(((CLIMATE CHANGE)))

Ok, let's all assume for a moment that the science behind climate change is inconclusive and the consensus of the scientific community is a Jewish conspiracy.

What's so wrong with attempting to point our resources and scientific minds towards developing renewable energy technology and infrastructure? What's there to be lost? It's no secret that oil, gas and coal reserves are finite quantities. This is simple reality. The logical conclusion to oil drilling and consumption is depletion of these energy reservoirs.

So, Sup Forums, what's so wrong with attempting to find alternate solutions to our inevitable future of no fossil fuels?

Additionally, why am I the bad guy for not wanting my city to become a smog choked shithole like Beijing? For the record I don't give a shit about Cleetus or low budget Matt Damon working on some oil rig. Maybe they should've learned math in school so they wouldn't be stuck in the middle of the Gulf looking at pressure gauges and fondling pipe. "Manliest job" lmao.

Other urls found in this thread:

science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>What's so wrong with attempting to point our resources and scientific minds towards developing renewable energy technology and infrastructure?

Nothing. But don't fine me for not driving a 'climate friendly' car. Don't ban plastic bags at the grocery store. Don't tack bullshit recycling taxes onto everything. Don't ban my incandescent lightbulbs.

If people want to invest in renewable energy, great. But don't fuck me over for not getting with the program.

It's because Sup Forums is full of contrarian manchildren unable to take ideas to their logical conclusions

Sure if we can start building new nuclear power plants

Why go through thousands of plastic bags/year when you can just carry out your groceries? Based Washington finally got with the program and there's much less plastic bag trash blowing around and it's amazing.

I agree that if you want to drive your lifted superduty like some little dicked fag, you should have that right. Incandescent lightbulbs are woefully inefficient and you're only using them for muh aesthetics.

Why go through thousands of plastic bags/year when you can just carry out your groceries?
Because I reuse them as cat litter bags.

>your lifted superduty like some little dicked fag
I drive an '85 Buick Riviera.

>Incandescent lightbulbs are woefully inefficient and you're only using them for muh aesthetics.
Basically, yes. CFLs don't work with dimmer/three-way switches and I'm not investing in LED shit right now. I can get a box of a dozen incandescent for like 7$

the problem is resource companies are rich and can afford lobbyists to get sweet, sweet tax breaks. this increases the barrier to entry for alternative energy.

also this. we should have been on the nuke train 20 years ago

but some cossacks couldn't run their damn reactor properly and that scared everyone off nuclear

Hydroelectric

Let the stupid prairie niggers and eastern faggots freeze in the dark

IDK why bags are so important to you. You can literally get bags anywhere for stupid cheap. Grocery stores charging 10c/bag or not offering bags is not going to ruin your life. What it DOES do is drastically reduce unsightly trash blowing across the American landscape like a 21st century tumbleweed.

When LEDs become cheaper in a few years I'll get them because cheaper on power use

CFL bulbs actually fucked with my skin and made it rash plus contain harmful chemicals

the problem is the anti (((Climate Change))) mindset like it's some sort of communist conspiracy to give us cleaner streams and air. wew!

Just go through self checkout use bags but don't key in the bag purchase option

Boom done

Also it's your fault for throwing them on the sidewalk and not putting them in the trash

It's real. We can't do shit about it. Welcome to the party.

>Additionally, why am I the bad guy for not wanting my city to become a smog choked shithole like Beijing?

See the biggest part of the problem is you won't even have an honest discussion about it, right out the door and I'm bad and want the air to be polluted because I don't want more taxes levied against me when the government already takes god damn 30% of my fucking income that it has no right to as it is.

but I never said any of that and you're putting words in my mouth. And now for some reason you're griping about income tax which is a complete non-sequitur

>adult male
>believes in things because (((scientists))) who are funded by solar energy companies tell them so

Lol what the fuck are you talking about goy. Seriously what the fuck are you on

Why is it that LA is one of the most liberal cities in america, but when it comes to pollution it's basically Beijing-tier. You'd think they'd care about climate change and not be a smog filled shit hole.
Really gets my noggin niggin.

