Do you believe in man made global warming?

Do you believe in man made global warming?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=u8clWV__P-4
youtube.com/watch?v=Mc_4Z1oiXhY
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Yeah, it's a man-made hoax

perfect response

> implying chinese are humans

Recent photos from the ISS

checking 3's amulet

I believe in over population and finite resources

Yes and it scares the shit out of me.

I believe our effect on it is greatly exaggerated, although it exists. Studies have shown that it works in cycles regardless of human interference, and that ultimately any steps we make towards adapting to regulation should be slow and steady rather than the doomsday harping that is occurring lately.

Yup. I also understand the effects are minimal to actual natural occurrences so who cares. As long as we control the pollution aspect of it all nobody should complain.

FYI 99% of that emission is pure steam. People always sperg out over the "smoke" coming from plants like that when it's literally nothing.

t. process engineer at a major power plant

global warming is a Jew hoax

I don't know. There is so much disinformation on this subject it's insane. My biggest problem is if you even question the legitimacy of man made global warming you will get shouted down as an anti science exxon shill. Also even if man is causing it we have no say in the matter when china and india are producing so much.

tl;dr Invest in nuclear energy.

It truly is undeniable that we're fucking up a good portion of the Earth.

Sea creatures can't make shells because we've drastically altered the chemical make up of their environment.

Finite in what way?
We can barely dig into the crust of the earth and haven't even begun mining asteroids.

If you're referring to arable land I'd say mostly africa, middle east, and small Asian islands are limited in that regard.

global warming is a hoax for some people to get lots of money. It also helps the globalized economy and big offshore companies. Expensive green energy bs expel business and jobs to the east.

Yes but until some predictions start becoming scientifically accurate I'm not going to take it that seriously

I had made a video about the failed green energy project. I work on the field of electricity youtube.com/watch?v=u8clWV__P-4

This.
Along with some climate scientists being caught red-handed fudging data and juking stats.

The outcome wouldn't be nearly as devastating, either. The planet and living things adapt to changing conditions. Cities aren't meant to be permanent and historically have not been so. Arable land that drys up is replaced that new else that once wasn't suitable to farming - it shifts. Obviously a total run-away greenhouse effect (i.e. Venus) would fuck over the entire planet, but that's not at all likely to occur.

Oh and theoretically, any measures we do take to lower CO2 could be wiped out 1000 fold by a random volcanic eruption

One thing I know for sure is "green alternate sources" of energy are worse for our enviornment

>windmills fuck up birds migration patterns fucking up the entire ecosystem
>solar panels take way too much land to use efficiently, thus removing several acres of woodland

Just invest in nuclear energy.

I believe what ever schlomo tells me to believe.
I am good goy.
Give me (you)'s.

Awe, look at all the retards in this thread.

>It's real
>Some elements of the earth's cycles are contributing but don't make up the entire story
>We can detect man made CO2 in the atmosphere

Yes.

>I believe in over population and finite resources

Main reasons behind global warming.

>tl;dr Invest in nuclear energy.

We will run out of uranium pretty quickly if use nuclear power will be increased radically. Thorium is probably the answer.

I believe in joo made global warming

pic related

Not really. If you do believe in it then do your part in helping the environment instead of mindlessly preaching it. Disconnect your internet, sell your electronics, bike to work. Otherwise you're a hypocrite.

I'm not going to bike to work like a fucking pleb, but if I could buy an affordable hybrid or electric car, I would do that.

A hybrid takes 10-15 years before being more green than your current car. It takes up much more resources making the batteries, the steel, plastic and assembly.

user forgot to tell you that hybrids don't last that long as well, since the whole car industry believe in making cars like iphones

I get that, but there don't seem to be many other options. I work roughly 45 minutes from where I live and I have to be able to store equipment in the cabin when possible.

You can call me a hypocrite all you want, but I do a lot of work planting trees with my honors society and my brother's cub scout pack. And I bike to school because I'm fat and need to. If your argument is that it's a non-issue because everyone's a hypocrite rather than say... investing into wind solar and hydro-electric energy, I think your argument is flawed.

I work for an aquatic ecology lab. Current project is a collab with the Department of fisheries and oceans trying to model nearshore fish habitat using sonar and other techniques.

I do more for local wildlife than all the vegans and recyclers.

its man made but not by industry.

more like the seven fold increase in population that also occurred after the industrial revolution. a billion poos and another billion chinks all breathe and exhale more CO2 than my corolla ever could.

Of course I do, the evidence is indisputable. I hope the people here are just memeing about not believing it

Spoiler: They aren't. They're just that stupid.

