Red pills needed on "Climate change"

Global marches for action on climate change is apparently going on. What are the red pills we can give people that blindly believe these so called scientists?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/user/1000frolly
lockheedmartin.com/us/products/compact-fusion.html
youtube.com/watch?v=hj70rtP3lUQ
archive.is/jaYjC
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Just adapt their slogan with your own words.

>What do we want?
>Feelings based policy!
>When do we want it?
>After sunday school!

After all, it's pretty chilly today so I'm pretty sure God's green earth ain't gettin' no warmer. Maybe personal attacks could help? Call them dirty hippies.

Only one i've seen with a sliver of merit is the supposition that we're viewing climate change through a very narrow lens and ignoring that climate change occurs naturally and that we are potentially just in the uptick of a natural cycle.

We tell them to follow that sign. Proper peer review isn't happening. Instead when a paper is submitted if anyone has anything bad to say about it their ability to complain is revoked and the circlejerk decides the paper is great.


>helecopters

>be enrolled in lefty university
>go ahead and read any paper you want!
>be out of lefty university
>whoa there, that'll be $80 a citation, citizen. you can get the crib notes from Reader's Digest or Time.

We know about global warming though, we just don't care.
It will kill people in third world countries, who cares here?

We can stop it before the flooding gets too bad, so it isn't that bad a problem. The cost of fossil fuels will get too high, and we will stop using them, we have nothing to fear.

>The biggest advocates of "stopping the climate change" are highly advanced countries which have developed "environmental friendly" technologies. So they are likely to use the climate change hysteria to keep their advantage over less developed countries.
>Ozone layer hysteria that happened years ago. Nobody remembers this shit anymore because it was a lie.
>Apparently we would all be dead by now if some of the climate change doomsayers were right (pic related).
>The media, the celebrities and other people who don't know shit about climate keep supporting the notion of climate change. This obviously means that it's politically motivated and well funded.

Keep in mind that none of these arguments really debunks the "climate change" but they can be quite handy. I don't deny or support the notion myself but I'm highly sceptical.

If climate change is actually caused by humanity, we should probably try to slow it down.

If not, we could still stand to do without all the smog.

more CO2 is produced from decaying matter (plant material) than every other producer of CO2 combined

that's the only one you need

99% of the western world is science ignorant.

It's religious style fear mongering.

Climate change scientists act like priests. "If you don't repent and go green... We'll all die."

It's like a Catholic priest telling you that if you jerk off, the Earth will be destroyed.

Western people got less religious and more educated but not more intelligent. The women are fucking breeding with blacks, for gods sake.

The NWO needs to keep control of the masses somehow. People need to fear something to give them a reason to curb certain behaviors.

Climate change is beneficial if you're the one pulling the string and laughing at the plebs.

Climate change really insults your intelligence. It's a giant con.

Truly intelligent people get off on these scams like Bernie Madoff. You probably feel like you can rule the world when you trick thousands of extremely educated and affluent people.

ez
youtube.com/user/1000frolly

just to show you're an idiot:

>let's say plant matter is 51%, everything else is 49%
>hurrr getting rid of 49% won't do anything

I know these aren't true, but just wanted to show you that was a terrible point and you should seriously feel bad about yourself.

Another point is plants use decaying plant matter and the c02 given off to make new plants.

His argument is fucking BS, that natural co2 production is in rough balance with natural co2 utilization. If it weren't the case decaying plant matter would've flooded the atmosphere with co2 for millions of years and atmospheric composition would look markedly different.

>It will kill people in third world countries
>the syrian war will just kill people in syria
like the syrian war there will be another climate change refugee crsis.

The "refugee crisis" only happens because there's welfare and the are no borders in Western countries, though. Wars, famine and diseases were round since forever and there rarely been a massive migrations unless the host civilization allowed in (like ancient Rome or modern West).

Therefore the left is the threat, not climate change. Climate change will prevent africa from having 4 billion people.

Plus fusion is less than a decade away, kek it amirite?

they are only refugees because the western world advertises open borders.

The only run from Syria because they expect for Europe and America to take them in.

They wouldn't run North in Europe if they expected death or rejection.

The west created the refugee crisis by promising altruism.

so they are pro eugenics?

There would be no refugees if you didn't promise refuge.

since we're making up statistics
>51% decaying matter
>39% evaporation from ocean
>10% industry

Just ignore them and they will go away.

Off-topic and Sup Forums-tier threads will be deleted (and possibly earn you a ban, if you persist). Unless they are quality, well thought out, well written posts, the following are examples of off-topic and/or Sup Forums-tier threads:

>Red pill me on X. (with no extra content or input of your own)

I wont report you if you pay me 1 Pepe.

if additional CO2 is indeed raising the temperature and melting the ice-caps, then there is more ocean to absorb the additional CO2.

Fusion could be, it isn't as we don't fund research.

Which, err, is their argument remember? Co2 level changes causes additional carbonic acid in the oceans...

Regardless that's utterly unrelated to decaying plant argument, which is crap.

See, I told ya: the only one you need

don't play dumb

decaying matter is the largest factor, ocean evaporation is second. If industry has any affect, it is counter-acted by nature itself.

I'm not 'playing dumb'. I'm pointing out your gibbering moronic inability to understand how a basic biochemical cycle works in nature.