We're totally cool with renuable energies and cleaning up the environment: it's just that we don't want governments doing it because they're both inept and corrupt. They'll take whatever powers we give them to prevent climate change and use them for other goals, even just lining some bureaucrat's pockets.

>adult goy
>believes things because ((oil conglomerates)) and ((OPEC)) says what he wants to hear. Stay cucked

Well indeed it's true that while everyone talks about global warming, it's actually a minor aspect of the issue, while pollution actually kills.

When it comes to energy, nothing is renewable really, it's just more long term, but down the road it doesn't help much more. Nuclear is near perfect, you just have to deal with waste, meanwhile solar panels pollute a LOT when they're made, but they're made in China so "who cares?", dams can have disastrous consequences, like in Afghanistan where the increase of the water level in underground tables pushed vast quantities of underground salt to the surface, and rendered large swathes of fertile lands completely sterile, windmills are a disaster for birds and affect the quantity of wind a land receives, which fucks so many things I don't even know where to start, and because all those things produce energy only when they can, we need batteries, and pollution is through the roof. Did I mention all of this is incredibly expensive?

Geothermal energy is pretty cool though, but you can't do that just anywhere, and the output just isn't that good. That's why nuclear is so great. Just look at Germany: since they shut down their nuclear power plants they keep buying it from us.

t. someone working on electricity distribution in France and adjusting market prices for kWh in western Europe

>why am I the bad guy for not wanting my city to become a smog choked shithole

These are you're words, they directly imply anyone who disagrees with you wants to pollute the air, don't act fucking cute about it.

>stay cucked
Said the bitch who is afraid to drive an SUV

Good question. Maybe they should improve public transportation...? More Teslas? Better efficiency never hurt anyone... except for the middlemen who profit from inefficiencies.

no I'm seriously not saying that and your victim complex is showing. If you want to be triggered reddit is -----> that way

I drive a 2003 Subaru Forrester aka lezmobile which i purchaced for $4k which gets a modest 20mpg and beasts up mountainsides

>cucks for climate change
>doesn't live by his own environmental standards
Kill yourself you typical liberal faggot.

It's not the climate change you should be worrying about, but deforestation and destruction of coral reefs, simply because too many people on this planet.

I just feel like the ((Climate Change)) debate is a distraction so people can perform their mental gymnastics and lump in Pollution Regulation, an actual societal necessity, with ((Leftist Communist Climate Change Shills)). Why can't we just focus on pollution, which has an obvious impact and doesn't rely on high-variance scientific models that autists in their basement can "debunk".

Could use some climate change as my gas bill is pretty high.
IT'S FUCKING COLD AS A POLAR BEAR'S CUNT, OUT HERE!!

do you even know what you're saying/arguing against? seriously what the fuck are you talking about. My OP was about developing renewable tech, not how much better I am than you for driving a Model S.

Jesus christ, typical rightist triggered fag.

>damage control
Stop polluting the air.

>Maybe they should improve public transportation...?
There's not really much they can do, the urban sprawl is too much, everythings too spread out.

>More Teslas?
This isn't the Oprah show retard, the governments not going to give everyone a free car.

>Better efficiency never hurt anyone... except for the middlemen who profit from inefficiencies.
What does "better efficiency" even mean.

>It's cold outside
>CLIMATE CHANGE IS A HOAX!!!!!

conversely:

>It's warm outside
>Al Gore was right!!!

What it should be:

>Here's how we think the climate works
>Ooh these cyclical trends are interesting
>This model seems accurate
>woah guys according to my model, we're making thins weird up in here
>I can't speak to the 100% validity of my model but I believe it's robust. What can we do to slow down human impact?

nice try cuck. Stay cucked.

