Climate Change Denial Is Code For Anti-White

Reminder that climate change will hasten the demise of the white race.
>harsher climate in the Middle East, Africa and Asia leads to droughts, causing tens of millions of new refugees fleeing to new areas (read: Europe)
>flooding of coasts, especially in Asia, will produce a whole new type of refugee
>there will literally be hundreds of millions of shitskins flooding into white countries from these two sources alone

>Europe and North America are today at least partially protected from shitskins by harsh winters
>climate change means that winters will be shorter and warmer
>places like Canada, Northern Europe, and Siberia will become new settling grounds for hordes of shitskins
Why are you still pretending like this isn't a problem, Sup Forums?
We need to adopt policies for immediately building nuclear plants and replacing gasoline cars with electric or hydrogen cars.

Other urls found in this thread:

nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html
politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/sep/02/rick-santorum/santorum-un-climate-head-debunked-widely-cited-97-/
webcitation.org/5or5ODMLS?url=https://www.wsj.com/article/SB125883405294859215.html
scientificamerican.com/article/climategate-scientist-cleared-in-inquiry-again/
blog.dilbert.com/post/157694622351/the-climate-science-debate-illusion
blog.dilbert.com/post/154082416051/the-non-expert-problem-and-climate-change-science
blog.dilbert.com/post/158159613566/how-to-convince-skeptics-that-climate-change-is-a
theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/jul/27/climate-models-are-accurately-predicting-ocean-and-global-warming
collective-evolution.com/2017/02/04/a-mini-ice-age-is-coming-soon-says-math-professors-solar-cycle-model-thats-97-accurate/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

>We need to adopt policies for immediately building nuclear plants and replacing gasoline cars with electric or hydrogen cars.
How long would you expect nuclear power to last at current demand? I've heard estimates as low as 10 years.

Weak shill. Climate change or global warming?

Funny you never hear "global warming" anymore, since the data failed to back it up. Now it's just "change".

Climate change is good if it could kill, up in the north we're safe. Gotta keep them away though

btw all the cars in the world produce less pollution than the top 15 container ships.

This is a giant lie. Estimates I learned in university (STEM: not climate science) were at 10,000 years with fission power alone. We have enough uranium reserves to power the entiretype of humanity at 2010 usage for the length of time from the Old Kingdom of Egypt until now.

Assuming we use enrichment/breeder reactors that recycle and irradiate spent fuel so it becomes useful again, and assuming we harvest all uranium/plutonium on the planet, and assuming we use nothing BUT nuclear power, and assuming power consumption remains at 1995 rates (the last year anyone calculated this), nuclear power should last us about 5 million years.

This also assumes we're ONLY using uranium/plutonium reactors, not thorium (thorium is as common as lead and therefore much cheaper and more readily available than uranium), and that we don't harvest fissile materials from asteroids and other planets/moons in the solar system and confine ourselves to Earth.

The nice thing about thorium reactors is that not only are they much safer than uranium/plutonium reactors (they stop producing radiation as soon as you stop feeding the reaction, so there's almost no danger if you blow up a power plant and they can't melt down), they let you safely burn up unrecyclable radioactive waste from uranium reactors, they're cheaper, and they can be scaled down to fit into a car or aircraft. Imagine a car that can go 100 years without refueling, will never have a dead battery, and can act as an emergency generator for your entire house if the power goes out. Imagine an airplane that can circumnavigate the globe until its engines physically fall apart from use because it never needs to land to refuel.

If nuclear fusion becomes viable in the next few decades, then assuming we can extract all lithium from sea water (not the earth's crust, just the sea), it'll last us about 800,000 years at 1995 consumption rates. If we can extract all deuterium from sea water, it'll last us upwards of 10 million years. If we start harvesting helium 3 from the moon and the gas giants in the solar system, it'll last us for about a billion years.

And that estimate is just for materials WE ALREADY HAVE ON HAND. Counting all the fissile materials in Earth's crust, we have a shitload more time to power the entire globe on nuclear reactors alone.

Then, of course, we have hydroelectric dams, solar power (which sucks on Earth due to day/night cycle, atmospheric scattering, clouds, etc. but would be GREAT if we built solar collectors in orbit and they beamed that energy down in the form of microwaves. As an added bonus, we could use the power transfer satellites as masers to shoot down missiles and aircraft that threatened us.), a shitload of coal, they keep finding more and bigger reserves of petroleum, etc.

Energy isn't an issue for us, especially if we're smart enough to expand into outer space.

What nobody seems to think of is that technology will continue to improve over the same timeframe that the climate is changing.

I don't deny it happens. I don't even deny that humans contribute meaningfully to it. However, the timeframe of significant, noticeably harmful changes is on the order of centuries.

Do you know how far technology will come in that amount of time? We won't need a healthy Earth to live on. If we can build colonies on Mars, we can colonize a ruined Earth.

That's assuming we don't become machines. If we do, we'll be environment agnostic, able to survive on a ruined planet just as easily as in the radiation blasted vacuum of space.

