Why do conservatives want to poison us so that big businesses can make money?

Why do conservatives want to poison us so that big businesses can make money?

Other urls found in this thread:

wsj.com/articles/a-conservative-answer-to-climate-change-1486512334
nytimes.com/2017/02/08/opinion/a-conservative-case-for-climate-action.html
skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm
forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/3/#52ca3189e768
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

The consensus is on climate change. It has little to do with air or water quality unless you're living in China.

Those are jews posing as conservatives, you fucking mongrel. And they are pretty successful on this board because most users are underage.

Is it the same jews who married Trump's daughter and given the title of adviser to the president.

Science isn't a vote.

Please provide the list of 100% of the world's scientists. I'll wait.

the problem isn't clean water and air. It's the outrageous claims that the earth is getting hotter or colder and the ice caps are going to melt and create a water world or we're gonna have another ice age or some shit.

It's the outrageous claims and nobody seems to agree on any one idea. Stick to one idea you fucking dumb nigger then people won't deny it

Actually fake news statistic

>Kill all your customers
Sounds like a good business model. Well thought out post.

>97%
>that consensus was on air and water quality
>science is consensus
>conspiracy is required for a gestalt/zeitgeist to develop among people with active interest in said zeitgeist

I could go on but you already seem pretty fucking dumb

You're gonna have to prove the 97% lie.

You know what, idgaf. Lets have MORE Global Warming. The sooner the coastal cities of the states sink, the better.

No, I think citing an opinion poll as scientific evidence is fucking ludicrous and science is not determined by consensus.

kek Hey Marxist, how's your fantasy about crushing the big bad conservative Empire going?
Leftists are hilariously simple-minded more often than not.
They think life is like a movie, with well defined heroes and villains.
They think they're the underdog heroes kek.

97% just one of many VERY FAKE NEWS

Also
>cleaner air cleaner water
>geo-engineering chemtrails? Fluoride? Dats dem conspiruhcies

False premise, and strawman.

>Implying it's not smart to have a few kikes around
Even Hitler had some.

(((science))) is FAKE NEWS.

/thread

>Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
>Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.

Actually yes.

Scientists are the modern day clergy. Most of their papers are utterly useless. Like 0.01% of what science does is actually useful.

Carbon isn't pollution. It's how Jews tax air.

...

going to be real funny to see this board do a complete 180 in 2 weeks when they see trumps new tax overhaul has a $40/tonne carbon tax

>97%
>details on sample never elaborated
>you are a stupid racist redneck white fucking male if you disagree with my vague and undefended statements

One more thing, Mr. 1 post faggot. Don't use the awesome Gene Wilder (in an image from a movie you probably haven't even seen that was made decades before your faggot bitch pre-pube ass was born) in your shitty shill thead that everyone hates.

Science is FAKE NEWS BULLSHIT.

It's not "so big businesses can make money", it's so people can be free from violent tyranny and so I can have a better quality of life by virtue of cheaper goods with more alternatives.

You know the solutions are polluting the air and they admit it probably wouldn't work right?

>t. leaf who hates freedom and loves Muslim cock

>American legislature using metric measurments

It's gonna be even funnier to see your dumbass impossible 'prediction' be completely wrong because that's never going to happen, and when Trump does the opposite, people like you will reee and scream impeachment and anti-science and talk about assassinating him.
Again.

It's true, the issue with it is that "scientists" is sort of an appeal to a false authority. An Entomologist is a scientist who studies insects, how are they qualified to offer expert opinion on climate change? They may as well say 96% of all lawyers agree. So what?

I say this as someone who is actually all for exploring cleaner energy sources, but I'm pro-nuclear. Regardless of your feelings on climate change, you can't deny pollution is a problem.

Why would people lie about global warming? I only ever hear vague nonsensical explanations like "TOO KEEP US AFRAID" and "TO DISTRACT US"

75/77 = ~97%

but don't you know user? He posted a photo of a celebrity being "weirded out" by our outlandish claims, doesn't that make you feel inferior?

elitism in academia pretty much destroys all honest research.

Poo in loo.