Wind power is a meat grinder to the local bird population. Wind mills in the ocean has killed whales. Solar is another example of mining precious metals for little gain. Dams affect local environments and need tons of study before getting the green light.

You want green power, go nuclear.

Yes, it's on the shelf right next to the kikeocaust.

>Man made global warming!!!
>Posts picture of water vapor output

>Filename
>steam-pollution-waste-heat-global-warming-cloud
Ban steam global warming clouds!

I disagree with the notion that aviary/aquatic populations wouldn't adapt to having this in their environment. but you are right they do come with drawbacks. Whether or not they outweigh the benifits is another story. Dams are definitely needing more research as well. I disagree with solar entirely. The throughput we're discovering on panals is amazing and only continues to get better, plus the fact that they can be put into remote areas means it doesn't affect wildlife as much.

At least we agree on one thing. Nuclear is THE fucking solution. People need to get these thorium reactors up and running ASAP

volcanoes produce 0.2billion tons of co2 annually whilst we produce 24billion tons

reminder global warming is good for plants

Dear god you're fucking retarded

An increase of ~4 degrees would mean plants could no longer grow.

>le you need to fully commit, you can't be in between different philosophies
Nigger.

Why post a picture of steam?

Water vapor is the number one green house gas. Not that anything we do will have any impact, just playing devils advocate.. I was literally about to say how all those giant plumes are almost entirely steam

Did not know about this. The effects on the world's oceans is another piece of this situation that is still being uncovered. We are fucked and, somehow, I don't feel sad about humanity ultimately getting BTFO. We are all smug, entitled shit.

How can human-caused global warming be real when humans aren't even real?

reminder that the increase of frequency of extreme weather events due to increased amount of stored energy in the atmosphere is not really good for complex biological systems

>there were no plants in the dinosour era

>global warming affects the polar region more
>more extreme weather
pick one

That's steam.

What are you even trying to say here you mongoloid?

Yes, it is man made, as in man invented the term for the myth.

I think it exists. Especially the methane gas being pumped into our atmosphere is dangerous. I also believe that CO2 does have an effect. One must only look at the composition of Venus' atmosphere to see where an accelerated greenhouse effect would lead.

But I do think people are panicking. More CO2 means more CO2 can be absorbed by plants. If I'm correct, the higher CO2 levels were actually the norm during the dinosaur age, which had giant trees and plants.

I think we should keep studying this phenomenon and continuously evaluate its effects. In ALL directions and without censorship.

Do science truthfully, not ideologically.

...

From what I have been able to ascertain, there's a pretty good chance it exists

But the level of temperature rise is where things get murky. It seems that opinions vary widely.

The science relies on computational models that are very complicated and not subject to extensive public scrutiny

There are minimal worldwide experts so most just fall back on my first point and appeal to authority for the rest.

I will say that people seem really dickish in general when it comes to any sort of skepticism, which is always cause for alarm.

I wouldn't rule out significant politicization. The conditions seem rife for it.

You have to wonder who stands to gain from carbon taxes, etc.

more extreme weather is caused by temperature differences
global warming reduces the temperature difference between the polar and tropic

OF COURSE FUCKING YES

That's not how that works at all. Yo're talking as if the earth will have the same temperature everywhere. You're not accounting from the fact that the earth's orbit is tilted slightly, which is why we have seasons and different temperatures.

People are also too afraid to kill coal because muh jobs and lifestyle. If we killed coal and moved to nuclear we'd be in a much better shape but both sides are idiots and don't see a middle ground for energy.

> global warming reduces temperature differences
yes, but you see, there are estabilished weather patterns and climates, due to latitude, vegetations and distance from oceans
These patterns are now destabilizing.
Also, there will be always difference in temperatures due to the different amount of heat radiation of land and water.

It exists to some degree, but nobody cares about it enough to solve it, including the libs.

Solar can't work during the night and requires a lot of precious resources, wind can't work without wind, also messes with birds.

The real solution to this would be nuclear, new fission reactors short-term, fusion as the end goal. The problem with nuclear is that kikes can't get shekels out of them like they can with coal and oil.

I agree that nuclear is the way to go, but you also have to consider cars as well. They would basically need to go all electric as well. I disagree that nobody is trying to fix it, hell even norway signed the kyoto protocol. There is also the IPCC

youtube.com/watch?v=Mc_4Z1oiXhY

you're going to have to summarize this for there's no way im watching a 90 minute video on geopolitics

OH NO
NOT THE STEAM
NOT THE HOT WATER

Oh, okay:
WE'RE FUCKED
(Also: why are you on /pol, then?)

right everyone here watches hours of geopolitical youtube videos then starts a thread to have thoughtful conversations about it.

