The Climate Pill

Many on this board and in many right wing communities have a tendency to deride climate change - either by saying it's not happening or that it isn't manmade. The issue is that it is, in my opinion which I hold strongly, both real and man-made.

Why then, are so many right-wing groups against climate change?
This is what I call the poison pill of the right wing. It is, in essence, a way to make sure that true nationalism is unelectable. By making sure that the further you go right, the more environmentalism is derided and hated, the more you make sure that anyone who is aware and cares about the issue has to make a moral choice between the destruction of their own country (and let's be honest, in most cases, normies don't even see it that badly - which makes things even more one sided) and the destruction of the planet (which is obviously backed by state and school indoctrination - not a bad thing, but you can see where this is going when the left is the only one generally explicitely environmentalist in european countries).

This, in my opinion, is evidence that currently, most right wing groups are controlled opposition to discredit the right wing as "rural and suburban retards" or at the very least nudged in that direction. This is bad all around - it only deepens the voterbase that cares more about the nation than climate issues into being biased to hate environmentalism, leading to more misinformation and essentially cornering the already small (in many cases) right wing into a corner - either follow the climate change denial or lose voters.

Other urls found in this thread:

ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/images/2/22/Share_in_electricity_price_for_household_consumers,_without_taxes_and_levies,_2015s2_(in_%).png),
youtube.com/watch?v=1zfupm32Wnc).
roymorgan.com/findings/australian-moterists-drive-average-15530km-201305090702
bbc.com/news/science-environment-24033772
quora.com/What-are-some-widely-cited-studies-in-the-news-that-are-false/answer/Richard-Muller-3
youtube.com/watch?v=SXxHfb66ZgM
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

As you can see, this is a very effective tactic and its effects are directly visible. For many educated (and yes, indoctrinated, since indoctrination comes bundled with education) people, this one issue is enough to ruin the entire right by association. It certainly doesn't help that western universities have become points of indoctrination in the first place, but the climate issue is enough to discredit in their minds any party. Since they already care about this issue more than nationalistic issues, it is extremely hard to redpill such people, however intelligent and capable of understanding they may be - they'll back up on their social bubbles and see the daily news of how the nationalistic candidate has a destructive policy regarding the climate, and that's that - they stop listening, and you can't get through to someone who isn't listening.

What about the oil? Oil is already on a losing battle - I'll touch more on that - and what is happening is an attempt to stall while capital is moved off oil and into renewables. Heck, you could see why they would want subsidies for renewables in that lens.

There is another aspect I'd like to finally touch upon, which is renewables themselves. For one, a big issue is cost - this is part of why it has become so touchy a subject, as they have, in the past, required state subsidies to live on and they still put a dent in energy prices. Right off the bat I'd like to say that wind is definitely not the future - it was for a while the cheaper solution, but it's not going to be the end of it. The issue is, the cost has dropped at an exponential rate with regards to production and shows no signs of slowing down, and this goes both for photovoltaics (which are iirc at around 1000$ per kW, but the price for the end user goes quite a bit higher when including inverters (which also have seen a price decrease and are predicted to go down in the future) and particularly permits and installation, leading to 3 times or more the cost of the actual panels) and batteries (currently the lowest prices on the market are starting to breach 400$ per kWh at 50 kWh or higher installations, or around 500$/kWh for homes - I'm actually being a little bit conservative, since for example the public prices Tesla shows are at 420$/kWh for homes).

The thing is, in most cases the most expensive part of the energy bought at a home level isn't producing it, but rather transporting it - this depends on where you live, but transportation cost tends to be between 25% and 70% of the total cost of energy (ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/images/2/22/Share_in_electricity_price_for_household_consumers,_without_taxes_and_levies,_2015s2_(in_%).png), highly dependent on where you live. It turns out that when taking this into account, energy produced by home solar and stored in your own batteries is starting to become increasingly viable, to the point where it's expected that by late this year or early 2018 it will be cheaper in ~50% of countries. What this means is that, over 20 years, the cost of having batteries and solar panels (taking into account replacements, degradation) will outweigh the cost of using all your energy from the grid - grid parity. What's more, it's expected that in a couple of years after that it will in fact become cheaper than using power from the grid EVEN IF power generation was entirely free - the transport cost itself would be bigger than the cost of installing your own home system (youtube.com/watch?v=1zfupm32Wnc).