This represents the actual conservative that's concerned about the environment. There are many, many of us out there, but the left likes to paint it that if you don't agree with global warming, you're an evil inbred conservative racist homophobe that doesn't recycle or give a fuck about the planet and wants to fund big business and kill muslims for oil.

It's the same with lots of issues. The left hijacks them, ruins them, then uses them as political leverage to say that "we're this and they're the complete opposite so vote for us."

Feminism, sexism, racism, you name it - As a conservative, I used to stand for all kinds of issues like that until they were corrupted into nothing but lies. Now I still stand for them, but only the truth and not their bullshit.

That's why Trump and even more Pence's ideas of mixed-energy solutions are the only reasonable way forward. They embrace alternative energy, but they're also realistic about it so we'll keep improving our use of fossil fuels and nuclear while avoiding awesome stuff like Solyndra.

People who hail science as this wonderful thing probably don't understand statistics very well.

The vast majority of so called "truths" in science have a very poor statistical significance relative to the evidence. If you actually understand their jargon you'll notice like 99% of what they churn out is utter bullshit, or ambiguous at best.

wsj.com/articles/a-conservative-answer-to-climate-change-1486512334

nytimes.com/2017/02/08/opinion/a-conservative-case-for-climate-action.html

pretty much all the insiders like musk, tillerson, etc. and all the advising economists are pushing for it.

It will be a bargaining chip for lowering the corporate tax and epa regulations.

enjoy having a higher carbon tax than us you fucking fags

...

If you think that is science you've been reading too many media reports and not enough journals

All but one scientist said the world was flat.

Same for the planets and sun revolving around sun.

It takes one scientist to discover the truth, regardless of what the majority say.

The shilling isn't working. I'm not some pleb who can't read your papers. You fucking hacks, you should all be hanged for pretending to be the new "saviors" of humanity. And for robbing humanity of it's spiritualism with your fascination with materialist peasantry.

if the scientists go against the corporate owned government agenda they don't federal research grants. Just stop and think about the money. if the "deniers" are "correct" then the oil companies and other related entities stand to make tons of cash. if the "alarmists" are "correct" then the so called non profits and other green movements make tons of cash...that's just an extremely simplified example. I think it's all over and under exaggerated on both sides of the argument. because money.

There have been plenty of times scientists mostly agreed on something then changed their mind on it.

>Cleaner air & water
>Carbon Dioxide

daily reminder that science is the study of all relevant facts and you will NEVER find a "climate change" report that includes stats on massive deforestation and how it correlates to the carbon storage potential of our planet.

Dishonest scam artistry.

CIA is full of niggers. Remember if you ever see one of them, it's virtuous to kill them, and you will be hailed as a hero by all.

>the 97% myth again
it's almost as bad as the "pay gap" crap, it feels like it gets debunked every single day yet libtards still parrot it constantly

Because they are proxy Jews.

It does.

>round-Earth cuckoldry

Pay gap is something that can easily be proven wrong.

Climate change is blatantly obvious, and the reasons behind companies hiding it is equally obvious.

I'd rather have "dirty air" (((fossil))) fuels than the alternative.

Never trust the Nuclear Devil.

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""97%"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

I believe that global warming is real, but the media hugely exaggeratea it.

It will turn into a boy who cried wolf situation. We should focus on research in nuclear energy with thorium or more efficient solar panels instead of fear mongering.

>nuclear energy
No Thank You. We should never anger God like that again.

God was merciful when the Chernobyl and Fukushima plants Melted Down. He will not be merciful again.

>They may as well say 96% of all lawyers agree. So what?
It might be more correct to say:

"Of the 3% of 'scientists' who claim to be skeptics of climate change, 97% have been paid for their opinions by oil, gas and other energy corporations and 23% of them were former tobacco industry 'scientists' paid to lobby with false health claims."

Not 97% consensus.

0.3% consensus.

>blatantly obvious
Yeah?
What exactly about it is obvious? Why don't you sink in as a necessary fact the causal proposition that human activity is the driving factor of (incredibly slow) shifting global temperatues?
C'mon man - it's obvious right?

I think pretty much everyone aside from comic book villains can agree that pollution is bad and ought to be reduced or avoided when possible.

how are you supposed to agree on any course of action if consensus is meaningless?

what the fuck are you arguing for?

