Redpill me on "climate change"

Is it bullshit or real? If it is fake, what is the motive?

Other urls found in this thread:

thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/18888-embarrassing-predictions-haunt-the-global-warming-industry
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_space#Phase_plot
youtube.com/watch?v=Gh-DNNIUjKU
youtu.be/DrWznOFq38s
notrickszone.com/2016/11/11/8-new-papers-reveal-natural-global-warming-reaches-amplitudes-of-10c-in-just-50-years-with-no-co2-influence/#sthash.vlhK2cRS.cFrpQpso.dpbs
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Its all bullshit,

its part of a cycle of heating and warming thats been going on throughout history

Have you noticed theyre only pushing this shit on white countries?
While places like China are pumping out shitloads of smoke and pollution

Theyre doing it to weaken the west

OP I wouldnt worry about Climate change, this shit has always been going on
We get a cool spell then warming. Like the waxing and waning of the moon

>China
China is actively switching to clean energy.
Keep digging that coal.

then why dont we see any pressure on them over it?

And whats wrong with digging coal? Shit pays well

cause they are already cutting down on their emisions.
The real polluting shithole is India.

It doesn't matter if it's bullshit. The price of renewable energy is falling by an exponential decay. Market forces will phase out fossil fuels whether man made climate change is real or not

I have absolutely no issue with trying to seek renewable energy at a good price, but forcing it in the name of climate change is a scam targeted at us

so how do you explain the hole in the ozone?

It pays well enough for Soros to have bought out quite a lot of coal mines recently. Really makes your greymatter do the grindywheels doesn't it?

I see it like this.

Let's say there is an x% chance climate change is real, its caused by CO2 and it will have catastrophic consequences for humanity.

How big does x have to be for you so you would start taking actions against it?

Or in other words, how many chambers does a revolver have to have for you to play a game of russian roulette with it?

What hole, its practically gone now

(((They))) are pushing the global warming hoax for 2 main reasons:

> 1) Introducing carbon tax to make shekels
> 2) As part of their agenda to push third world migration to the west because they claim climate change is causing droughts, famines and all kinds of natural disasters and making Africa/the middle east less and less habitable, which is why all these poor rapefugees have to eascape. And because we in the west are responsible for the most carbon dioxide emissions, we are at fault for climate change and, therefore, we have to let in all the rapefugees. This is the narrative they will be pushing progressively more in the next years/decades.

>The price of renewable energy is falling by an exponential decay. Market forces will phase out fossil fuels

No. As more people switch to renewable energy, the surplus of fossil fuels will grow and grow. At current drilling rates, a 2% surplus of oil will fill up all of our storage inside of a few years.

The cheapness of fossil fuels will outpace the cheapness of renewables by miles.

What if I told you the revolver is empty and always has been but that guy over there claims the gun is loaded but will sell you a helmet to protect yourself for when it finally goes off

Yeah, fucking reality, i hate it the most, it is clearly a party of jewish world conspiracy against the honest white man.

...

>"i ask Sup Forums because i want an objective answer with hard facts and different viewpoints :^)"

Oh and he has a pannel of 5 experts he totally didnt pay off saying theyve checked the gun and its for totes loaded with 5 bullets

>The cheapness of fossil fuels will outpace the cheapness of renewables by miles.

1. Living in a capitalist society
2. Having access to multiple types of cheap energy

Who knew the future would be this great. MAGA.

What if i told you there is more scientific consenus there is man-made climate change, than there is that smoking cigarettes is unhealthy. So you can either believe those 90%+ scientists who say smoking is bad for you, or you can tell yourself they are just liars who are trying to sell something and die of lung cancer in 30 years.

I wouldn't care either with 100% chance it being real.

What's peculiar to Humans is that we solve our problem through rising, not going back to sloshing in our own shit.

If we're responsible for climate changes (gigantic "if"), and we can't solve it without turning into third-worlding filthy hippies, we don't deserve to be Humans anyway.

I can clearly see that smoking is bad
However what I cant see is that this is all man made and not just a natural cycle

...

also, answer the question, how big does x have to be?

100%

>What if i told you there is more scientific consenus there is man-made climate change, than there is that smoking cigarettes is unhealthy.

What if we remove all of the shills that receive government shekels for their climate change propaganda and all of the shills who work for the tobacco companies for the same reasons.

How's about now?

no its just seasonal and this is the exact time when it moves north and dissipates toward the equator

I think you're right

Antarctica is a shit continent anyway

>What if i told you there is more scientific consenus there is man-made climate change, than there is that smoking cigarettes is unhealthy. So you can either believe those 90%+ scientists who say smoking is bad for you, or you can tell yourself they are just liars who are trying to sell something and die of lung cancer in 30 years.

Muh, there is way more money in climate change than lung cancer crap. So not surprising at all.