'Decaying plant matter' is only a factor if you cant prove that 'decaying plant matter' levels have risen in lock step with current co2 levels in the atmosphere.

Their argument is that co2 has changed by 30 - 40% upwards over the last century - from 280 ppm to 400 ppm. If you want to prove that 'decaying plant matter' caused that then you need to find a globe wide increase of that material to the tune of 30 - 40%.

They argue that combusting 'completely decayed plant material' (coal) circumvents this by virtue of coming outside of the carbon cycle. In other words plant decay is offset by plant growth, but digging new shit out of the ground and burning it has no natural sink so a surplus goes into the atmosphere.

The logical counter-argument is to say 'going from 280 to 400 isn't a big deal'. Fiddling around with BS illogical crap that utterly ignores basic cyclical function will get you shot down here, and made a laughing stock to the wider community. Deal with it and come up with something better.

No, thats incorrect

>ITER
>DEMO

Iter is the brute force way of doing things, it will go live in about 10 years time, demo will use tech to build an actual plant.

>W7-X

Very interesting idea, already producing positive plasma.
Even (((lockheedmartin))) expects it soon
lockheedmartin.com/us/products/compact-fusion.html

Look into the 97% of all scientists meme.

That's how this all started years ago, and it's a debunked pile of nonsense based on feels and not facts.

Bro, You can only adapt the amount of CO2 released by peatlands in the north falling apart is millions times more than man is releasing and it is accelarating

youtube.com/watch?v=hj70rtP3lUQ

>lefty university
That's not just the left, that's academic publishing being one huge fraud in general. Thank Russians for scihub.

This

It's the Sun stupid.

Thinking a gas that makes up a tiny fraction of a fraction of the air can have a major effect on climate is psychotic.

The Sun controls the climate and it's quiet, the planet is cooling, and if you factor in chemtrail spraying it's cooling rapidly.

decaying plant matter causes a net increase to CO2, it's not a perfect cycle of loss and absorption. Add evaporation which is not a perfect cycle either and the increase is even faster.

You wanna stick with just plant matter, OK. It would take longer, but eventually CO2 levels would rise. As a result, it would cause the supposed changes from additional CO2, that would be balanced out by increase in plant growth, and ocean volume/evaporation.

if we accept CO2 produced via industry is causing the supposed changes, then earth's systems will counter-act the effects.

>The logical counter-argument is to say 'going from 280 to 400 isn't a big deal'.
I've been up for too long, so i missed this the first time through, but that IS what I'm saying. The fact that you missed it, makes me think either you're sleepy too, or just not paying attention.

Why not just stand next to this guy with racial IQ graphs and murder rates and such?

Is additional plant growth even to be expected in the industrial age? For your 'balancing' to occur forests and shrub lands would have to expand, which is unlikely in the modern world.

Again if you want to offset a 30+ change in co2 you would need to see a comparable shift in plant biomass. That's not likely to occur globally.

Yes, agreed

New growth is able to absorb more CO2 than old growth. By cutting down old growth and replacing it with new growth, CO2 can be absorbed more efficiently. If you want more trees, buy wood. I don't think that the forests are going to absorb all of it, but i will stick to talking about plant matter only.

Admittedly, I don't know how well we're doing replacing the old growth, I only know of anecdotal evidence that suggests people take deforestation seriously and many people and organizations work to ensure new trees are planted.

I know you fags from reddit love using the term 'red pill' for everything, but that isn't what it means.
It originated a term for accepting uncomfortable truths; not for taking the political right position on everything.
Unfortunately, global warming is blatantly real. You can argue that we should further research the degree to which we're contributing to rising temperatures, but your position shouldn't be that it doesn't exist.
You're allowing facts to become politicized.

I don't know about climate change but blowing CO2 into the atmosphere is shit and must be sharply reduced, I actually agree with leftcucks on that.
Regardless on its effect on climate, atmospheric CO2 is absorbed by the oceans and raises their acidity, which destroys coral reefs as well as the shells of diverse species like clams and mussles. It this continues, whole ecosystems are going to collapse.

There is a straightforward causation between more atmospheric CO2 and increased ocean acidification, and it's shit. At least with warming on land you'll get increased yields in higher latitudes (assuming extreme weathers don't become more frequent) and increased forest cover, but it just fucks up the ocean and threatens a bunch of species and food chains.

I love the ocean so this pisses me off. Gas the CO2, weather wars now.

>CO2 meme
wow really galvanizes my aluminum

...

Nice. Does that graph ever work on anyone?
Do they really not even read both axis?

no one ever looks at graphs like that. they're always framed to make it look like
>OMG so much big CO2 spike holy shit
it's called "science-for-hire", (((they))) hire """scientists""" to force the conclusions they need in order to force their agenda.

anyone with common sense can see that the earth goes through massive cycles over extremely long periods of time, which we can do nothing about.

btw, stop tripfagging.

where do these images come from? got a site?

literally google search. the last one was from an article about mass extinctions throughout history. Funny that the data isn't used when we talk about (((Anthropogenic Climate Change))), isn't it? They only want to talk about the last 40 years, because the graph fits the narrative

archive.is/jaYjC

i tried ixquick and all i could find was al gore tier shit.. guess i had bad search terms thanks