No.11008120 Report

Quoted By:

>>11008083
>"I was a flat earther once"

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 07:21:25 No.11008145 Report

Quoted By: >>11008151

>>11005514
>No error bars
Impressive how certain warmers are.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 07:22:55 No.11008147 Report

Quoted By: >>11008153

>>11008083
What do you want to test? Do you want to dig out several km of ice, extract air from trapped air bubbles, feed the gas to a mass spectrometer and measure stuff like the ratio of O18 and O16? Sure, go ahead. Or you just believe those who do this for a living and have literally no reason to lie to you, but have every reason to not fake data. If you work in an institute or university and you fake data, you're likely to lose your job and reputation. Good luck trying to get rehired after being kicked out for being a fraud.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 07:26:22 No.11008151 Report

Quoted By:

>>11008145
What are error bars and why do you need them?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 07:27:41 No.11008153 Report

Quoted By: >>11008160

>>11008147
>If you work in an institute or university and you fake data, you're likely to lose your job and reputation.
That's bullshit but I believe it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 07:31:14 No.11008157 Report

Quoted By: >>11008158

>>11005040
Dump iron salt into the oceans and regrow the plankton. Easiest method.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 07:32:38 No.11008158 Report

Quoted By: >>11008163

>>11008157
Wouldn't that require a fuckload?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 07:33:39 No.11008160 Report

Quoted By: >>11008170

>>11008153
Maybe add
*and if you're caught
But seriously. This is the first thing that you have to sign in these "scientific ethics" forms. That's the very basis of your job. How can anyone trust your publications if you're known for making things up?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 07:35:39 No.11008163 Report

Quoted By: >>11008174

>>11008158
We have a fuck load. The Sahara does this every year, wind blows out particles into the surrounding ocean and regrows plankton. We only need to do 2 or 3% per year.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 07:43:14 No.11008170 Report

Quoted By: >>11008182

>>11008160
Don't worry you'll get angry peer reviews but then everyone agrees you were valuable for the discussion, and the faulty data was because of your potato fingers.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 07:44:56 No.11008174 Report

Quoted By:

>>11008163
I wanna grow seaweed instead of eating bugs.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 07:46:52 No.11008180 Report

Quoted By:

>>11005040
I've wondered if she realizes the corporate sponsors she accepts are the ones causing climate change, or if she's thought about stopping using social media due to the high energy needs they have

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 07:48:11 No.11008182 Report

Quoted By:

>>11008170
Maybe in social studies, but definitely not in physics. There you lose your reputation. Even if it's a stupid mistake, your reputation suffers. Look at the neutrino guys who thought they were faster than light. Everybody makes fun of them. And they didn't claim that they found something amazing, they were actually quite unsure with their data. So you can't accuse them of scientific misconduct, but it wasn't the best style.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO index(1).jpg, 63KiB, 500x509

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 07:51:37 No.11008187 Report

Quoted By: >>11008492

>>11005040
lol, man made

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 24.jpg, 78KiB, 885x665

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 09:37:04 No.11008285 Report

Quoted By:

>>11007731
>They literally could not have been worse.
Surely, Chernobyl disaster could've been worse. If the reactor core went through the roof instead of flying sideways into a crane and dispersed outside it would've been worse. If the fire wasn't contained and reactor No. 3 was affected it would've been worse. If people weren't immediately evacuated from the affected cities it would've been worse... oh, wait, that actually happened.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 09:49:45 No.11008291 Report

Quoted By:

>>11005040
By structural changes so that the economy isn't based on growth and consumption but efficiency, optimum design and sustainability.
By reducing power consumption, protection of forests and accelerated innovation and implementation such as for thermal insulation, emissionless cooling, smart grids, batteries and renewable energies, and by eco-tariffs and standards.
What you can do is spend your time and effort on things that are actually meaningful and have real value to society.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 10:12:49 No.11008310 Report

Quoted By: >>11009129

>>11006744
Maybe you are talking about a different metric, but companies paid very little, look at Amazon for example. The difficulty with taxing global players and their owners have been known for decades. Even so, relative liquidity goes down with wealth, and money sitting idly on a bank account is money outside of the economy.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO heliotrop_offenburg.jpg, 1MiB, 1181x1181

