Climate Change

How can you possibly refute this other than "hurrr liberals want it gotta be edgy and say I'm against it"?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=Gh-DNNIUjKU
youtube.com/watch?v=iEPW_P7GVB8
cfact.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/2016-State-of-the-Climate-Report.pdf
youtube.com/watch?v=nLuBgZ1bgoY
youtube.com/watch?v=CvnmSRghdow
youtube.com/watch?v=q-FirPn4l0c
youtube.com/watch?v=fbW-aHvjOgM
youtube.com/watch?v=PTY3FnsFZ7Q
youtube.com/watch?v=fpF48b6Lsbo
youtube.com/watch?v=C3giRaGNTMA
youtube.com/watch?v=TRCyctTvuCo
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

The premise of climate science is based on estimates of the weather hundreds of thousands of years ago and making vague predictions using wildly varying mathematical models.

The blame originiated against CO2, but since humans account for .1% of all atmospheric CO2, Al Gores model failed and any anthropogenic model has us past the point of no return and Gore's specifically says we as a species went extinct 4 years ago.

With dozens of models all ranging from climate change is going to kill everything to its gonna be a little warmer and colder at times. There shouldnt be a major push for trillions of dollars spent on it.

Because my hometown was under 2 miles of ice 10,000 years ago

youtube.com/watch?v=Gh-DNNIUjKU

10,000 years from now, archaeologists will dig up artifacts of of sandniggers in the U.K and Scandinavia and surmise that the current period was a period of slight warming since these people were able to sustain themselves in a place they would normally find a tad too brisk for their liking.

Nobody intelligent claims climate change isn't real

What's debated is whether mankind has any impact on it

The climate is changing.
The meteorological predictions are suspect at best.
The economic predictions are complete nonsense.
The world economy and governmental structure should not be uprooted on unscientific doomsaying.

Let's just wait and see!

I hope it's real because I want climate change to help purge the world of muds. I will usually deny it in public to rustle jimmies

agreed. When I see a shitton of exhaust smoke come out a car's tailpipe, it disappears pretty quickly! plus our atmosphere is huge, what's a bit of smoke gonna do lmao.

I sure love my diesel truck. I'd hate to have to drive a fruity electric beetle just cause the earth is getting a bit hotter lol. how big must human's ego be to think that the billions of people around the world can have an impact on the planet? rofl

I am against carbon taxes paid to any government, especially a global one

cannot tell if serious or tarded

even with that being so. is become self sustaining and living in a cleaner greener world pointless? no way. the smog in bejing was put there by humans and is present in all cities to some degree. imagine if we got rid of all the smog and improved our life span. the same could be said for living in close proximately to anything that emits emissions. we could live healthier and longer if we went down the green path. so why dont we?

somehow Sup Forums will find a way to discredit 98% of climate scientists

This

>so why dont we?
cause there's too much money to still be made on the petrodollar.

Dude you're so right

If it's a hoax then the changes wouldn't necessarily mean a better world retard

yeah we could all live like they do in africa, tiny carbon footprint

No doubt about it.

Shit, when the percentage is that I can't argue.

Say it with me. MADAM PRESIDENT.

There is nothing wrong with protecting the environment. The specific "solutions" proposed by leftists, however, will do absolutely nothing even if their science is right (it's not). Better to stop wasting money and invest in technologies that could actually have an impact.

Cook et al. is a farce. It was 97% of the papers selectively chosen to be reviewed, which if I remember correct was like 70 There were over 30,000 papers in that study.

>waste a fuckload of money for almost no reason
>durr how can anyone oppose this

So the argument is:
>Let's not progress our energy industries and technology to its inevitable next step because it would inconvenience the controlling corporations of established industries.

...

Most of the people pitching green solutions don't take into account the initial cost. If you build or manufacture green technology solutions you end up not needing, that's actually less environmentally friendly. In the real world of engineering, "let's do it anyway just in case" doesn't really fly.

I'm not against all regulation.

I'm against endless millions in grants to study climate change. I'm against bigger companies using these regulations to snuff out competition.