Because governments wat to impose a fucking carbon tax and to enforce that you need a global agency. Hello world government goodbye freedom. And CO2 isn't even a pollutant so its basically a breathing tax. Poor countries won't be able to develop because using the energy becomes too expensive. People are actually dying because of these sanctions

How exactly is anyone other than the bleeding heart climate change faggot "cucked"? Please explain this.

>the consensus of the scientific community is a Jewish conspiracy
(((Michael Mann)))
(((Gavin Schmidt)))
(((Naomi Oreskes)))
(((Michael Oppenheimer)))

>Everything is too spread out
IDK where your transportation engineering degree came from but communities aren't static entities and improvements can be made

>Not the Oprah show
Agreed

>what is better efficency
Better efficiency means a greater conversion of potential energy into motive force. This, in turn, will result in less emissions for the same amount of work produced.

Was that a serious question?

>if you don't buy a hybrid and inconvenience yourself on the premise of (((global warming))) and instead just do whatever you want then you're cucked
Yeah man that's a good argument. wtf i live NASA now

here's your (You). Thank you for your contribution.

lol, that's what I thought.

>Putting words in my mouth
>not reading the post
>....??????

American education, everyone

see

That indeed seems to be the goal: if global warming isn't caused by human activity, then pollution isn't real.

My own analysis is, EVERYONE is trying to profit from it: those seeling fossil fuels, those selling alternative solutions, those who pollute a lot... There's no point wondering who's lying based on who makes the most money off of it, everyone is profiting.

More realistically though, we need to stick to nuclear power for least environmental impact, stop China from polluting like crazy because chinks just don't care, and improve efficiency all across the board, whether having more remote jobs, or stopping bullshit like 2 billion view cat videos on YouTube, because most power right now is fucking wasted for nothing.

You are attempting to insert reason in a place where there is none. The most serious response you will get here is "dat boi lol" "cuck lefty" "Generic ALT RIGHT meme word"

These are the winners of this thread. It isn't even about the climate. That is only used to keep you stupid people in an unending argument

I don't think China can conceivably wreck the rest of the world with their activity. They can pollute all they want - they're only going to do more immediate, localized and severe damage to their own climate while the rest of the world suffers slightly.

but I'm 100% behind more nuclear. If people are worried about terrorist attacks, then dams should be their primary concern

I did my senior "theisis' paper on coral reefs so I consider myself to be an expert in ocean acidification and coral bleaching. Good man.

Hmm can't argue with that. But this would put alot of people out of work. I'll only agree if the government would allow FREE energy.

>Why go through thousands of plastic bags/year when you can just carry out your groceries?
plastic bags are the result of lefty tree huggers banning paper bags.

It's just a way for the globalists to tighten the screws on the slave underclasses harder.

The globalists don't give a fuck about the climate, only exploiting climate change hokum so they can extract more shekels from you and decrease your freedom while sacrificing none of their own. It's funny when multimillionaire faggots cry about "muh climate change, we have to stop it" from their private yacht or their private jets, like faggots like Leo di Caprio and Green Energy CEOs do, and the factories making their 'green' shit are all in hyper-polluting China to evade the very same environmental regulations they try to peddle to goy.

There's no Free Energy, sadly enough. If there was it would cause the bloodiest fight in history over people trying to seize control of it.

>he actually believes this

I am highly vulnerable to bait.

>Not owning a jute bag

science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/

Nasa has admitted that sun plays big role in climate. How come :3 ?

" Indeed, the sun could be on the threshold of a mini-Maunder event right now. Ongoing Solar Cycle 24 is the weakest in more than 50 years. Moreover, there is (controversial) evidence of a long-term weakening trend in the magnetic field strength of sunspots. Matt Penn and William Livingston of the National Solar Observatory predict that by the time Solar Cycle 25 arrives, magnetic fields on the sun will be so weak that few if any sunspots will be formed. Independent lines of research involving helioseismology and surface polar fields tend to support their conclusion. (Note: Penn and Livingston were not participants at the NRC workshop.)