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 10:37:50 No.11008333 Report

Quoted By:

>>11007725
>is there any way to test this prediction

All you need is elementary school maths. Current CO2 level is at 410 last year it was 408, next year it will be 412. In 10 years it will be 430 in 50 years it will be 510.
All you need to do is to add 2 for every year.
If we build more coal plants and more cars you would need to add 3 every year. If we replace coal and oil with renewable quickly you only need to add 1 per year. Once we go full renewable CO2 will stop to increase.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 11:12:58 No.11008360 Report

Quoted By: >>11008408 >>11008417 >>11008424

>>11005068
so how do you supposed to convince china and india?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 11:37:58 No.11008406 Report

Quoted By:

>>11005040
>>>/pol/
>>>/x/
/thread

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 11:39:24 No.11008408 Report

Quoted By:

>>11008360
By adding a CO2 import tax on chinkshit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 11:42:42 No.11008417 Report

Quoted By:

>>11008360
They are ahead of the west. The primary countries that need to be convinced are the US, Australia and I think the Czech Republic. Virtually everybody else accepted global warming as a fact. (at least on the political level)

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 11:46:05 No.11008424 Report

Quoted By:

>>11008360
Both are investing heavily in rail transport, India even seriously plans hyperloop tracks to replace air travel; China decided to build more maglev, and built metro networks in all major cities in the alst decade. (the plan is IIRC that you are never further away than 600m from a metro exit when you're in a city)

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 11:52:58 No.11008442 Report

Quoted By:

cccccc

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 12:04:47 No.11008463 Report

Quoted By: >>11009132 >>11009602

>>11007194
>Making a complete vehicle is destructive to the environment.
Not necessarily.

>>11007289
Carbon footprint from building a new car today, with fossil fuels. Irrelevant.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 12:07:27 No.11008466 Report

Quoted By: >>11008945

>>11007320
The points were

1. Nuclear is not perfect
2. Renewables alone don't work

Both are irrelevant.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 12:17:00 No.11008492 Report

Quoted By:

>>11008187
Awesome meme, upvoted

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 15:39:26 No.11008936 Report

Quoted By: >>11009141

>>11005598
Thank you for this good post.

I would like to enhance your argument about making fuel emissions more expensive:
>making fossil fuel emissions more expensive for everyone is a better solution than one person reducing their emissions

Dont get caught up in this either-or strawman discussion. Its not about attacking from this or this angle, the only reasonable course of action is attacking from every angle:
A) On a personal scale: Reduce personal pollution-footprint (use of plastic, emissions, etc)
B) On a scale of society: Tax pollution of all legal entities.
C) On an international scale: Raise import taxes for goods produced by countries and companies that pollute.

Adressing only a subset of these is fraud. Politicians likely will want to adress only A. People need to insist on implementing B and C as well.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 15:43:11 No.11008945 Report

Quoted By: >>11009184

>>11008466
Both are still correct and are relevant for lifting fossil fuels from the grid.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 15:45:01 No.11008950 Report

Quoted By: >>11009188

>>11007978
>correlation implies causation
I thought /sci/ knew what the scientific method is

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 16:30:10 No.11009039 Report

Quoted By: >>11009402 >>11009711

>>11006318
That doesnt prove it's coming from fossil fuels.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO think2much.png, 55KiB, 581x525

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 16:56:07 No.11009102 Report

Quoted By:

>>11005040
We get more teenagers on the television.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 16:56:07 No.11009103 Report

Quoted By: >>11009178 >>11009266

>>11007978
-The graph doesn't show co2 preceding temperature.

http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming-2/ice-core-graph/

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/23/new-research-in-antarctica-shows-co2-follows-temperature-by-a-few-hundred-years-at-most/

-even if it was true the graph shows temperature was higher in the past and there were no cars or industry in the past. It shows that nothing special os happening today even though human are creating co2 whit cars and industry, which basically shows that the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming/ anthropogenic climate change is based on nothing.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 17:04:32 No.11009129 Report