Also: so called "scientists" said that the earth is flat at some point in time.

It's the lefts the apocalypse is right around the corner and if you don't do the right thing you're going to be in hell story. They are as fanatically religious as anyone I've ever seen.

>What hole, its practically gone now

1. Is it closed yet? No.
2. Is it smaller than it was? Yes.
3. Will it close within the next 50 years? Yes.

That sounds about right.

Well, its not about "solving" it. If not those very worst kind of scenarios happen with huge run-away-effects, that it will not destroy life on earth completely.

However, it will still cause lots of mess and problems. California becoming a desert alone is something that can destroy the US.
Bangladesh drowning will mean a huge war in southeast Asia.
The middle east will turn into a hell hole and make sure Europe will be in constant refugee crisis mode.
The forseeable consequences of climate change will cause at least hundreds of trillions. Why not instead invest hundreds of billions and make sure those problems wont arise.

which probably isn't a coincidence that it coincides with all of these tourist expeditions that buzz aldrin was a part of, for example.

so what about those shills that get paid by oil industry?

Climatology is a pseudoscience that subsists almost entirely on federal shekels. Climatologists have found that the most effective way to milk said shekels is to publish alarmist findings about AGW.

The truth is the earth's atmosphere is an incredibly complex system and the models aren't advanced enough to accurately determine the climate sensitivity of the atmosphere, which is the crux of the whole argument.

To put a finer point on it, regardless of consensus, AGW is an unfalsifiable hypothesis.

Yeah, because sensible politicians listened to the scientists who said it is caused by CFC and the politicians than taking proper action and minimized the CFC-emissions.

>so what about those shills that get paid by oil industry?

By all means exclude them as well, but the vast majority of scientists who think that climate change is unproven and alarmist have never received a dime from any oil companies, they wished they had.

>the human body is incredibely complex so nobody knows if having a very high colesterol will really cause a heart attack.

>politicians
>believing them on any issue

pollution is bad film at 11

The tipping points were predicted to hit in 1980,1990, 2000, 2010, 2015, we are here, 2020,2030, 2050,2100. Like every other religious prophecy of doom when it doesn't manifest it's taken as proof that we must redouble our efforts because when it does it will be much worse. The true believers are fanatics that are willing to sacrifice all of humanity for their insanity.

>The tipping points were predicted to hit in 1980,1990, 2000, 2010, 2015

source on that please

>California becoming a desert
fried fags and mudskins is excellent in my book
>Bangladesh drowning
literal poo in the loo
>The middle east will turn into a hell hole
yeah, clearly climate change at work
not like it's always been and will always be just that
>Why not instead invest hundreds of billions
because they're not yours, you looting commie piece of shit

Complete and total bullshit. The champion of global warming is Al gore. And guess what al gore has? Stock in carbon credits. As with everything, it is always always always, follow the money. Blood and gore carbon exchange, go search it. Money and power will cause people to come up with any excuse to get it. I'm a conservative and that's what I do, conserve. I save my money, I drive small cars, I even work to help conserve the environment as a biomass technician. The real problem with co2 on this planet is that we don't have enough. We are trying to drive the ppm of co2 in the air down while it's only around 400. If we lower co2 in our atmosphere down below 200 or 150 ppm, it will be the death of this planet.

believing that we have altered the global climate on such a scale to risk our own extinction is as stupid as believing industrialization has no negative side effects.

it's a happen medium, not a Hollywood film, aka ignore the jews.

CLIMATE KEKS BTFO

>Yeah, because sensible politicians listened to the scientists who said it is caused by CFC and the politicians than taking proper action and minimized the CFC-emissions.

Wrong way around. It was scientists telling politicians that it was a problem, way back in 1948 as far as Arizona was concerned.

When government tells scientists what to do then quelle surprise when they get just the answer they were looking for.

The IPCC was established as part of Thatcher's war against the miners in the 1980's. It's purpose was to make a scientific case that didn't exist for preferring Nuclear to cheap and plentiful coal.

drought is actually unrelated to global warming

which has more effect? warming water or a fucking rock?

global warming produces more precipitation not less. A lot more.

>We should tottally put billions in money into something we arent fully sure on

Its like someone telling you that you have cancer maybe but you should still get the operation right now

How do we know the hole in the ozone was caused by CO2 or was man-made?

>source on that please

Immediate starter for 10, but DYOR.

thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/18888-embarrassing-predictions-haunt-the-global-warming-industry

Because its not, its caused by the gas they use in old AC machines and aresol spray

I know you're probably just being a cunt right now, but that's an idiotic way to approach risk

...