This is, as far as I can tell, undesireable for (((them))). While they push renewables in the left wing as a way to control the middle class and up from voting right-wing, it's probably quite a matter of control that people do not leave the grid and become energy independent. It's both a method of financial and physical control.

Finally, I'd like to dismiss some myths regarding climate change and environmentalism

>It isn't happening
It definitely is the moment you look at the data - just as the media has trumpetted, around 11 of the 12 hottest average temperature years are, just like the media trumpets, in the 21st century. This isn't some prediction - just pure data, crunched. If you don't trust the pure data, all you can go off is human memory - unfortunately quite imprecise - and go and survey people from regions where the change was most visible - this does mean places like the South of the USA are not going to see a remembereable difference, since perceived temperature works off more than just actual temperature, but also things like wind and hummidity. It's most visible in places like Europe, where the dates between which it snows have changed drastically. In Romania, it used to be that snow would last until late March or even early April - this year, it's been an oddity that it actually lasted into late February, in most years in recent memory it has lasted until early January of all things.

>It's not man made
Considering the imbalance humanity has caused in greenhouse gasses (most notably CO2, but also methane and the like) in the atmosphere, correlated with the massive amount of energy humanity uses (100'000 TWh a year as of 2012 and still rising, or around 11 Terrawats average) it would be unexpected for there to be no effect. The biggest issue isn't the direct effect of CO2 as a greenhouse gas, but the feedback loop with water in the atmosphere.

>The predictions were wrong
Indeed, they were, since the first models were flawed. They have since been corrected and even the old models, when adjusted for new knowledge about the climate, accurately predict temperature change.

>Photovoltaics are expensive!
As I've noted, their price has gone down extensively to the point where they are becoming viable sans subsidies.

>Photovoltaics pollute more!
Photovoltaics are past the point of polluting more than the energy they produce would have otherwise, had it been produced on the current grid, and this is plainly visible from the fact that their lifetime energy output is higher than the energy required to produce them in the first place, which isn't 100% polluting energy in the first place.

>Photovoltaics don't produce energy all the time!
This is true, but I'm including it here because for short term storage it is really mitigated by the use of batteries (essentially non-issue), while long term there are other solutions for the future - storing hydrogen for example.

>Batteries pollute more!
Also false. While the Chinese have inevitably managed to fuck things up in their quest to undercut prices of everyone else possible to gain an upper hand on the market, there are many ways of obtaining rare earth metals without polluting the environment. Notable is extraction from brine, which is the main way of extracting lithium in the USA. Furthermore, even if rare earth mining pollution was that bad all around - one has to ask - is it worse to pollute a small area, or to pollute the atmosphere?

>We're going to have a rare earth metal shortage
At currently mined reserves, probably not for at least a few decades, but it's worth keeping in mind that it's likely that further reserves will become commercially exploitable as technology and demand increases. It's worth keeping in mind that recycling and new battery/photovoltaic technologies will probably reduce the stress on rare earth metals as well, but this is highly dependent on the success of materials like perovskite for photovoltaics, or flow batteries.

This is a WIP of mine, so feel free to comment about how dumb I am or provide other interesting ideas to include.

Conservatives are exactly as retarded on almost all other issues (unless of course your sole motivation for policy is funneling money towards people who already have a lot of money).

The question you're not asking is: how can people be this steadfastly retarded on something if they're supposedly so smart and logical?

>how can people be this steadfastly retarded on something if they're supposedly so smart and logical?
It's the jews, isn't that obvious?

go look for world maps throughout the ages and realize that there was an ice sheet connecting Antarctica to South America that had retreated in the span of like 100 years well before the industrial revolution even started.

Climate change has absolutely nothing to do with humans - from starting it to stopping it, there is nothing you or anyone could do about it.

Climate change is scoffed at, because it is dogma to a group of people whose entire world view is based upon non scientific beliefs, combined with a belief in increased state intervention and taxation, controlling all areas of everyone's life. To the left, the cause is NEVER really the cause. It is increased control and governmental theft. Anything and everything the leftists do is towards this end. It isn't even a clever scam, only low IQ brainwashed vermin believe any of that climate change bullshit.

we know its real, we just dont care.

die retards.

Nuclear is the future my dude

Climate change scientists-the people who study this shit day in, day out-disagree with you. Why the fuck do you think you know better?