Quoted By:

>>11008310
>money sitting idly on a bank account is money outside of the economy
far better than increasing demand (prices) for goods and contributing to consumerism thus increasing pollution.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 17:05:35 No.11009132 Report

Quoted By: >>11009282

>>11008463
you're fucking retarded. lol
Here's your (You)

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 17:08:49 No.11009141 Report

Quoted By: >>11009288

>>11008936
Go ahead, make people's food, shelter, and mobility more expensive and see what happens.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 17:14:45 No.11009151 Report

Quoted By:

When gas in California hit 5 bucks, beaners started poking holes in gas tanks left and right.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 17:26:27 No.11009178 Report

Quoted By:

>>11009103
>Citing blogs

No wonder only boomers believe in climate change denial

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 17:30:14 No.11009184 Report

Quoted By:

>>11008945
Correct and irrelevant. Nuclear does not have to be perfect to be better than fossil fuels and renewables do not have to be alone. You could have responded to these points several posts ago but you obviously have no response.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 17:32:08 No.11009188 Report

Quoted By:

>>11008950
>there is no correlation!
*shows correlation*
>correlation is irrelevant!
Make up your minds, retards. Causation is already proven via the greenhouse effect.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 17:35:09 No.11009198 Report

Quoted By:

>>11005040
Ban coal and switch to biodiesel, hydro-electric, and wind. Still need more power? Fast Reactors.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 0f6.jpg, 22KiB, 480x480

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 17:48:26 No.11009242 Report

Quoted By: >>11009295 >>11009635

>>11007174
This. All these retarded fucks in here. I had a conversation with an Austrian, he said that they were considering a co2 tax. Essentially taxing the air that you breathe.

Austria has a population of 9 million. China, India and Africa have a population of 4 BILLION.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 17:58:59 No.11009266 Report

Quoted By:

>>11009103
>The graph doesn't show co2 preceding temperature.
You claimed they aren't correlated, not that one precedes the other.

If you want to see CO2 preceding temperature in the past you need a global temperature reconstruction: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature10915

Or you could just look at the modern CO2 and temperature record.

>even if it was true the graph shows temperature was higher in the past
The graph doesn't show current temperature, it's from an ice core. So how can it show temperatures are higher?

>It shows that nothing special os happening today
LOL it shows that we had interglacial warming 10000 years ago and we should now be slowly cooling over the next tens of thousands of years. Instead we are rapidly warming an order of magnitude faster than interglacial warming. There is literally nothing normal about this.

>which basically shows that the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming/ anthropogenic climate change is based on nothing.
The fact that your conclusions are the complete opposite of what the data says basically shows you have no clue what you're talking about.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 18:01:43 No.11009272 Report

Quoted By:

>>11006794
>>11005043
>>11007319
and have since the dawn of time been unable to stop fucking each other figuratively and literally for personal gain and pleasure even when circumstances are so dire that the entire civilization in question is falling apart

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 18:05:55 No.11009282 Report

Quoted By: >>11009584

>>11009132
>no response
I accept your admittal of defeat.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 18:08:58 No.11009288 Report

Quoted By:

>>11009141
Governments tax all of those things already. And carbon taxes have already been implemented successfully.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 18:09:30 No.11009291 Report

Quoted By: >>11009400 >>11009460 >>11009471

Does anyone see a problem in how (virtually) the entire climate change movement is sourcing the IPCC’s reports alone? I may be wrong, but it seems to me as though these reports are the sole, focal “authority” on these climate change prediction models. Doesn’t the IPCC knowingly and openly employ non-scientific methods and source non-peer reviewed research? This is a panel of less than 200 employees at the UN apparently. Is it not problematic that the world is informed by a single organization for mass research aggregation / interpretation?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO dxl2ui5v2r611.jpg, 83KiB, 900x900

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 18:10:25 No.11009295 Report

Quoted By: >>11009331

>>11009242
>he said that they were considering a co2 tax. Essentially taxing the air that you breathe.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 18:18:25 No.11009331 Report