>do you believe in a scientifically falsified theory
No. Next question.

No. For something to be a scientific theory, it must be falsifiable. Every time I ask a GW cuck to provide a possible experiment to test the man-made GW, they start chimping out about how 99.99999% of scientists agree with them and how CO2 is a greenhouse gas, thus failing the challenge.

>scientifically falsified theory
Their models are being routinely falsified when their predictions fail. The basic hypothesis (human activity is causing a rise in temperatures) is unfalsifiable because all of their models are demonstrably inaccurate so they can't calculate what the temperature would have been without human intervention.

No, but you have the choice to do so.
But, of course, you want to be like everyone else, with their highly educated and wisely considered opinion...

>We will run out of uranium pretty quickly if use nuclear power
If you consider several billion years to be "pretty quickly" I guess.

>Do you believe in man made global warming?
>man made
Fucking feminists are now blaming men for it?!?

we've already had climategate years ago. their emails got hacked and published. they got caught conspiring to fudge the data and just kept on lying about it like a nigger caught red-handed keeps on denying.

no, i don't believe in it. it's complete bullshit. they not only put temperature sensors in heat islands (heat dumped by air-conditioning systems, for example), but add "corrections" too.

>Sea creatures can't make shells
Where do you get this shit?

>because we've drastically altered the chemical make up of their environment.
Shelled sea creatures have existed from the earliest days of life on Earth and I guaran-fucking-tee you that ocean carbon levels were MUCH higher at MULTIPLE points in Earth's history than now.

God damn it people, put on your fucking thinking caps. Where do you think FOSSIL FUELS came from? From a time period when ALL of that carbon was part of the biosphere. The carbon you're so afraid will destroy the Earth if it's released has ALREADY been in the biosphere.

Fucking eh....

Another Thorium shill, seriously, can you shut the fuck up about that for one day, I swear, you must guzzle that like a hooker guzzles cum.

yes, but the problem isn't the co2, it's all the other shit we blow into the air like so2 and so3, all the noX... forests die in sulphoric acid rain, you know? having MOUNTAINS of sulphor lying around is an indicator something might could be linked to us...
just remember the '80, forests were dieing back then because everybody gave a fuck. not to mention the rivers...
the planet is alive and it hard for it to maintain balance, when we act like a fucking degenerate junky.

Anthropogenic global warming is the religion Marxists turned to when they left Christianity.

do you believe in doubling or tripling energy costs?

You make a valid point. But remember that a theory which cannot be falsified is also NOT a scientific theory. (Perhaps that's why you're pointing this out.)

Which means "muh scientific consensus!" means jack fucking shit because the theory was never scientific to begin with. Perhaps that explains why its believers act more like it's a religion.

Falsifiable experiment: take two greenhouses with identical plants, vary the CO2 between them and record the temperature results.

> global warming is bad branding
> climate pumping or weird weather are better terms
> Al Gore fucked us over by calling it warming

Pretty soon our paychecks will have a new line:

Global carbon tax

The money will go to (((clean))) energy

>but the problem isn't the co2, it's all the other shit we blow into the air like so2 and so3, all the noX... forests die in sulphoric acid rain, you know?

Am I having flashbacks? Is it the 80s? Because this hasn't been an issue since then. Fuel burn in modern vehicles is so damn near perfect that there's not enough of the other stuff to kill yourself in a locked garage.

funny how gold is one of our rarest materials and we aren't running out of it.

some of us here are oldfags and already burned many many fugging hours on this stupid shit years ago. it's like asking someone to spend a bunch of time watching abortion arguments, when you know that no one's opinion will be swayed either way.

Climate variation is real, but it is entirely natural in origin, driven by solar variation.
The greenhouse effect is an incorrect hypothesis that has been promoted far beyond it's demise for political reasons.
The left's solution to 'climate change' is always the left's wishlist of authoritarianism and wealth redistribution.

>two greenhouses are exactly like a planet
>t. American Public Education

>steam pollution
>water vapor pollution

The EPA doesn't miss a beat do they?

>entirely natural
24-50 ppm of CO2 would disagree with you

No.
Drop in the bucket.

CO2 has no effect on climate.

...

source indicating that much CO2 is bad?

...

>drop in the bucket
>CO2 has no effect on climate

Sup Forums
>hates people who are trans, say it's not natural
>doesn't believe in climate change

...

ever visited a refinery? any chemical plant?

That's not a valid argument. You are literally cherrypicking the same aspect of the system on which your GW theory is based in the first place. It's circular reasoning. What you have to prove is that there's nothing else going on to offset the greenhouse effect, thereby proving that your model is adequate (which it isn't, as proven by the persistent failure of models much more complicated than yours).