Also, I believe in actual science, so I can't really subscribe to the narrative
youtube.com/watch?v=iEPW_P7GVB8

i think we should just go down the 'reducing emissions as much as fucking possible' solution. because there is no way of denying that is a real thing. don't believe me? wheres my proof? look up what the smog forcast for bejing is today. they are inhaling that shit everyday and it 100% came from man made origins. so the next logical step is to reduce carbon emissions. how couldnt it be? thank fucking christ old mate elon is on the ball about it.

dummy, the established controlling companies are in the forefront of developing new technologies. you retards just want it now when it is not economically feasible.

The picture makes a valid point. Taking care of the environment is great for many other reasons than global warming. The problem with climate change is that it is used as a prediction for masses of "climate refugees". It is another guild trip for whites, "the polluters", to accept more migration from Africa.

Sup Forums doesn't need to do any work, because the EPA has already done it for them. Reminder that the EPA has 0 (zero) scientific studies which demonstrate the effectiveness of their regulations.

0 (zero) scientific studies

This comic is messing the next panel where the speaker asks the man "so you're happy paying much higher taxes then?" to which he responds "woah hang on there buddy"

Because nuking the industrial sector is going to absolutely destroy society in a short time.

Guaranteed short term destruction vs. potential long term destruction.

To be honest, how many green energy startups have actually managed to develop something useful? Improvements to solar panels is cool and all but for the money spent in that area of science I feel like 95% of that money is wasted trying out some leftist snake oil projects.

>be bejing
>global socialist engineered city
>horribly polluted
>hey user, let's let the globalist overlords control ALL the cities!

>let's not let the market drive innovation, we'll let the government puck winners and losers based on campaign contributions.

Venezuela is calling, they say you're late for your execution, you commie faggot.

You know that if we cut the amount of carbon in the air by 50% we would have no terrestrial plants.
I'm not saying that its feasible to do, but if we are having an actual impact on carbon emissions, then it would stand to reason that we could approach this number by cutting it further from here.
If we couldn't reach this number, then it stands to reason we don't have that much impact.

>Beijing
>Global
Fuck off. The CCP is anti-globalist. They're just really into undercutting everyone else so that competitors get BTFO. Just like Saudi Arabia is doing with their oil.

If it were really inevitable you wouldn't have to be here shilling for it. Every investor would jump on it without needing goverment subsidies or massive propaganda.

>china
>socialist
>globalist

are you fucking stupid?

...

1. Al Gore isn't a climate scientist, he has no model. If you want to debate climate science, debate the science and scientists, not the media and its personalities.

2. One of the earliest global climate change models came from James Hansen, a NASA scientist, in 1988. When corrected for radiative forcing (~10%), his model accurately predicted warming over the next 25 years

Even now, the models that published by the IPCC have been fairly accurate.

>The blame originiated against CO2, but since humans account for .1% of all atmospheric CO2

Source on .1? Also, only 43% of our CO2 emissions remain in the atmosphere, the rest is absorbed by the oceans and plants.

climate change is real but it isnt caused by humans like (((they))) want you to believe, its a naturally occurring event which is bound to happen humans have just sped it up

its like we found a house on fire then poured gasoline on it, we didnt cause it but we sure as shit arent helping the situation

bullshit. china's rise is solely due to guidance from and compliance to international bankers. china's industrialization is their reward for going along with the one child policy.

Nice try Lebbit

...

I completely agree on that but what about pollution, dosent that concern you
>Inb4 I live in a mountain cabin

We are supposed to be in a cooling phase right now.

Humans are out-the-ass retarded when it comes to planning for future events without tangible results. The guys who blab about the economy and whatnot are no different than supporters of (((Ted Kennedy))) and crew when they pushed through the Hart-Celler immigration act. Nothing changed immediately, so we didn't care, and now it's too late.

Also see literally every population boom followed by a famine in history.
>get enough food for the first time in your life
>decide to fuck like rabbits
>can't feed all of your kids

Frankly, climate action goes hand-in-hand with white nationalism--it's about preserving unique species/races. Humans will definitely survive warming, but plenty of animals won't, hence why I want to act before it happens.