Quoted By: >>11009449 >>11009581

>>11009295
>accuses others of being a brainlet
>is actually a brainlet.
Ironic.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO high IQ decision.jpg, 122KiB, 709x877

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 18:25:24 No.11009347 Report

Quoted By: >>11009457

>>11006855
>and will soon
In the next 300 years? Maybe

Uranium is only good for ameritards, India and China are switching over to Thorium. They have thousands of engineers working on it day and night while americans are stuck with studying genders and being type 2 diabetic. MITards will never get their fusion reactors working.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 18:42:58 No.11009400 Report

Quoted By: >>11009441

>>11009291
That's not a problem, that's just being efficient. The policymakers/citizens who need the information in those reports don't have the bandwidth to read multiple competing reports, let alone an entire bibliography of papers. If you think you can do better, you're welcome to try.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 18:43:10 No.11009402 Report

Quoted By:

>>11009039
It literally does since fossil fuel CO2 are isotopically lighter

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 18:55:24 No.11009441 Report

Quoted By: >>11009624

>>11009400
>That's not a problem, that's just being efficient.
>d-don't question our tightly controlled narrative, goyim!
>multiple avenues of research is just i-ineffecient!
Fucking lol.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 18:57:53 No.11009449 Report

Quoted By: >>11009459

>>11009331
t. idiot who doesn't realize breathing is carbon neutral

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 18:59:51 No.11009457 Report

Quoted By:

>>11009347
>In the next 300 years?
>India and China are switching over to Thorium.
Why do people come onto the science board and then just make shit up?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 19:00:55 No.11009459 Report

Quoted By: >>11009758

>>11009449
as is beef production (excluding the transportation), but you guys want to ban/tax that as well.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 19:01:13 No.11009460 Report

Quoted By: >>11009651

>>11009291
>Does anyone see a problem in how (virtually) the entire climate change movement is sourcing the IPCC’s reports alone?
No. People use different sources, but IPCC is the most reliable and conservative.
>Doesn’t the IPCC knowingly and openly employ non-scientific methods and source non-peer reviewed research?
Does it?
>This is a panel of less than 200 employees at the UN apparently
Those people aggregate data from scientists all over the world.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 19:04:56 No.11009471 Report

Quoted By: >>11009681

>>11009291
>IPCC’s report
provides a summary of climate science that have the agreement of leading climate scientists and consensus from participating governments
IPCC is tasked with reviewing peer-reviewed scientific literature and other relevant publications to provide information on the state of knowledge about climate change.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 19:14:03 No.11009501 Report

Quoted By: >>11009512 >>11009532

>>11005040
even the most cursory scientific examination of climate change reveals that it is false.

it is extremely frustrating how wrapped up people are in this nonsense.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 19:16:27 No.11009512 Report

Quoted By:

>>11009501
what frustrates me is that the people perpetuating this hoax KNOW its a hoax.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 19:20:50 No.11009532 Report

Quoted By: >>11009575

>>11009501
>even the most cursory scientific examination of climate change reveals that it is false

Which is?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 19:32:40 No.11009575 Report

Quoted By:

>>11009532
It is colder today than it was yesterday.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 19:35:43 No.11009581 Report

Quoted By:

>>11009331
>uses the word "ironic" correctly.
Must be smart

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 19:36:52 No.11009584 Report

Quoted By: >>11009733

>>11009282
Maybe because you didn't say anything.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 19:43:31 No.11009602 Report

Quoted By: >>11009769

>>11008463
>Not necessarily.
Sorry, didn't see you there. It is absolutely necessarily. Aren't you on your own team? Are you paid by the party to spout garbage? It is better for the environment to upgrade existing vehicles and there can be a smaller business market for doing so. Melting metals, plastic, rubber and running hydraulic rams and welders. When you can slap a battery and a motor in an old el Camino?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 19:48:39 No.11009624 Report

Quoted By:

>>11009441
What the fuck are you talking about? The multiple lines of research are published and out there for anyone to see. The IPCC just summarizes it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 19:48:54 No.11009629 Report

Quoted By: >>11009634

>According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), Americans consumed 140.43 billion gallons of gasoline in 2015, or about 384.74 million gallons each day

A one time charge of $20 per gallon would raise $7,694,000,000 dollars in a single day.