“If the sun really is entering an unfamiliar phase of the solar cycle, then we must redouble our efforts to understand the sun-climate link,” notes Lika Guhathakurta of NASA’s Living with a Star Program, which helped fund the NRC study. “The report offers some good ideas for how to get started.” "

Ups, pay your useless global warming taxes! Make Al Gore some monies!

what did he mean by this

quit trying to steer the conversation towards useless ((CYCLE)) debates and actually look at the substance of my post, cuck

this. Jute bags are the ultimate redpill (and eco frienldy + u can even wash them)

So you're literally a gibsmedat.

Hhm, we're all more similar than we think.

bu-but... YOU CANT SERIOUSLY BE ASKING ME TO BRING MY OWN BAG I AM ENTITLED TO AN ENDLESS SUPPLY OF PLASTIC BAGS WHICH SERVE NO PURPOSE AFTER USE JUST BECAUSE I CAN'T PLAN ACCORDINGLY

Plastic bagcucks: am I trying to control your lives? The answer is yes.

The way I see it, you can force people out of a job, but you mist replace it with something. The economy can't handle so many jobless people.

>economic sectors exist to give people ((meaning)) through wageslavery

Why? Are you going to protest robotic assembly lines now?

Quit being triggered you little faggot. He's implying that the alternative is wanting polluted cities because it IS what you want if you don't want alternative energies. It's literally the only conclusion if you go down that route.

Would it be wrong if I said yes? It wouldn't.

I just spent a few minutes reading, but can you give me a quick summary as to their importance/relevance to climate?

I just got some shit about diversity of marine wildlife from ɐilɐɹʇsn∀

That is what the gulag is for.

Adapt or die, friendo. Trump won't save you from technological innovation. We still have carriage drivers, but they belong to the luxury category and are no longer integral to modern commerce.

>what's wrong with increasing energy costs in the US by 10x and driving even more of our manufacturing jobs to China where energy is dirty and cheap thereby wrecking our own economy AND polluting the environment even worse than before

Wonder which has the greatest margin of error. Automation or man power.

>Don't ban plastic bags at the grocery store. Don't tack bullshit recycling taxes onto everything. Don't ban my incandescent lightbulbs.
these are about waste disposal, not global warming

Fucking this. These people are so profoundly retarded. And thr worst part is they're convinced they're super 1337 smart

Oh, coral reefs have no real impact on the "health" of the world climate. They're more of a mine canary, a way to assess the long term outlook for oceanic biomass. They do, however, serve as massive reservoirs of unique biology and are cool as fuck to look at. Additionally, over time, coral reefs become the basis for island formation, and act as a calcium/carbon storage mechanism in the form of CaCO2.

People interested in preserving coral reefs are the same people interested in saving white rhinos from extinction. I did my paper like 8 years ago so maybe my ideas are outdated.

>Big Solar are controlling all scientists

This is my favourite thing about climate change deniers.

margin of error of what?

When it comes to precision and speed, you'll be outclassed by a robot all day

When it comes to menial taskwork that requires complex movements like stocking a grocery shelf, you'll keep your job until it becomes more cost effective to replace a minimum wage worker with an autostocking robot.

It's just automated assembly lines sometimes produces defects. I'm wondering if man would do better than machine in this reguard.

You do understand that recycling and fossil fuel use are 2 different things, right?

let's say a robotic assembly line is 2x as fast as a human and has an error rate of 10%

A human has an error rate of 5 %

A human will produce 100 products in a day, with 5 being defects. A robot will produce 200 products a day, with 20 being defects. The robot still outperformed the human by 85 products despite the increased error rate.

But because robots are programmable and perform the same motion down to the micrometer, a human would probably have a greater error margin than a robot while also having less speed.

>the factories making their 'green' shit are all in hyper-polluting China to evade the very same environmental regulations they try to peddle to goy.