>Underrated comment is completely ignored

Not today my friend, you are going to be recognized

pollution as a problem can be attributed largely due to overpopulation

best way to reduce this short of culling?

incentivise green transport i.e buses/cycling/walking/carpooling

charge congestion for entry for vehicles above certain emission thresholds into major cities

increase the size and quantity of green spaces in urban environments


that's literally it, the cost and in-feasability of converting every current FF vehicle to renewable energy would be staggering, eco green hippie solutions are for rich californian's who roller blade to their favourite smoothie bar, some chinese drone who drives 3 hours in smog city beijing can't afford to feed his family, let alone buy a new prius

>>get enough food for the first time in your life
>>decide to fuck like rabbits
>>can't feed all of your kids

except population rates drop in all prosperous nations. so make every nation prosperous. burn the coal.

>Energy Independence

The United States is already energy independent and producing an oil surplus thanks to fracking technology.

>Preserve Rain forests

How does subsidizing "green" corporations and regulating business conserve forest land? Environmentalists stopped trying to preserve the rain forest in the 20th century.

>sustainability

If you think lithium ion battery components are sustainable then I've got some bad news for you.

>Green Jobs

You mean corporate subsidies?

>Livable Cities

Why do I need government for that?

>Clean Water and Air

If you care about clean water and air then why are you so preoccupied with Carbon Dioxide?

>Healthy Children

See previous answer.

If I'm not mistaken, the sample (70ish) was from a larger sample of scientific papers (3000) intended to represent the entirety of the scientific community.

Which is of course an absurd premise. Both because 3000 is an arbitrary number to represent "science", and only 70 of those have been published on climate change.

3 percent of 70 is 2.1.

So, only 2.1 scientists who have been published don't totally buy into anthropogenic climate change

Quite shortsighted. What happens when your nation is no longer prosperous, by some calamity? Now you're up shit creek.

Every time we come up with some invention that improves the quality of life, people just shit out so many kids that the gains are erased. Take Ireland pre-potato famine. They got the wonder food that could easily sustain their population with land to spare, but then they pushed their numbers to the limit and they stayed miserable peasants until the crops failed and they starved. It's fucking pathetic.

Implying it's not the meat and dairy, thanks to cow farts

2016 State of the climate report presented at the UN (if you're not going to look at anything else, at least look at this): cfact.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/2016-State-of-the-Climate-Report.pdf
Mathematician talking about the math behind it being completely flawed: youtube.com/watch?v=nLuBgZ1bgoY
Another expert talking about the reality behind it: youtube.com/watch?v=CvnmSRghdow
Indoctrination of it on kids: youtube.com/watch?v=q-FirPn4l0c

"create a better world" is very subjective, if mortality has increased, there is energy poverty and only the 1% have any luxury.

Science says that they can accurately forecast what the temperature of the planet is going to be like hundreds of years from now, using sophisticated computer modeling.....yet the same fucking sort of computer modeling can't tell us jack shit about the local weather more than 48 hours to 72 hours in advance with any reliable degree of accuracy. Tell me how the fuck that works. We'll wait.....

Cool, are we doing youtube videos now?

I'll watch yours if you watch mine

youtube.com/watch?v=fbW-aHvjOgM
youtube.com/watch?v=PTY3FnsFZ7Q
youtube.com/watch?v=fpF48b6Lsbo
youtube.com/watch?v=C3giRaGNTMA
youtube.com/watch?v=TRCyctTvuCo

eugenics was once a widely accepted science and we know how that ended

>muh appeal to science
do you have a sauce bruh

Production > Hippies fellings

Reduces liberties.

nice

>yet the same fucking sort of computer modeling can't tell us jack shit about the local weather more than 48 hours to 72 hours in advance with any reliable degree of accuracy

The weather forecast is my country is pretty accurate.

big if true

You kinda have to be suspicious when Scientists want to affect laws and politics, also when there is a push for "truth".