It is widely acknowledged the plan needs a "Manhattan scale" project.

>In relative terms the nuclear bomb effort cost about $23 billion in 2018 dollars

Four days of this tax would raise an equivalent amount.

Meanwhile, phase in taxes on carbon until it is prohibitively expensive in 2030 and I guarantee the market will turn toward electrification. All major manufacturers already have plans they've been implementing since 2000. They expect this.

Government is dragging its feet, scared of the public's reaction to higher taxes. And people, being selfish, will object. After all, they bought their gas guzzler, they chose to buy a house 100km from their work, they can barely make ends meet. So there will be disruption. So how do we mollify this? A UBI. The UBI will not only create the basis for a just and functional society, it will prevent those whose jobs/lifestyles are made obsolete by the end of subsidized oil, from bankruptcy and depression.

For now, though, there needs to be an unmistakable message: The people who pollute must pay. They will either pay a nominal amount now, or they will cost us all a whole lot later and at that point lets face it. Those responsible will pay a high personal price depending on how vindictive future people are.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 19:50:19 No.11009634 Report

Quoted By: >>11009660

>>11009629
You're an idiot.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 19:50:28 No.11009635 Report

Quoted By: >>11009669

>>11005513
>China
>>11009242
>>11007174
Paid shills (did you know Exonn pays over $100 million each year on climate change denial?) completely ignoring my comment.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 19:53:06 No.11009651 Report

Quoted By: >>11009791

>>11009460
>No. People use different sources, but IPCC is the most reliable and conservative.
Could you help me out and point me towards some other authorities on climate trend modeling and prediction? Everywhere I look, it seems to come back to the IPCC. Im curious about replication of findings.
>Doesn’t the IPCC knowingly and openly employ non-scientific methods and source non-peer reviewed research?
Yes. They’re pretty open about sourcing a mix of peer-reviewed and non-peer reviewed material. It says so on their own webpages and the main wiki article on the organization. About non-scientific methods, it’s my understanding that the WG1 (working group 1) of the IPCC is the only part of the IPCC that is purely physical-science. WG2 and WG3 make non-scientific assumptions in their work, and are more selective about source material. Findings from all work groups are “interpreted” in the SPM (Summary for Policy Makers), which is essentially the headline that everyone gets in an IPCC report. A heavy dose of expert opinion there, but “based on the science”, nonetheless.
>Those people aggregate data from scientists all over the world.
WG1 does, yeah. The rest of the organization works with assumptions and existing beliefs.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 19:54:26 No.11009660 Report

Quoted By: >>11009689 >>11009690

>>11009634
Qualify your criticism. My numbers aren't made up. Only electrification will allow the world to get off fossil fuels. Only by taking the world's leading market electric will force manufacturers to follow.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 19:56:32 No.11009669 Report

Quoted By: >>11009794

>>11009635
>Anyone who points out who the actual biggest polluters are, is a shill
Kill yourself.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 19:56:44 No.11009671 Report

Quoted By:

You're a liberal

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 19:58:09 No.11009681 Report

Quoted By: >>11009802

>>11009471
Yes, I’m very much aware of their mission statement, haha. What I was pointing out was that they seem to be the only source for virtually all “run-away” climate catastrophe predictions sourced by the media, green activists and CC awareness / lobbying groups.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 19:59:26 No.11009689 Report

Quoted By: >>11009748

>>11009660
The pollution from USA and Europoor cars is irrelevant. Focusing on it is moronic. That tax money would be squandered and misused. UBI is cancer that would only benefit neet scum and welfare niggers.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 19:59:25 No.11009690 Report

Quoted By: >>11009751

>>11009660
>electrification will allow the world to get off fossil fuels
huge potential for economic growth there, amirite?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 19:59:57 No.11009696 Report

Quoted By: >>11009704 >>11009706

>>11005513
>most of those who "believe" in Climate Change seem wholly unwilling to actually fix anything,

That is a straw man my dude. We're willing to take it all on. Carbon taxes, international agreements, market regulation.