The climate change scientists don't go down to the docks and offer you advice on how to suck cock. They understand that you are a professional. Pay them the same respect.

How can they have enough data to say that mankind is effecting the climate? Not trying to argue, just genuinely curious. Man has been around for a relatively insignificant amount of time in the history of the planet. How can they be sure that the temperature fluxes and all of this aren't part of some regular cycle?

Astrophysicists seem to agree that the universe is 13 some billion years old while also having direct evidence of expansion faster than the propogation of light and time dilation by proxy, which they do not account for. Just cause they have a degree in cocksucking doesn't mean they paid any attention in class and got by with a sloppy no lipped japanese-style blowjob.

eat shit and die you fucking gook

And this is what I get for having trust in posters in this time zone.

I guess the Americas also expanded infinitely to the west, right? Or there was a gigantic amount of continental drift in the meantime, explaining why all the maps look distorted.

Oooor maybe you're making shit up and looking at world maps through the ages does not tell you anything except how much the cartographer knew about the world.

That is, unless you have any writings explicitely mentioning this ice sheet.

So basically, you're reiterating what I've been saying, but falling for the exact thing I've described. In the end, you just ignored what I wrote to dump in order to go "lol I'm so smart I don't believe in climate change it's all bullshit haha".
You should reconsider who the "low IQ brainwashed vermin is".

Alright, so what you're saying is if I I care about my country's future and don't want my country to increasingly become uninhabitable I have to side with the diversity-driven cucks, because you "don't care", leading to my country just becoming uninhabitable through other means.

What kind of crevice do they even find people like you?

Because some kike-controlled republitard told him climate change is bad, so now he's spouting the same shit. Remember, if the lefties say breathe, hold your breath until you suffocate! Really annoying attribute of the american right wing in particular.

Iirc, core samples from glaciers and rock formations can tell you things like CO2 contents and temperature in the past. I'm not exactly sure how it works. In any case, it shows there's a definite correlation between rising CO2 and temperature which works out with the current models, and we're pretty sure we're the cause of the current rise in CO2 (you could probably just calculate how much we produce yourself), so that's how.

Yep, 30 years in the future every time to be more exact.

It's real, and it's happened before in the distant past it's a cyclic kinda thing. How did it happen without mankind & technology?
You cannot find a reputable scientific paper that will attribute 100% of climate change to human sources. No reasonable person who understands geologic climate variations could deny that the earth has indeed been much warmer than it is today for long periods of time.

>It's real, and it's happened before in the distant past it's a cyclic kinda thing. How did it happen without mankind & technology?
Same way, different causes. CO2 increase, leading to feedback loop between CO2 solubility in oceans and H2O in atmosphere, leading to increase in temperature etc. The current rise in CO2 is man-made.

>You cannot find a reputable scientific paper that will attribute 100% of climate change to human sources.
True, but that has to do a lot with taking into account other factors and feedback loops.

>No reasonable person who understands geologic climate variations could deny that the earth has indeed been much warmer than it is today for long periods of time.
Yes, but that does not make it at all desireable nor does it say anything about whether or not the current event is man-made.

There's an interesting parallel to be made with extinction events - there's been plenty of them in the past, but the one that is currently going on is anthropogenic.

the only fucked up thing on old maps is extremely large sizes, not relatively small ones. There being no gap between South America and Antarctica to suddenly there being a gap only a couple miles wide on par with a channel should have convinced you that maybe these old age shitters had some merit if they were even abled to get the general shape of the continents down. And why even assume the americas expanded westward when they could have just as easily fucking sailed around the tip of south america?

Oh right, cause there was an ice sheet there. There was no tip of south america.

Have you considered that for a long time it was simply untenable to sail around the south of America?

Also, I've tried finding maps of the like you mention - starting at the 16th century, unless you want magical maps of South America from before Europeans reached the place - and the closest I can find to what you're saying is this one, and even this one has a crossing if you zoom in.

>The current rise in CO2 is man-made.
bull fucking shit.
mankind has added to global CO2 but we are NOT the ONLY source and I doubt we are the PRIMARY source.

Who gives a fuck? Why would it be a big deal if the Earth becomes a little bit warmer?

>The predictions were wrong
Indeed, they were, since the first models were flawed. They have since been corrected and even the old models, when adjusted for new knowledge about the climate, accurately predict temperature change.