Leftists don't like to hear this. They have positioned cap and trade as the only solution to climate change and duped retards into attacking the science, when cap and trade was the real scam.

To justify cap and trade they need climate change to be an otherwise unsolvable problem that threatens human survival.

Technology does not respect ideological agendas however. It is the classic disruptor. By the time climate change would've threatened humanity we either will be posthuman or live inside enclosed cities that process outside air before it enters.

Scott Adams already disproved climate change.

This is objectively true, and also the constant shilling for eschewing alternative energy in favor of (((fossil fuels))) is what keeps America under the heel of Israeli/Saudi interests. But Sup Forums is too busy being useful idiots to care about that

It's weird how often I hear this. I can see how it seems that way to a simpleton. If you actually search those terms in the research literature you will find that they both date back to the seventies and have been used interchangeably since.

No attempt is being made to fool you. Contrary to what you have claimed, even when scientists on the payroll of notorious industrialists test climate change, they have proven it is true: nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html

"Climate change" communicates that the fact you've gotten more snowfall than last year in your town does not disprove that the overall climate is warming. "Global warming" confused retards, who figured if it's warming everywhere, there shouldn't be record snowfall where they live.

The Dilbert cartoonist?

Yeah. He showed the 97% of scientists thing is a meme and that there is no justification for draconian societal changes based on inherently flawed models.

That's not the same as disproving climate change though, which is what you originally claimed.

The fact that it's 97% of climatologists rather than all scientists is irrelevant, as a biologist or a particle physicist doesn't know any more about the climate than the average man on the street. It's not what they specialized in.

Damn, I thought he was just a cartoonist, I never realised he's a physicist as well.

the niggers will all die faster than they can flee thank god. and any climate change that impacts our own harvests and creates shortages for us will result in FAR less charity for the niggers.

I meant climatologists.

They double their population every 25 years, climate change is irrelevant.

politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/sep/02/rick-santorum/santorum-un-climate-head-debunked-widely-cited-97-/

Depending which polling data you believe, it's 97%, 91% or 83%. Unavoidably, it's still a very large majority of climate scientists who agree that human industrial activities contribute to climate change.

Yeah but when you read up on how that "consensus" of the 97% was formed you realize how fucked it was.

Besides there is a cult in climatology dedicated to global warming. They will literally blacklist any climatologist who even slightly disagrees with the dogma.

>They will literally blacklist any climatologist who even slightly disagrees with the dogma.

Can you show me an example of this happening?

Everyone admits the climate changes, dunce. The sales pitch now by the environmental alarmists is if the climate changes it's caused by humans, which is totally false. It's no longer sold as global warming because all climate models fail at correct predictions, real measurements don't match up with the climate science predictions, and never is described what percent of change is human and what percent is natural. So as no convincing evidence can be sold to the public, the alarmists muddy the waters and sell all change as human-caused and say massive centralised control and micromanagement of choices is needed.

webcitation.org/5or5ODMLS?url=https://www.wsj.com/article/SB125883405294859215.html

Yeah the population of Africa in 2100 will be about what the total earth population is today. The damn temperature will matter little to the affect on Europe's borders this population explosion will cause

>Everyone admits the climate changes, dunce.

No, if you Google you can find people who totally deny it's happening at all.

>The sales pitch now by the environmental alarmists is if the climate changes it's caused by humans, which is totally false.

How is it possible that the pollution of 7 billion humans has zero effect whatsoever on the atmosphere?

Physically, how is that possible? Do those emissions just vanish? What is driving oceanic acidification, if not the reaction of surplus CO2 and seawater forming carbonic acid?

>It's no longer sold as global warming because all climate models fail at correct predictions, real measurements don't match up with the climate science predictions, and never is described what percent of change is human and what percent is natural.

That's not what this says: nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html

Climatologists have been wrong before. Every field of science is like that. Creationists like to pick out the hoaxes like Piltdown man and various wrong ideas in the early days of evolutionary theory like Lamarckism to make evolution itself appear wrong. Is it? Do mistakes made by evolutionary biologists prove evolution is false?

>So as no convincing evidence can be sold to the public, the alarmists muddy the waters and sell all change as human-caused and say massive centralised control and micromanagement of choices is needed.

This is your narrative. I would like you to consider mine.

If you're looking to fool people and make money, which approach is more airtight: Basing your scam on a hoax, or on a real phenomenon?

If you base it on a hoax, you will be found out. But if you base it on a real phenomenon, your opponents will attack that aspect, making fools out of themselves.

You smell a rat, and there is one, but not where you think. Positioning cap and trade as the only possible solution is the scam, not climate change.

>"This is horrible," said Pat Michaels, a climate scientist at the Cato Institute in Washington who is mentioned negatively in the emails.
>Cato Institute

Hmmm, what's the Cato Institute?

>The Cato Institute is an American libertarian think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C. It was founded as the Charles Koch Foundation in 1974 by Ed Crane, Murray Rothbard, and Charles Koch,[6] chairman of the board and chief executive officer of the conglomerate Koch Industries.