Insult us all you want at the end of the day we're fighting for our lives and if you get in the way of that we will roll right over you.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 20:02:09 No.11009704 Report

Quoted By:

>>11009696
>Carbon taxes, international agreements, market regulation.
Ya that's what all it's gonna take... easy peasy

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 20:02:17 No.11009706 Report

Quoted By:

>>11009696
>we're fighting for our lives
What an emotional, overdramatic thing to say. You're weak, pathetic and irrelevant.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO bikefit2.jpg, 547KiB, 1375x1162

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 20:03:40 No.11009711 Report

Quoted By: >>11009770

>>11009039
pic related its your new transportation

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 20:08:25 No.11009733 Report

Quoted By:

>>11009584
But I did.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 20:16:51 No.11009748 Report

Quoted By: >>11009768 >>11009780 >>11009824 >>11010986

>>11009689
UBI: will replace existing social services bureaucracies and pay for itself many times over.

Electrification: Whichever market leads in technology has a huge advantage. By 2030 global oil will be in massive demand decline and as time goes on, more and more people are going to refuse to live with the pollution that fossil fuels creates, in addition to CO2. Oil per barrel will be cheap but burning it will not be cheap because it will be taxed to pay for electrification, for roads, for medical expenses, for habitat restoration, for harm reduction in general.

You'll still be able to drive your shit-box, you'll just pay $20/gallon for the privilege. Countries that want to burn it can do so- they'll face international sanctions. And no one is going to invest- that is, expect real returns in the future on an obsolete, sanctioned technology. The price is going to go to zero. The number of people that switch from electric back to gas will be zero. All the cars out there today that have an internal combustion engine, is a stranded asset, a toxic asset, and their owners will see a massive decline in value.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 20:17:53 No.11009751 Report

Quoted By: >>11009811

>>11009690
>>electrification will allow the world to get off fossil fuels
>huge potential for economic growth there, amirite?

Gigantic.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 20:19:35 No.11009758 Report

Quoted By: >>11009775 >>11009786

>>11009459
It's not. And beef production's effect on the environment has nothing to do with breathing. It's primarily through land use changes and methane emissions.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 20:22:46 No.11009768 Report

Quoted By: >>11009784

>>11009748
Electorates aren’t going to back your plans today or anytime within the next decade, at least. You would really do well to de-radicalize your approach, because you’ll do nothing but alienate people and get nowhere. You greatly overestimate the public appetite for a new green deal.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 20:22:51 No.11009769 Report

Quoted By:

>>11009602
The main reason that would be destructive to the environment is because it uses fossil fuels to accumulate materials and manufacture vehicles. But it's not necessary to use fossil fuels, just more convenient.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1497506435048.jpg, 44KiB, 569x506

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 20:23:08 No.11009770 Report

Quoted By: >>11009788

>>11009711
holy shit he's fucking huge!!!!

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 67501833-498280257588759-6714798 (...).jpg, 12KiB, 327x175

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 20:24:34 No.11009775 Report

Quoted By: >>11009786

>>11009758
>beef production's effect on the environment
>land use changes

using neutral language to describe pic related

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 20:25:28 No.11009780 Report

Quoted By:

>>11009748
>habitat restoration
but that would be an absolute disaster for the global economy. you do realize that a huge fraction economic growth depends on construction

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 20:26:53 No.11009784 Report

Quoted By:

>>11009768
We are a majority of your population. Get out of the house more often.

We are everywhere, talking to your politicians, talking to family and friends. We actually have friends irl... we are voters.