Imo it doesn't matter

Global Warming

In order to justify government regulation for climate change, you have to accept the following premises:

1) The planet is warming.
2) The planet is warming due to CO2.
3) The planet is warming due to manmade CO2.
4) The warming will cause significant harm to the planet, enough to pose a serious threat to life.
5) Humans have the ability to sufficiently stem the release of CO2 to stop or reverse the warming process.
6) Western nations curbing their CO2 emissions will not be negated by developing nations' like India and China increasing emissions.
7) The measures that sufficiently control emissions to stop the warming process will not cause more economic harm and risk to life than the warming will.
8) Government regulation is the best means of curbing CO2 emissions.

I would say number 6 is a guaranteed false premise. The US could drop its entire CO2 emissions to ZERO. In other words, eliminate every man, woman, and child from the entire United States. The next day, total atmospheric CO2 would still increase due to output from other nations.

If the US dropping CO2 emissions to zero, something that would guarantee an economic depression and massive loss of life, will not stop global warming, then there is no reason to even suggest government regulations. It's basically just a massive power grab and means to plunder more from people and companies and put the money into US government coffers (the largest corporation on the planet which is also a monopoly in most regards)

Look, Im not going to put a shitload of money into something that we arent fully sure exists.

...

You misunderstand, I was agreeing with the guy who got trips

I don't buy any of this "globalist warming" bullshit

>thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/18888-embarrassing-predictions-haunt-the-global-warming-industry
>cherrypicking

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

>know
technically it can't be proven because we can't just idly perform experiments on the planet. However it is indicated by circumstantial evidence and the fact that certain pollutants are proven to affect ozone.

good post.

No scientist anywhere ever has any reason to ever lie about findings especially since a shit ton of them receive money from those that would like to see certain narratives continue right? Right?
.........

I think it's a bit like Holocaust TM... Some basis in fact but grossly exaggerated and has been turned into a political ideology by the left.

explain how its a false equivalence. i mean its just a doctor with his fance degrees who is probably paid by the salad industry to tell people eating too much fatty food kills you. what does he know?! fucking jew.

Then how about you show us some past climate change predictions that came true? And btw, California was a desert when it was settled, and only became a produce growing state because of irrigation, most of which has been shut off, with the formerly used fresh water flowing uselessly into the Pacific.

So it's wrong to cherry pick the false predictions, but it's right to cherrypick the true predictions?

By this criteria, astrology is a very powerful scientific tool.

Our fixation on CO2 is fucking retarded and based on unscientific models. I say "unscientific" because these models can't be effectively tested. The overwhelming majority of climate models made in the last 30 years completely failed to predict the current climate and there is no reason to think current models are doing any better.

Obviously some degree of environmental protection must be enshrined in law. It benefits everyone in myriad ways if a corporation or person can be compelled to pay to mitigate environmental damage they contributed to.

Personally, my view is that climate change is obvious. Probably a large proportion of the climate change we're observing falls within geological norms, but probably we're causing the Earth's systems to shift into phase plots[1] a bit more quickly and erratically than it would without us. Natural (ie non-human) life on Earth has a massive net stabilisation effect on the climate, though it also causes it to change. The degree of self-regulation of the biosphere cannot be understated.

At the same time, it seems obvious to me that the majority of the human component of climate change must derive from land use changes and our biosphere modifications.

Farming, forestry, urbanisation, deforestation, razing, grass, overfishing and animal husbandry affect the world we live on so many more fundamental and profound ways than do our carbon dioxide emissions.

When you compare the magnitude and dangers of our CO2 contributions and their net effect on the climate's phase plot, versus the magnitude and dangers of every other human change I listed, it is virtually axiomatic that people's obsession and linear-system thinking regarding CO2 borders on the absurd.

[1] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_space#Phase_plot

>China is actively switching to clean energy.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

>>cherrypicking

Literally the first Google search that came up...

Keep shilling for the Juden Fritz, I'm sure they will forgive you for Auschwitz one day...

You have to look at it from a risk perspective. If you can admit that there's, say, a 10% chance that the AGW hypothesis is correct, and that the total cost to human civilization to deal with its effects in the future will be $100T, then your expected loss is $10T (with some kind of discount rate applied to bring it to today's dollars, plus an uncertainty premium).

If that's still more than the costs of trying to nip it in the bud, then we're actually saving money by taking preventative action.

China isn't switching to clean energy because of climate change hoaxes. It's because China is going to become inhabitable with how much pollution it creates.
Their rivers are toxic. Their air is unbreathable. Healthcare costs going trough the roof.

97% of scientists agree that you're a naive idiot and part of a cult

This jew knows whats up goys

>comparing one insignicant human life to a planet that's been evolving for 4.5 billion years

I think this is largely what's already happening in the world. There's real progress with alternative sources of energy. But it doesn't mean we should move off of fuel entirely.

Pic related is the gist of it. Its just faggots inside Government making shit up and manipulating the data that everyone else uses without telling them.

Here's a boring video that completely blows them the fuck out.

youtube.com/watch?v=Gh-DNNIUjKU

Hole in the ozone is caused by chlorofluorocarbons not co2, and it isn't pseudoscience its fact, the chemical process can be observed.