Link to these models? How were they changed specifically? What did they do wrong/not take in effect? What if they show to be wrong again in 10 years?

It's real People cause it but we're not contributing anywhere near as much as the left tells you we do. The co2 we emit isn't the cause of the temperature rise. It's mostly the earth doing what the earth does. We however should do something about the plastic in the ocean fishing too much etc.

way too intelligent thinking for this board, better join le kek army.

belgian faggot.

My dad said he'd sell me to your kind if I wasn't a good boy

I like how your graph goes up to 300 ppm CO2 but we are at 400 ppm right now, so it fits right in with the date - what is happening is basically unprecedented in near history.

And yes, we are the primary source, or do you think when you start up your car the petrol transforms into magical pixie dust? At 0.77 kg/liter, your 11 liters of gasoline for your 100 km trip (which is mostly carbon) will have around 7 kg of carbon, which, at decent efficiency, translates to around 24.5 kg of CO2 emitted per 100 km. Let's just look at Australia for a second
roymorgan.com/findings/australian-moterists-drive-average-15530km-201305090702
At how much they're driving, the average motorist in Australia produces 3.8 tons of CO2 a year, at least, and you already have nearly 59 billion tons of CO2 from just one country. To put that in kg, it's around 5.8x10^13 kg of CO2 a year. Being really generous and saying it's only 10 times that overall, you get to 5.8x10^14 just for cars.
For comparison, right now the atmosphere is 400 ppm CO2, or 0.04%. Wiki states the total mass of the atmosphere at 5.5x10^18 kg. That means that in total, there is around 2x10^15 kg of CO2 in the atmosphere. See where this is going?

I don't have a link handy, and at 3:27 AM I cba to look for the models I'm talking about, but the issue was with the numbers for the H2O feedback - they overstated how much the H2O in the atmosphere would increase, hence faster rise. I'll probably find and add this in to my file and post this sort of thread again tomorrow.

Jesus I swear, I could write a thousand things and only one out of 10 people would read it, why do I even bother? You've already been brainwashed into your left-environmentalist right-not shit. At this point I'm starting to suspect shills considering how low effort these posts are, surely no one just comes to a thread so he can write 3 sentences as a reply to a 5 post OP, right?

I can see that, I'm going to go to sleep and reread the thread tomorrow after it expires. Going to post a better written OP. Wish me luck, mister russian toothpaste.

Look, the price of gypsy slaves has fallen in Romania in the last 200 years, so I'm not sure he'd find many buyers unless he took the time to chop you up for organs himself.

The argument I use is as follows:
True believer:why don't you believe in man made global warming you crazy heretic, are you an unscientific retard?

Me:ok let me ask you about science. Is there scientific proof that the earth has been extremely colder for long periods before now?

True believer:yeah, of course, ice ages, duh.

Me:how did the ice ages end?

True believer:the earth warmed up, Wtf are you trying to do to me? My life depends on putting plastic in a special bin and driving a pussy car.

Me:idk, just trying to figure something out. Is there scientific evidence that the earth has been extremely hotter for long periods before now?

True believer:yeah, duh, you are so stupid, ever heard of the Eocene period retard? It was so warm there was no ice anywhere.

Me: wow, this science is amazing. Does that kind of stuff happen a lot on earth? It seems so stable right now.

True believer:yeah, duh the earth is like billions of years old and humans have only been here for like a few hundred thousand. There have probably been many cold and hot periods. You don't read very much do you?

Me: I read a little. How do these other hot and cold periods happen?

True believer: why do I have to explain so much to you? you are so beneath me. Scientists have postulated many different reasons from slight changes in orbit, changes in strength of solar radiation, comet impacts, tectonic or volcanic activity.

Me: so let me get this straight, science knows for sure that earth has been repeatedly either warmer or colder than now, these periods have changed back and forth for reasons that science cannot figure out, these changes occurred mostly before science has evidence of humans, but science is now 99% settled and certain that man is the cause of the warming on earth since the last little ice age?

True believer:uhhhhh

So you mean, when you change the values after the fact, they become accurate for past values? And how does that make the people that said these models were wrong, wrong?

good luck with the un-winnable battle; let's hope someone intelligent who can manipulate dumb masses leads European culture to new golden age with preserving out culture and without destroying the planet.

I have reconsidered who the low IQ, brainwashed vermin is. After careful thought and consideration, it is still you.