Experimentation and choosing the most best, most consistent result?

What are you? Braindead?

Because there is money behind consensus in this regard. Consensus doesn't have to be true. Hate to slander God but Christians have this consensus that God is real. There is no proof as with global warming. They came to an agreement(consensus) that this must be the truth. Doesn't mean it is

you're assuming experts in the field haven't done exactly that. are you an expert in the field?

where's the money and how does it reach scientists' pockets? and how does this logic stand in the face of several known instances of climate change deniers working as shills for oil firms, per example?

I'll ignore the rest of your ramble for the shake of my sanity

sake*

The initial claim is false. Water is not level, only imperceptibly curved to the point of looking flat and also prone to being disrupted by other forces like surface tension. If water surface was actually flat some areas of the water would be under higher gravity than others and the tendency will be to equalize. The exception to this would be if the water was held within a gravitational disk but then you're talking about a different facet of the water than, say, the top of a bucket.

Negative externalities are bad insofar as they actually have negative effects.
But the value of attempting to address a negative externality must be weighed against its cost. If you smell bad, you're a manifest externality insofar as you cause disutility to others by your presence. Should we mandate - by threat of violence - that all people need to not smell in a manner that causes other people disutility? Because the principle of that suggestion is what's at stake in this conversation.

Ecconomic liberalism is not conservatism.

Fucking burgerland.

>stupid goy, pay a tax for polluting or the whole world will end
>the pollution still exists but it's okay now because you gave shekels

I could buy a massive scientific conspiracy over a universal issue like money.

What cracks me the hell up is the massive scientific conspiracy to deny Christianity. Fine, a buncha first-world atheists are out to get you, but why would asian and indian scientists be in on it? They stand to gain nothing from denying stuff they already think is goofy like Noah's flood. Why would *christians* who are scientists (there are some, believe it or not) be in on the global lie?

I work at a university in the deep south, biology/chemistry departments, and *all* the professors and scientists here are southern baptist. They're profound believers... and evolution is still a fact, the universe is 13.7 billion years old is still a fact, carbon dating is still a fact. For them, the "days" in Genesis is just a placeholder, they still believe God created the universe but in doing say he put down rules of how things work, and denying clear evidence of his rules is as bad as denying god himself.

The only people who think there is an anti-bible scientific conspiracy are people who are so ignorant they could barely read the book anyways.

I wonder where they got the 97% number

>the causal proposition that human activity is the driving factor of (incredibly slow) shifting global temperatues?
Driving or contributing?

The irony here is that the exact premise of the article is precisely what the low information illiterati have fallen for - the dismissal of science through either a deliberate distortion of the original claim, and/or a convergence of corporate and religious agendas.

"Hoax" is the oil industry talking point, but the Earth is warming and man-made activities are mathematically contributing to that warming. The preponderance of climate change would be natural, however, it seems reasonable that pumping 6 gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere over a relatively short period of time will have some lagging impact on the climate system.

I like the Pascal Parsimony on this: We currently live in a period of optimal climate.
Soon, in geologic time, the climate will become less optimal. A new Glacial Age, perhaps. We should do what we can to prolong the optimal climate, not accelerate the climate into a global snowball or a global dessert.

I posit that the climate is going to change anyway. Let's do what we can to keep the way we like it for as long as we can.

The 97% meme is a debunked lie that will not die.

judging by how the polls were done during the election season, probably from an incredibly biased sample
how was it debunked?

>stupid goy, pay a tax for polluting or the whole world will end
>>the pollution still exists but it's okay now because you gave shekels

We'll say "contributing in a sufficient enough manner to warrant forcing people to pay far more for goods and services by virtue of the consequences of forcing businesses to pay the cost of whatever regulation you want to force down their throats" as the proposition.

link to those polls and how do I know that they're not fabricated? did they literally ask every scientist what they think?
anyway define "scientist" What exactly is a scientist?

>peer review
yupp. they're all in on it.

In this situation it's false to say 97% of scientist agree. There has been no study that accurately points to this 97% number. How scientific of people to not use science when talking about science. Now is pollution bad, of course. I don't think anyone will disagree with that statement, but to what extent and to what extent is the powers that be abusing this information?

this goy gets it

>how was it debunked?
Trump's word carries more weight than every (((scientist))) combined.