All of that is based on pure speculation that uses known false models. So let's say the risk of AGW is 0%. and use the money we save to relocate all you communists to some stone-age shithole where you can circle jerk yourselves to death while you eat leaves and roots and congratulate each other on what tremendous good you are doing for humanity.

>90%+ scientists

The paper that came up with that number looks at abstracts of thousands of papers in the field and sees if the abstracts mention AGW (anthropogenic global warming) or not and the authors opinions on it. From the start this is a flawed methodology because it's only looking at abstracts.

66% of the papers don't mention AGW at all, either because it's not relevant to the discussion or for any other number of reasons. 33% of the rest do. Out of the 33%, 0.5% deny AGW. Out of the 32.5%, another 0.5% says AGW is mostly (>50% attribution) man made. The other 32% says that AGW exists but does not make a statement about it being mostly man made, meaning, they think men plays a part but they're not sure how much. The 97% comes from taking that 32.5% that believes AGW is real, but conflates the people who are not sure men are mostly the ones responsible with the ones who do.

Its real, not caused by humans, used to scam people into wealth distribution and population control with shit like carbon taxes.

By assuming that the modeling the human body viz heart disease and modeling the earth's atmosphere viz AGW are tasks of comparable complexity, and that scientific knowledge of each enables modelling them with comparable accuracy. High cholesterol is also a risk factor that *correlates* with a higher risk for heart disease. Eating egg yolks doesn't cause heart attacks.

With regard to your comment on fatty foods, that's kind of funny, because a few decades ago the FDA and the sugar lobby Jewed Americans into believing that fat, and not sugar was responsible for the nascent obesity epidemic with "science," and manufacturers responded to new regs and guidelines by decreasing far and increasing sugar in processed foods.

>If that's still more than the costs of trying to nip it in the bud, then we're actually saving money by taking preventative action.

1. Perhaps, if the delusion about CO2 being a pollutant rather than plant food was true, which it isn't.

2. Capitalism was already moving towards renewables (mostly solar power) before the climate change delusion appeared as the costs (both $$ and pollution) are lower, it was just a matter of time and technical progress. Solar power is getting cheaper by the year.

3. It's not your money to spunk away you fucking communist thief, it is taxpayers money and debt loaded onto the unborn.

All kinds of bad science used to justify the link between CO2 and global warming. Apparently there is a significant warming effect related to metropolitan areas due to paved areas, glass, etc. The sunlight is reflected back up into the atmosphere instead of being absorbed. However, this is apparently not taken into consideration by those scientists who hold the party line on global warming. Worth watching this video...
youtu.be/DrWznOFq38s

>T.Uneducated retard

According to the natural Ice Age cycle that you speak of we are meant to be in an ice age right now, how do you explain that?

I swear to god, it's always a burger. People like you are literally the reason why half your country is mocked and laughed at all around the world, even within your closest ally.

>discussing climate change
>not a single link to scientific literature

Never change, Sup Forums

Maybe, just maybe
Youre a faggot

There's no point linking to papers you retard, who the fuck is gonna read them and understand anything

>Sup Forums in one sentence

>>People like you are literally the reason why half your country is mocked and laughed at all around the world, even within your closest ally.

Man, the limey spelling of "client state" is way different :^)

>People like you are literally the reason why half your country is mocked and laughed at all around the world, even within your closest ally.

Bro, check these papers notrickszone.com/2016/11/11/8-new-papers-reveal-natural-global-warming-reaches-amplitudes-of-10c-in-just-50-years-with-no-co2-influence/#sthash.vlhK2cRS.cFrpQpso.dpbs They disprove global warming totally. I'll be waiting for you to read them and to give me your retort. Do it fast before this thread dies. Isn't scientific discourse great?

I kinda wish the Ice Age would fucking get here already so the shitskins will freeze to death and go the hell back to the ME

It's real.

That shouldn't mean we shouldn't just pollute anyway though.

I mean it might take 200 years before we make earth uninhabitable. But remember that our technology will also have progressed 200 years. We will easily clean up our environment with this new technology. So the pollution we are causing today shouldn't really risk the future of humanity.

This is what most people are forgetting. They think people 200 years in the future will just be at the level of technology we are right now. 200 years ago we didn't even reach the industrial revolution. And technology is growing more rapid than in the previous 200 years now. It's fucking laughable to think that pollution will ever harm humanity.

Hell we will most likely leave this shitty rock within 200 years anyway. And use the materials of the earth to build a huge fleet of satellites around the sun as a sort of matryoshka brain

Global warming is real in my head.

Shit graph, what does the Y axis represent?

Sounds about right. I was already aware China is living in a cloud and the climate change preachers are wasting their time in the west when China is the biggest factor

...