We're a network. Your platform is being overthrown. If you have investments in oil and gas stocks, I suggest selling.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 20:27:40 No.11009786 Report

Quoted By:

>>11009758
>>11009775
>through land use changes
so I guess its not so much beef production that's problem
but the growth in beef production
im glad you're finally admitting that economic growth has its down sides.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 20:27:55 No.11009788 Report

Quoted By:

>>11009770
Bicycling's effects on swole physique are widely known

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 20:29:01 No.11009791 Report

Quoted By:

>>11009651
>Could you help me out and point me towards some other authorities on climate trend modeling and prediction?
You're confused. The IPCC itself does not do any modeling. They report the results from CMIP, which in turn is a collaboration among many different modelers.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 20:31:57 No.11009794 Report

Quoted By: >>11009813 >>11009832

>>11009669
>China should go on a diet first because they have way more fat than America
This is how stupid you sound.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 20:33:19 No.11009802 Report

Quoted By:

>>11009681
Which tells me you haven't even looked at their predictions since none of them are "run-away" or "catastrophic."

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO large (1).jpg, 61KiB, 800x450

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 20:34:35 No.11009806 Report

Quoted By: >>11011462

ITT: People who believed they shitposted a president into office think they can shitpost science into retracting thousands of papers, and declaring the publications of a few industry PR flacks to be a more accurate model of climate than tens of thousands of professional scientists

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 20:35:52 No.11009811 Report

Quoted By: >>11009835

>>11009751
Now you're going to get called a COOOOONNNNNSSSSSUUUUUUMMMMMEEEEER which is the worst possible thing anyone could be and immediately defeats anything you have to say.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 20:36:30 No.11009813 Report

Quoted By:

>>11009794
>China should go on a diet first because they have way more fat than America

Of course it should surprise no one that China is way ahead in this endeavor. And by no one I mean people who shitpost.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 20:38:11 No.11009817 Report

Quoted By: >>11009955

Alarmists always get destroyed in debates:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Nh-tXGu-sM

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 20:39:48 No.11009824 Report

Quoted By: >>11009842

>>11009748
>will replace existing social services bureaucracies and pay for itself many times over.
No it won't. Your fantasy fairyland implementation will never happen.

>people are going to refuse to live with the pollution that fossil fuels creates
Absurd unfounded assumption.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 20:42:17 No.11009832 Report

Quoted By: >>11009965

>>11009794
You're dumb as fuck. The point is that taxing the shit out of people and spending tons of money is pointless if thirdworlders don't follow suit. You'll just harm your country.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO consumer5.png, 515KiB, 623x427

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 20:43:36 No.11009835 Report

Quoted By: >>11010020

>>11009811
>the worst possible thing anyone could be
Well ya. It's kinda bad. Considering the state of the world.

The infinite growther market worshipper cult rationalization for un"sustainable development" fueled gluttony will be responsible for humanity's demise.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Bob.jpg, 78KiB, 1200x630

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 20:45:32 No.11009842 Report

Quoted By: >>11009851

>>11009824
"Ahh.... its not happening... its not happening!"

Oh, you.

pic related uses solar energy to create my breakfast

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 20:46:47 No.11009846 Report

Quoted By: >>11009850

>>11005040
>Ok so climate change is real and it's man made.
>How do we stop it? Is it even possible?
kill yourself. it's for the best of the planet.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 20:48:21 No.11009850 Report

Quoted By: >>11009881

>>11009846
Lol. This brainlet will never reproduce

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 20:48:23 No.11009851 Report

Quoted By:

>>11009842
No he doesnt. Btw, I've met bob, nice guy.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1568579141711.jpg, 177KiB, 1920x1080

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 20:51:13 No.11009862 Report

Quoted By: >>11009877 >>11010978

>>According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), Americans consumed 140.43 billion gallons of gasoline in 2015, or about 384.74 million gallons each day

A one time charge of $20 per gallon would raise $7,694,000,000 dollars in a single day.

So, given that we can raise 7.6 billion in one day to fund science, why shouldn't we?

>b-but ANON I can't afford $20.....

Bullshit. You cheap fucks.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 20:54:16 No.11009877 Report

Quoted By:

>>11009862
>fund ""science"" goyim!