Wow, imagine that!

Meanwhile: scientificamerican.com/article/climategate-scientist-cleared-in-inquiry-again/

People will say "climate change isn't real" because of exactly what I am saying, the muddying of the waters around the issue with obscure language. You are calling it climate change not man-made climate change. You are part of the propaganda effort, by being purposely unclear.

All climate models fail, massively exaggerate warming which doesn't happen, for decades and decades now, which is the reason constantly given for why more funding must go into climate science, because we don't understand it yet and all the models fail... but we do understand it and its a crazy alarming emergency and it's caused entirely by humans so economic activity must be curtailed and global control and micromanagement of all life on earth must be implemented. Perhaps wait until you can make accurate predictions (SCIENCE) before claiming we understand climate 100% and all "change" is human caused. The language on the issue of climate and humanity's affect on it gets muddier and more dishonest every single year.

The entire climate industry is indeed a money making industry, but the issue is that since WW2 more and more issues are publicised as requiring global solutions, global problems with global solutions, which require global control to fix.

Lol, you actually think the percentage matters, even if it was 99.9% it would make no difference.

I suggest reading his articles on the issue:

blog.dilbert.com/post/157694622351/the-climate-science-debate-illusion

blog.dilbert.com/post/154082416051/the-non-expert-problem-and-climate-change-science

blog.dilbert.com/post/158159613566/how-to-convince-skeptics-that-climate-change-is-a

>inb4 Scott Adams is issuing "bad faith" challenges to climate change science. If you think that is a rebuttal you haven't understood the point.

Clever you quoting only "mentioned negatively in the emails", not the fact that the emails showed collusion to block anti-agenda climate science from getting published in journals.

Your propaganda efforts are weak

>because of exactly what I am saying, the muddying of the waters around the issue with obscure language

There's muddying going on, but not by the people you think.

>You are calling it climate change not man-made climate change. You are part of the propaganda effort, by being purposely unclear.

Or you are just simple.

>All climate models fail

Then what's this? theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/jul/27/climate-models-are-accurately-predicting-ocean-and-global-warming

Remember, you said "all".

>massively exaggerate warming which doesn't happen, for decades and decades now, which is the reason constantly given for why more funding must go into climate science, because we don't understand it yet and all the models fail... but we do understand it and its a crazy alarming emergency and it's caused entirely by humans so economic activity must be curtailed and global control and micromanagement of all life on earth must be implemented

All of that came from you. That's your narrative and your layman's interpretation of what scientists are saying. When I google it, I can't find any climatologist saying those things.

>and it's caused entirely by humans

Nobody says this

>so economic activity must be curtailed

No, just pollution. It is possible to do everything we do industrially right now using nuclear power, renewables and electrical alternatives.

This creates more economic activity due to the necessity for a lot of new equipment and infrastructure. The industrialists telling you otherwise are heavily invested into existing fossil fuel based equipment and infrastructure that they don't want to have to transition away from.

>Perhaps wait until you can make accurate predictions

See the link earlier

>before claiming we understand climate 100%

Show me any climatologist saying we understand the climate 100%

>and all "change" is human caused

Show me any climatologist saying this

You're a stupid fucking brain damaged faggot.

refugees, illegal migrants, all of this stuff, can be EASILY dealt with.
It's called the fucking military.

Modern militaries are equipped to fight off other fucking militaries for fucks sake.
Are you telling me that a bunch of HEAT rounds, relentless machine gun fire and torpedoes won't make it very fucking clear to invaders that they aren't welcome?

You act like this shit cannot happen.

You live in a baby bubble world.

You are the baby bubble bitch.

Climate change? Big deal, we'll simply adapt and innovate, the way we always have.

We have no obligation to share anything with anyone else.

A cartoonist does not understand the climate better than every climate scientist on the planet you absolute retard. You are a fucking mong for thinking so.

You are a disappointment to God.

A cartoonist doesn't understand politics better than professional pollsters and analysts that have dedicated their lives to the subject. Oh wait yes he did.

this is some typical Scott Alexander type pitiful mind games trying to get red tribe to buy into your bullshit blue tribe cause by wrapping them in a tasty red shell

anthropogenic global warming is not happening and the entire body of work behind it is cargo cult science and spurious speculative bullshit. now fuck off.

You need to re-read that article you fucking dunce, and see how exactly as I'm saying the word games are used with definitions shifting subtly. God fucking damn you propagandists

You're retarded

You're a cry fag.

In the 70s we had global cooling, then global warming, now climate change, now global cooling again.

collective-evolution.com/2017/02/04/a-mini-ice-age-is-coming-soon-says-math-professors-solar-cycle-model-thats-97-accurate/

uh oh solar model shows massive drop coming and new mini ice age. Sun spots are relevant to climate.. no no.. it's humans who are the problem

But what about muh military spending? Need to take money from NASA and give it to the military so we can further waste money on inefficient research and more aircraft carriers.

no argumend :DD

Thorium reactors only need like 5 tonnes of fuel to power the entire planet for the entire year.