It's pretty easy to get hung up about hypocrisy when you make up flat out nonsense.

he's semi correct, though. China is a huge solar power manufacturer, so all of the pollution associated with such practices is localized to china

But what would be made up for in profit would be lost in liability I would think.

if a robot is being used instead of a human worker, it's not to spite human workers and devalue their labor. It's because there's a real economic incentive to use robotic labor.

This is likely due to increases in assembly line efficiency, speed and precision. Additionally, a robot replaces the wages and pensions of "x" amount of workers over its service lifetime, and you don't need to concern yourself with human limitations like sleep or physiological functions.

Again, the decision to implement robots in a factory is an economic decision that is predicted to increase business profits. If there was no economic incentive, businesses would stick with human workers. Robots are not implemented as a nefarious design against the working class. They are simply a step up in efficiency and cost-effectiveness.

This comment chain is hilarious

Dont ban a platic bag that takes fucking 1000 years to disintegrate..

heavy research should only begin when there is demand. i just don't want the government to be doing this shit, rather than multiple corporations, communities, companies, all adhering to the capitalist mindset of providing and competing. that's literally it.
I also don't want to be forced to give a shit by al gore.
>people need to start caring! you need to care!!!!

yeah, fuck right off cunt.

Weaning ourselves off of oil so the middle east can go back to obscurity is surely a good thing

The state of Hawaii outlawed plastic bags from grocery stores and now uses ONLY paper....

Interesting, I didn't know there was demand to go to the moon.

Oh wait, you never went.

Stay cucked.

bu-but... muh ebil leftist narrative!! it must be maintained!!!!!!!!

I'm all for bombing children on and off again, though. Also goats. Fun times.

Now it would be nice if their alarmist models agreed with reality. Instead they're stuck trying to spin the media and divert attention away from the nearly two decade warning pause that wasn't supposed to happen.

Let them squabble over petty Islam shit and just take a back seat and watch

Yes. I would love if we could get an accurate and working model of the climate. I think it would be an amazing technological feat. For the time being, however, IDK why we can't just focus on pollution and ensuring our living spaces are enjoyable to inhabit.

Not difficult concepts!!!!

correlation /=/ causation except when it supports my political narrative

i believe this is the future. Trump will give America an actual reason to exit the ME (severing ties with "Allies" because he can claim its his "mandate" to do so).

The middle east will then descend into social darwinism or Russia will once again re-immerse itself in the same quagmire that we've been in for the last 30 years or so.

I think Iran and Saudi Arabia will end up absorbing most of their surrounding states currently artificially propped up by US and Euro interests. They can keep the oil, for all I care. Their positions are untenable because they encompass desert, which is only growing, and therefore rely on agricultural powers like US to feed their growing populations.

based leaf knows.

The world will end unless you give us 6 billion dollars.

t. liberals

>continuing the climate change ((CYCLICAL)) debate
>whining about liberals
>not actually reading my post
>unironically shitposting.

Thank you for your contribution.

Actually they can wreck a lot.

Do not make straight face telling me that you are comfortable with someone shitting into water in the other end of the pool you are swimming in.

Climate change should be addressed scientifically and keep the shills out of it.
Both, the shills shilling for polluting without thinking because of profit and the shills shilling for banning and taxing for profit (both political and economical profit).

Climate and pollution issues are not about profit. They are about preserving habitat that is habitable for life.

I'm not disagreeing that they can do eventual harm. What I'm saying is that most of the harm will be localized to their own environment, which will actually incentivize them to modernize and enact environmental regulations.

Earth is interconnected. Country borders do not apply to Earth element circulation, atmosphere and climate.

Destroying parts of the system somewhere affect us all. You simply see the effects later because of inertia of Earth biosphere.

We live in anthropocene and having evolved into global earth-shaping force we should have the responsibility to act in harmony with it.

Let scientists do their job with no interference from shills. Life needs habitat.