Most nationalist groups are just totally lacking in self-awareness. If they accepted climate change, abortion and weed, they would win probably every election and be able to severely limit immigration easily. But they have to take on these retarded social issues and insure that winning elections is an extreme uphill battle.

Ah, brilliant analysis and insight from someone who doesn't know the difference between "ensure" and "insure". A grant getting climatologist for sure.

You know, as a thing, turning it all into a "true believer/look I'm very smart" thing does not sell your point very well.

I also like your avoidance of mentioning the OP, very nice.

>ice ages
Not quite good for agriculture are they? Just like warmer climate isn't going to be good for agriculture.

>Eocene
Distinct note we don't live in the Eocene and don't share the same biosphere as it. There was also a time when the earth's surface was partially molten, doesn't make it desireable.

>stuff happens a lot
Again, doesn't mean it's fine or good.

>lol it happened once without humans being a factor so every time it happens it definitely has no anthropogenic reasoning no matter how much evidence you find for it

I don't know what I expected, self-awareness is usually in high shortage in low IQ, brainwashed vermin like you.

It's sad, really, which is why I highly suspect foul play. Heck, look at this thread - I don't post a lot at this time zone, but in my experience it's rare to have so many defiant replies not mention the OP or any other response, act in a void separate of the OP AND keep the narrative going.

This is when I wish I had the "haha I see you have a typo therefore your opinion is invalid" image.

Do you have the CO2 and Temperature chart that goes back to the carboniforous era? It shows temperature and CO2 are not correlated.

I don't, care to post it? Really interested, though I do have some objections to going that far back cropping up.

>Why then, are so many right-wing groups against climate change?
because if you plant 1 trillion trees, all of the carbon would be gone from the atmosphere. yet, no one pushes this solution--they push world one government, social engineering and reliance on technologies that have not even been invented. also, "scientific consensus" is intellectual authoritarianism similar to the first 5 commandments, so if I see this argument, I tend to stop reading there. the scientific method is a loop--not a line

perhaps non-believers are so terrified that they can't allow themselves to accept the reality that we are past the point of no return despite the overwhelming evidence?

kind of like that story where people in several villages are warned about an inevitable and inescapable eruption of the nearby volcano that would absolutely destroy the village at the base and just damage the one a few miles further out. the villagers at the base refused to accept it but the villagers further out were terrified.

i probably told that wrong, but i couldn't remember or find on google exactly how the story goes.

>Many on this board and in many right wing communities have a tendency to deride climate change - either by saying it's not happening or that it isn't manmade.

I'm always the odd man out... Why'm I always the odd man out?

I believe it is happening AND I don't care about it.

>climate change
Is a hoax. And if it's not, who cares? Whites are going to be gone in a few generation anyhow. Who the fuck cares about the environment among the non-white communities? None of them.

Fuck off kike.

>Climate change: The idea that redistribution of wealth will cool the planet.

Watermelons, green on the outside red on the inside.

When you can come to grips with pic related being wrong and the reasons for it being wrong we can talk.

They don't like what leftists propose to do to 'solve' it: cap-and-trade bullshit in the West, and self-flagellation of developed countries so that shitskins can burn as much as they want.
And most mainstream conservatives are just capitalists in the West, meaning they suck always oppose regulation and oppose imposing new ones. So right-wingers adopt the same positions to avoid cognitive dissonance.

Lolbertarians just don't give a shit about anything but their own property, and they should be gassed in this regard.

Ok, let my copy/paste from Quora the answer from Richard Muller - Prof Physics, UC Berkeley, author "Now, The Physics of Time" (Sept 2016)

"In my opinion you should believe neither. Alarmists about climate change are not presenting “science” even if they have Ph.D.s, and President Trump is equally non-scientific.

Not everything said by a scientist is science, and not everything said by a President is science. (The latter claim more evident than the former, but both are true.)

Ironically, science is supposed to be open and objective, and something you can judge on your own. You are not supposed to “believe” someone because of credentials, whether the credentials are degrees or number of published papers or holding the highest political office in the country.

Unfortunately, there is no easy solution if you are unable to judge scientific papers yourself. Your only recourse is to listen to what all sides say, and try to find people that sound the most objective and thoughtful, and who have clear answers to the arguments of others."