Not to mention that talking about Climate Change is awful because their are multiple stances you can take on it, and all of those stances make you one step closer to someone claiming that you deny Climate Change

POOPOOPOOPOOPOOPOOPOOPOOPOOPOOPOOPOOPOOPOOPOOPOOPOOPOOPOOPOOPOOPOOPOOPOOPOOPOOPOOPOOPOOPOOPOOPOOPOOPOOPOOPOOPOOPOOPOOPOOPOOPOOPOOPOOPOOPOOPOOPOOPOOPOOPOOPOOPOOPOOPOOPOOPOOPOOPOOPOOPOOPOOPOOPOOPOOPOOPOOPOOPOOPOOPOOPOOPOOPOOPOOPOOPOOPOOPOOPOOPOOPOO

The movement needs some serious PR work. Quit being sketchy and commie about it. Quit being like Bill Nye and saying skeptics should be jailed. Quit acting like a religious inquisition and labeling skeptics "deniers". Maybe you will gain more favor, but right now, you're obnoxious zealots. You make people think you're up to something.

Do any of these videos attack the mathematical argument he made? Asking to save some time

What Britbong said, I'd also add being thrifty/conscientious about your usage of energy, gas, or water. It saves your lungs and your wallet too. There's also efficient/green architecture, which has high potential.

One thing I feel obligated to point out is that one of the largest (if not the largest) source of atmospheric pollution would be farts of the bovine variety.

thats a lie

Well first, he is straight up lying. There is no scientific paper saying that the doubling of CO2 will lead to 5,6,7,8,10 degree celsius rise in temps. Literally 0.

He also hasn't published this so called error, so I can't make any comment. I recommend you watch at-least the first video because he does this sort of thing often. He constantly makes some huge public announcement, doesn't publish the data or sources, and then backs away from the claim when confronted.

Weather forecasting is more complicated the predicting long term climate trends in alot of ways. There's many, many more variables involved, there's a much shorter time-frame, etc.

Let me guess without watching either video:
If they don't address the math of climate change (unlikely) then it's bullshit and you don't have to listen to it.
OR
If it doesn't address the specific math problem your guy brings up(more likely) than it's bullshit and you don't have to listen to it
OR
If it doesn't address him and the exact specific argument he's making(likely) than it's bullshit and you don't have to listen to it.
OR
If it somehow does all that, you still don't have to listen to it because of some other reason since you're just going to attach your entire stance onto any bullshit statement someone makes that lets you be anti-liberal, without needing to check whether it's true or false.

Let me save you some more time: Kill yourself.

Here comes the red pill

>hurr durr let me make up some data about the atmosphere millions of years ago
Retard. The furthest back we can go is on the scale of tens of thousands of years, via ice cores from the poles. Another thing these graphs are pointless for is mentioning the pace at which we're fucking up the planet. We're managing it in hundreds of years, not millions--which is, in geological terms, a catastrophic change likely to cause mass extinction.

Irish overpopulation can be blamed on Catholicism. Speaking of terrible ideologies, let's get rid of that.

>One thing I feel obligated to point out is that one of the largest (if not the largest) source of atmospheric pollution would be farts of the bovine variety.

>gigantic herds of grazing animals never existed on earth before man started eating them

Let's. Just. Wait. And. See.
This fucking post.
The climate is changing and fossil fuels are a finite, rapidly diminishing resource of absurd geo political value. Our "world economy and governmental structure" are basically RUNNING on oil, goddamnit. It's a dangerous resource that keeps much of the world "uprooted" because it's used as a bargaining chip. Gazprom can threaten to stop piping oil to europe but they don't own the sun. Alternative energy sources would be more stable by far.

What you said makes no sense.

>Alternative energy sources would be more stable by far.

historical records show that when the mini ice age began europeans would not see the sun for two to three months at the time. it was the literal dark ages. have fun running your govt. during daylight hours on the days when it isn't cloudy, retard.

I dispute the Orwellian liberal solutions to it.

Denying climate change enables the Jews.

Promoting climate change enables the Jews.

people do not argue whenever or not climate change is real, they argue whenever or not manmade climate change is real.

Climate change has happened at least 4 or so times in the past, why would it be any different now?

nothing about it is valid. doing stupid shit isn't ever a good idea, least of all because it sounds nice.

Why are all the "red-pills" garbage infographics written by Sup Forumstards? The entire fucking post is a non-sequitur. Yes, the climate has changed in the past, and it's changing again today because of green-house gas emissions (through which climates have also been changed before humans).

If humans were not responsible, then why aren't we in a cooling phase? Why is it that even when the sun is in a cooling phase, and that our orbital phase (Milankovitch cycle) should be sending us into a cooling phase, we're still warming up? We know why the climates have changed in the past in those figures, and the variables that were present there don't match our current situation.

Also, pic related on the last figure in that "red-pill"

Okay then goym, you keep buying that globalist oil then.

Enjoy your regulations that prevent production of your own power.

Here we have a shitskin. Sure, he may be cumskin on the outside, but due to the shitbrained nature of his brain, he exudes an aura of shit.

slide thread

>they argue whenever or not manmade climate change is real

This fucking bull fucking shit fucking right fucking here is why I hate environmentalists so fucking much.

Even for liberals, that is smug as fuck. "Create a better world"? Fuck you. People who disagree with you aren't literal Captain Planet villains out to literally ruin the world for the lulz. You know what creates a better world? A robust economy with increased industrial and commercial production. That shit provably lowers poverty and increases wealth - not for the evil 1%, but for the masses. Too bad environmental regulations have priced many businesses out of the market.

The idea that people who disagree with left-wing environmentalist orthodoxy hate clean water, air, and literally don't want healthy children is the lowest and most obvious kind of strawman.

> A robust economy with increased industrial and commercial production.
Fuck the economy. I despise leftism, but preserving the planet's natural beauty is worth infinitely more than cheaper snuggies and selfie sticks.

Agree on the smugness of these assholes, though. Doesn't help that they argue for protecting species but almost all of them have an aneurysm at the thought of saving a race.

You're embodying two different flaws with environmentalist logic:

A: >preserving the planet's natural beauty...
Again, we're not Captain Planet villains here. Indeed, American manufacturing operates under environmental protection laws - how much do you think factories in fucking Malaysia or China give two tenths of a fuck about the environment? American manufacturing IS green manufacturing. The "snuggies and selfie sticks" WILL get made - and you want them made iverseas where not only do we have to ship them here, but they're made under much looser, essentially absent, environmental protections. I'm not saying we should have none, just less than enough to price business out of the country.

And
B: That the economy is "cheaper snuggies and selfie sticks." That's fucking stupid. If you really think we live in an era of consumer excess, get the FUCK off Sup Forums in the middle of the night. You don't need that cheap electricity. You don't need that internet. You don't need that cheap keyboard and that computer. All of that shit is brought to you by the very economy you malign as being frivolous. Literally hundreds of millions of people rely on that economy to put food on the table, including you and me. Libruls love to play the victim card, yet the one thing that empirically, provably, enriches those in need is a healthy economy. The 1% is gonna be the 1% regardless of what businesses they put under. It's the marginalized who suffer at the hands of this horseshit. So the next time you say "Fuck the economy," what you should hear yourself say is "Fuck working and middle class people, including my family."

>scheme to sell, tax, and trade air
>jews not involved

>How can you possibly refute this
How can you possibly prove this?

I work in the private sector, we expect results....

Being a conservation biologist already made my agreeing with you fucks on most things almost inevitable. Now I can't have normal conversations with my colleagues.

I would be happy to see a virus exterminate humanity, or at least a very large portion of it. So please don't put me on the same level as the hipsters and cucks trying to virtue signal.

Not trying to malign you, I'm just a bit grumpy over this particular issue, seeing how people manage to ruin everything.

>get the FUCK off Sup Forums in the middle of the night
topkek, touche

Would you recommend that line of work, friend?

Start with yourself or QYB, faggot.

It costs time and money, you fucking simpleton. Time and money that should have been spent somewhere else