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 20:55:27 No.11009881 Report

Quoted By: >>11009945

>>11009850
breeding is immoral, denier

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 21:04:55 No.11009909 Report

Quoted By:

>>11005493
>There's not a single evidence based scientific concensus position throughout history that turned out to be wrong
Are you on crack?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 21:23:23 No.11009945 Report

Quoted By:

>>11009881
>don't have kids goyim!
>BTW keep sending billions of dollars to those poor starving Africans
>Also your population is dropping you should import millions of brown people

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 20120321.gif, 289KiB, 576x2992

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 21:28:05 No.11009955 Report

Quoted By: >>11011576

>>11009817
Lindzen couldn't even win this TV "debate" with a fake scientist. He still claims global warming will not go over 1 degree when it already has and every other prediction he made has been proven wrong. Pathetic.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 21:33:11 No.11009965 Report

Quoted By: >>11010623

>>11009832
It's not pointless, the US and the countries like it have the most unnecessary emissions. They also have been excessively emmitting GHGs for decade's longer than third world countries. And no one here has even argued third world countries shouldn't have to mitigate emissions. So the only point of your line of argument is to give a feeble excuse to not take responsibility for your actions.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 21:48:07 No.11010020 Report

Quoted By:

>>11009835
Keep REEEEEEing at windmills

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 20190605_174617.jpg, 826KiB, 1920x2560

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 22:08:13 No.11010101 Report

Quoted By: >>11010460

settled

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO youth-climate-strike-aus.jpg, 217KiB, 1024x576

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 22:39:30 No.11010215 Report

Quoted By: >>11011485 >>11011568

Why is it that in most pictures of climate protests all I see are white millennials taking selfies and just generally treating it like a pride march?

The whole thing seems to be a fad for narcissists like how the ice bucket challenge was less about the cause and more about the shortlived hysteria surrounding the stunt.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 23:35:01 No.11010460 Report

Quoted By:

>>11010101
Nice binary GET, anon

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Sep 2019 00:24:33 No.11010623 Report

Quoted By: >>11011083

>>11009965
>STILL not getting it
Lmao. Imagine being this dense.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Sep 2019 03:08:53 No.11010978 Report

Quoted By: >>11011563

>>11009862

Because doing so would crash the economy thus causing the tax to instantly be reverted, as well as negatively affecting the poor and vulnerable disproportionately.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Sep 2019 03:13:43 No.11010986 Report

Quoted By:

>>11009748

>ubi
>gas tax
>no mention of nuclear

Anon, why do you take all of the worst positions?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Sep 2019 03:13:58 No.11010988 Report

Quoted By:

>>11005908
Embarrassing post

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Sep 2019 03:55:15 No.11011083 Report

Quoted By:

>>11010623
Just stop posting if you have nothing to say.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Sep 2019 08:11:27 No.11011424 Report

Quoted By:

>>11005068
>what is an interglacial period
>what is the maunder minimum
>what are landsheidt cycles
non-geologists btfo
>>11005514
except for this guy

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Sep 2019 08:28:26 No.11011462 Report

Quoted By:

>>11009806
problems with your argument:
1. ad hominem attack
2. you didn't cite a single paper
3. zero data to back up your claims
4. the data doesn't exist, no accurate model for global climate change over time exists save for historical ice core oxygen isotope data
5. no model is perfect, meteorlogists cannot predict climate conditions within a statistically significant level of certainty
6. u r gay

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Sep 2019 08:42:14 No.11011485 Report

Quoted By:

>>11010215
because white people have the mental capacity to be concerned about the future, unlike niggers. they're also inclined to towards altruism as reparation for past 'transgressions'

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1503964940282.png, 49KiB, 422x382

Anonymous Sat 28 Sep 2019 09:26:04 No.11011563 Report

Quoted By:

>>11010978
>crash the economy
You forget where you are, people here unironically think the economy isn't even real.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Sep 2019 09:29:19 No.11011568 Report

Quoted By:

>>11010215
It's essentially masturbatory virtue signalling.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Sep 2019 09:37:31 No.11011576 Report

Quoted By:

>>11009955
Absolute nonsense warmcunt. If you want to talk about failed predictions look no further than your warm priest Al Gore.

Are you not even a little bit embarrassed that you have Bill Nye on your retarded side? Surely that should alarm you.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches