The claim that anthropogenic climate change is a problem is a profitable lie and baseless...

The claim that anthropogenic climate change is a problem is a profitable lie and baseless. The Earth's climate naturally cools and warms and right now we're recovering from a point of glaciation from several hundreds of years ago.

Government regulators latched onto it and fearmongered to get elected and the ones who opposed the additional taxation it were simply labeled "anti-science" and others are simply mindless political parasites bought out by businesses to spew legitimate anti-scientific nonsense.

I'm trying to red pill some people on this and I want some good arguments and proof I may not have considered before. Just write your opinion on the issue and link any relevant proofs whether it's against or for my point. Let's do something intelligent on this board.

Other urls found in this thread:

climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

I don't think man has any significant impact on the climate and I think that All the warming is just a natural cycle, but my girlfriend is a physics major and says I don't believe in science. I don't believe all the "models" that have been put out but she insists that it's right. I'd really like to just tell her to go fuck herself but I want to keep things reasonable. Got any redpills?

All she's doing is name calling. How about you ask her to present some evidence and prove he claim since as it stands, you are winning the debate since her proposition is not backed by evidence. If she doesn't accept the natural warming explanation, she's probably too brainwashed or arrogant to admit that her belief has no basis. These kinds of people don't tend to listen to reason unless it's from a "powerful" person they respect (i.e. politician, media personality, professor, etc).

Are we not supposed to move onto cleaner and/or alternative power sources because of something that might or might not be real?

If carbon emissions aren't the problem, stop lying to people with this bullshit doomsday narrative. Cleaner energy is great, but fossil fuels are efficient and do the job well. They're cheaper so they're easier for everyone to afford. I'm all for nuclear energy because it's cleaner and I'm surprised that "environmentalists" like Jill Stein oppose it with pseudo-scientific nonsense. I just don't think we need some useless tax on our everyday use of carbon emissions. They say that they'll pay the tax back by cutting our other taxes, but how much do you really trust these guys?

Clean energy is good for the wealthy, but putting an excessive burden on the poor just seems like a bad idea. It bothers me that the UN wants to tell 3rd world countries to "go green" which handicaps them economically when the biggest carbon emitters (America, China, etc) are the people proposing these regulations. It's not like they even follow their own "rules". China lies about its carbon emissions and I wouldn't be surprised if America did too. Seems like a scam to put other countries at a disadvantage to me.

>The claim that anthropogenic climate change is a problem is a profitable lie

Is 100% true. Do you know who Miranda Massie is? lmgtfy:

>According to an email I was forwarded, the featured speaker at a fundraiser in for MARAL Pro-Choice Michigan in Ann Arbor Thursday is non other than Miranda Massie.

>Miranda was the lead attorney for one group of student intervenors (the law
students – not the undergrad intervenors) in the Grutter v. Bollinger
affirmative action case. She’s also the sister of Luke Massie, an organizer for the organization Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action By Any Means Necessary (BAM-N).

Guess what else BAMN (((supposedly))) did? Worked with Triads to sell rocket launchers to the Philippine terrorists.

Guess what Miranda Massie is up to now?

>Massie Googled “climate museum,” assuming that such an institution already existed or was in the works. Not in this country. There is a small one in Hong Kong—the Jockey Club Museum of Climate Change—which Massie is visiting next week.

So fuck right off. Global warming is a Chinese invention.

BONUS: Look what else Miranda Massie is involved in, besides the (((climate change)))

pic related

natural climate change is gradual.

the climate change caused in the last 150 years due to the industrial revolution has been much more rapid.

What if we find something better and cheaper than fossil fuels?

What proof do you have of this claim? I'm curious.

If it's cheaper, cleaner and is efficient enough for its price and compared to other energy sources, then let's go for it.

Here's some easy to digest information for you friendo.

climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

I'm guessing no amount of proof would actually persuade you though...

OY VEY GLOBAL WARMING IS A LIE

keep buying my aersol products goyim

I'm open minded on the issue. I'll check it out.

>CHANGES regularly

Yeah normally because of:
The angle from earth to Sun Changes
A gigantic vulcano erruptes
The Flow of the oceans Changes because reasons

Nothing of These things happened in the last 150 years.
The only thing that happened: humans started digging up billuona of tona of coal, Gas and oil and started burnung them. Cutting down hundred of Thousands qm of Rain forrest to get cows Who pollute the atmosphere with methan.

Some very compelling evidence here, I'm really not sure how to respond. I'm going to be looking into the issue some more.

Nice to see there are actually some open minds here.

It's pretty easy to find more, there's more evidence than you could get through in a year at this stage.

no dude, figure this shit out it's basic.

What's your opinion on carbon taxes, the Paris climate agreement and other government plans to tackle climate change.

They're a bandaid solution, I think the idea is just that if higher emission practices / tech costs more, then it will encourage people to make the move to lower emission solutions faster.

I can see it working to an extent but I don't see it as a long term solution, just maybe as part of a transition.

I'm no expert though to be honest, it would need to be well managed (of which I'm doubtful).

carbon taxes are absolute bullshit meant to enrich the shills pushing for green energy. (((They))) always win.

The best way to get what you want is to ensure that the person you're controlling thinks he is making his own decision, when both of the choices are set up by you anyway.

Right now, the political debate is either
a) "Don't worry about it, fossil fuels are cheap and harmless" -- so the oil corporations win and the US still has its petrodollar;
or b) "Use a carbon tax! Let the free market sort it out!" -- so emissions become a commodity for corporations to trade and enrich themselves off of.

Paris climate agreement is just symbolic, as no country has any reason to adhere to it. Personally, we should be using much more nuclear energy while encouraging development of renewables--but preferably with minimal subsidies, as that just wastes money. Tax breaks are fine, though.

What is currently causing this 'natural' warming?

The sun.

Both sides are wrong in a way, but the deniers have a better political solution because they'll get out of the way and let the engineers and scientists take care of the problem

>The Earth's climate naturally cools and warms
Never before has it done so so fast as in the last century. Go fuck yourself you ignorant retard. Stop being afraid of science

Then does temperature still increase despite falling solar activity?

I think climate change would have a better case if they could simply demonstrate how fragile the environment is, and then explain a realistic timeline of undesirable effects.

the thing is i believe in it all, Im just among the skeptics who aren't convinced on exactly how bad it will get and how fast. most people are optimists especailly in america when attacked with climate realisim, they just think we can acclimatize ourselves and I tend to be a proponent of that, just because I believe oil will get extremely efficient if we significantly get behind innovating it

How do you even know this? We've only been keeping records for the past 100 years more or less. Scientists have "modeled the past" with computers, but how do we know that these models are any good in the first place?

Where does this graph come from? How do we know that what is presented in this graph is true. Provide the source.

>"how do you know?"
>wants to be spoonfed
Stop being afraid of science and actually learn for yourself. That shouldn't be difficult, right? Unless you have a learning disability and you're actually retarded.

>We've only been keeping records for the past 100 years more or less
Wrong.

Where does this graph come from? How do we know that what is presented in this graph is true. Provide the source.

Above post replied to the wrong person.

>asks Sup Forums science questions
>expects an semblance of a good answer
Stop being a pussy, go learn science, never come back here again.

If you're not going to defend your argument, then why are you here? Your entire post contributes little to nothing. How long have we had records of temperature for this Earth that's billions of years old?

There is no argument. I'm calling you out on being a dumb cunt for not knowing science, and I'm telling you to go learn because it's the best thing for you and everyone else. Stop being retarded. Google is your friend.

If you don't want to learn then you never will. If you actually want to, you have to apply yourself and try. Stop begging for answers and go find them yourself you imbecile

you're fucking retarded and know nothing. kys for the good of humanity.

Sounds to me that you can't defend your argument. Who's the pussy here? You're making the claim and the burden of proof is on you. If you don't want to educate a Sup Forumsack on climate change, that's fine. Just don't think that you've made anything better since you haven't proven anything. Don't expect to get away with these tactics unless you're a politician. Or a climate alarmist.

The graph is from Kirvova et al 2007 which took the PMOD data for solar activity and the NASA GISS data set for surface temperature.

Very clearly the sun played a large factor in temperature change up until 1940 however the same couldn't be said for recent temperatures

Okay, I will then.

I found an argument that can't be overcome. Pic related

If anthropogenic climate change is responsible for the increase, I'm not surprised. What's your opinion on the claim that the world will end because of climate change (unless you elect me and use my government plan)?

Consensus is irrelevant since what we are debating is a matter of facts. Not to mention that this percentage can easily be manipulated by asking people who agree with you. What are they agreeing upon? If it's that an anthropogenic effect exists, then I'm in that boat too, but I just don't believe the world is going to end because of carbon dioxide emissions and neither do I like any of the government plans to prevent this apocalypse.

>What's your opinion on the claim that the world will end because of climate change
The world won't end thats just fear-mongering politician talk. What will happen though is a serious regression of civilisation to the point where we won't be afforded nearly as much luxury as we do today and the earth likely won't be able to sustain anything close to the populations we see today.

As for what could possibly be done to avert or reduce the effects of climate change that is certainly up for debate. Regulation and taxation is one possible answer however there are plenty of clear cases (such as the regulation of nuclear power) where it is obvious government intervention runs directly counter towards reducing the effects of climate change.

Though I admit that it adds some form of legitimacy to the claim, it's just a very weak point to make.

Can you explain to me how the world will become so much worse by climate change? Do you mean through natural disasters, extinction of species, melting ice caps and poor people dying as a result of the previously existing elements or do you mean something else? That sounds horrible, but is there really anyway to prevent this since it seems to me that there will be big changes no matter what we do. Isn't our only hope to adapt to our new environment?

>Do you mean through natural disasters, extinction of species, melting ice caps and poor people dying as a result of the previously existing elements or do you mean something else?
Pretty much said it all there. I'd also add that more extreme heat will also pose an issue for production and distribution of food which all in all will leave the global economy suffering as a whole.

>That sounds horrible, but is there really anyway to prevent this since it seems to me that there will be big changes no matter what we do
That may well be the case. What I described was the likely scenario if we continue to produce CO2 at the rate we currently do however it could be far worse or far rosier than that. We already know that some kind of long-term damage will likely be done to our environment since we've passed the 400ppm mark but if we were to cease all burning of fossil fuels tomorrow it likely wouldn't be that much of an issue.

Here's a few retorts:

For a start it's not denying, it's skepticism. Real scientists are skeptics. and emotion doesn't come into it. These hacks approach it all wrong. Rational scientists try to disprove hypotheses, not prove them. If something is real, it should happen even when you try to discprove it. And it should be repeatable. Until then it's just cold fusion.

Greenies are corrupt as fuck. How about sierra taking bribes to never mention overpopulation? We definitely know the environmental impact but it can't be discussed. If they're cherrypicking they aren't being honest. Isn't this important enough to tackle from every angle? Why would they not try multi pronged solutions-even if unpopular- like birth control in third world? Could it be because they wouldnt make money or get voted out? Could it be that if you say "I'm tackling climate change because I'm looking out for your child's future," people vote emotionally? Could it be that when you say "Come on, it's just another 20c for every dollar for your electricity, what's the price on your child's future? Don't you want your child a future?" people are being manipulated emotionally?

As for the better choice for your child's future, Clinton took bribes to deforest, flipped on the pipeline, and signed over 20% of USA's uranium to Russia. All for money. She doesn't give a fuck about the environment. At least Trump won't sell out for money.

China continues to pump out shit until they can't breathe but we are expected to pay premium prices for renewables to reduce our emissions by negligible amounts. We can never balance it. Meanwhile we have massive job losses, power outages, utility bill increases, all for nothing proven.

If so many people are going to suffer financially, we should be sure we have the science right. And that's the real kicker: even if it's real, none of this will change it. Even if we stopped china, it will happen anyway. We are being fucked over for nothing.

a big part of why im all for stopping climate change as much as possible is that if you think that the migrant crisis in europe is bad now, consider the fact that hundreds of millions of third world people currently live in coastal areas which will likely be under water if the ice caps melt.