>We'll say ..." forcing people..." forcing businesses"
A CEO jacks up the price of a hepatitis drug, forcing untold thousands to die because they can't afford it - and he's celebrated as the new king of Sup Forums

Meanwhile, when the government adds a few pennies on the dollar to clean up the long term environmental cost of carbon pollutants, Sup Forums losses it's mind.

>"you want to force down their throats"
Not that I'm judging but this latent homosexual language sounds incredibly gay. Are you related to OP?

skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/3/#52ca3189e768

I'm saying the polls during the election were probably fabricated (and the ones that weren't pro Hillary were deleted/not reported on). This leads me to believe that a consensus that high between scientists on a highly politicized topic is unlikely.

>forcing untold thousands to die because they can't afford it

can I get a source on the number of people that died?

or did you just make that up?

you wouldn't do that would you?

You gave up real quick.
I don't agree with IP philosophically since it's quite literally not a coherent concept. You bringing up pharmaceutical patents is irrelevant to what was asked of you.

that's one hell of a non sequitur.

>Autism

When an international panel of people independently researches a hypothesis and discovers reproducible results from the same hypothesis (humans cause climate change through GHG emissions) you've got yourself a theory. Climate change is defined by the anthropogenic changes to our atmosphere. There is no debate despite what schemers like Tillerson and Pruitt say.

GHG's have steadily increased directly correlating with emissions. Ice caps sequester carbon and are melting, creating a positive feedback loop, destroying oxygen producing corals and changing patterns of weather, thereby introducing extreme weather events, famine. Marine ecosystems will be the first to break down, widespread famine will destroy human economic blocs as agriculture shifts. The world has no stateless societies and most land is owned, so people won't adapt and move agriculture where appropriate. It's over for us in our current course of action. But at least orange hitler got to prove to the world that he's got a healthy sized penis or something.

muh 97% consensus.

> But at least orange hitler got to prove to the world that he's got a healthy sized penis or something.

We passed the point of no return on that theory before Trump got into office. If the left had any principle about this they'd have a trade blockade against China on their manifesto.

Speaking of untolds scores dying.

Climate Change will kill hundreds of millions of people in our current course of action. We don't even have a really bad refugee situation in the US despite with prudes like Trump think. Just wait until large swaths of the world become uninhabitable. There's gonna be refugees within the United States worse than during the Dust Bowl. And it's the United States fault so we fucking deserve it all.

Yes and the world is flat and the center of the universe right? You stupid fucking nigger.

Your hitler gas CO2 is completely harmless unless it reaches concentrations where we cant expel it as waste anymore. We have doubled the CO2 and all we got was a .4 degree change (or .8 if you want to take the "consensus" which has proven to be tampered with) which is not only a fucking non factor, but stupid niggers like you ACTUALLY THINK YOU CAN FEEL IT.

CO2 will kills us from suffocation before it comes close to destroying this planet. It will only be an issue because of stupid niggers like you blocking "dirty" energy. Guess what we can do with enough power? Have you ever heard of terraforming? Do you think we might have to be good at removing certain gasses and adding oxygen to do it? Do you think hindering our energy progress like a bunch of church hugging faggots is doing us good? kys faggot

Any "expert" with any shred of integrity would come to the only conclusion - that the science is far from fucking 'settled' and much more research is required.

Instead they get together and bandwagon and shove consensus garbage down everyones throats to mandate fucked up policy for special interests. That is tyranny and betrayal of the scientific community.

>Trade war with world's largest economy to save resources

I don't know about all that. We're fucked no matter what, but that this all compounds. Does /po/ remember compounding interest from precalculus? It means every time we elect another conservative they fuck up worse and worse because they lie about GHGs. It's not a gay ass Chinese conspiracy. If anything, Trump's making us more like China by rolling back the modest restrictions we have on coal plants.

Not really. Polling is unreliable, especially when the people running it have an agenda.

i don't find a single one of those girls particularly cute.

>California will be a dust bowl
>California receives rainfall

Pick one

>where's the money and how does it reach scientists' pockets?

Ever apply for a grant?