>Wikipedia

This is either bait or you are the kind of person that can only express himself through words like "wow", "idk", "wtf", "duh" and "extremely hotter". In which case as you call yourself repetitively you are a bit of a "retard" and are not expected to believe in climate change over Alex Jones lizard people theories.

Also richard Muller:


"Definitely yes! I have exactly such a skepticism, and I regard it not only as “healthy” but essential for anyone who considers himself to be objective.

Based on the extensive work of our non-profit and independently funded BerkeleyEarth.org, I conclude that global warming is real and caused by human-emitted greenhouse gases. However, there is no compelling scientific result that indicates temperature variability is increasing, that hurricanes (severe or not) are increasing; no good evidence that hurricanes or tornadoes are increasing; and the increase in droughts and floods appears to be more of a consequence of our increased insurance coverage, not a physical phenomenon.

Anyone who completely dismisses climate change is not being objective; anyone who completely dismisses the skeptics arguments, is not being objective. Climate change is subtle and complicated.

Similarly for “solutions”. For example, electric autos do not really address the problem, since most of the electricity in China comes from coal; they produce more carbon dioxide than does gasoline. For all solutions, it is essential to apply a serious skepticism.

It is a scientist’s duty to be skeptical. Any scientist who doesn’t retain substantial skepticism on this subject is not behaving in the classic mode of science."

it is real but it isnt manmade, it was bound to happen eventually.

its like finding a house on fire then pouring gasoline on it, we didnt cause the problem but we sure as fuck arent helping

...

>and without destroying the planet.
K Y S
This is the kind of rhetoric that makes this conversation pointless. Even if it is manmade, even if all the ice melts, the life on this planet would be just fine.
Also, if humankind can heat up the earth by accident, how hard is to cool it down on purpose? We already have the technology if we want to cool down the earth.
bbc.com/news/science-environment-24033772

Please explain this

Temperature should be +15, it really seems like there is an upper threshold on CO2 Saturation if Our temperature is not +15 degrees at 400ppm

...

...

...

Wow, your posts are low quality, even for low IQ vermin like yourself. Your lack of wit is exceeded only by your lack of integrity. You really need to get a brain transplant from a nigger to boost your IQ a bit. Maybe you can claim that climate change is causing low IQs in Romania, using yourself as evidence, and get a government grant for the procedure. Your habit of echoing is something that young children with mental handicaps employ.

Sure, you see this flaw, but that does not undermine what I am asking - why against the IDEA of climate change? Why don't they push these policies? Why do they speciffically attack the idea instead? Why do they allow the left to have a monopoly?

>also, "scientific consensus" is intellectual authoritarianism similar to the first 5 commandments, so if I see this argument, I tend to stop reading there. the scientific method is a loop--not a line
Two points I have to make
1) Scientific consensus is not a single body, but multiple
2) I've speciffically avoided appeals to authority, if you've read my rant, but to be fair it wasn't the main point of it.

Another one to add to the list of shills, at least you bothered replying to the OP.

I don't see where you're going, are you another "environmentalism is socialism" retard/shill or are you actually trying to make a point?

>They don't like what leftists propose to do to 'solve' it: cap-and-trade bullshit in the West, and self-flagellation of developed countries so that shitskins can burn as much as they want.
Again, this isn't what they're doing - most are outright denying.

Yeah, this is a big issue even I have with climate change. I try my best to make up my own mind from actual data, which makes things quite hard to parse.

Oh no, I took the easy route. I'm the devil now because I mentioned my source was wikipedia. Maybe I shouldn't have mentioned at all, or maybe I should've taken the 5 seconds to click on the reference and cite that to make myself sound smart, but I took the honest route and mentioned I took it from wikipedia to make others aware that it might be a flawed number and should be taken with a huge grain of salt for what amounts to a back of the envelope calculation.

Useful, but I'm going to put this on reading for tomorrow desu.

Hmm, lag in the H2O feedback loop? It's interesting, going to look over it.

I'm no scientist lad i just listened to what a professor of geology told me last sunday. jeez i admitted it's real and we partly cause it not like most leftist are experts on the subject i'm just a average guy sharing how i see it. It's not like the average leftist would have arguments beyond snow is melting, animals are dying, bill nye told me this etc.

Not a typo. You don't even know what THAT is. Wow, are you dumb. I and E are no where NEAR each other on the keyboard. It is a use of the wrong word, in a place where a supposedly smart person like you should know the difference. Typo. Ha ha ha. What an idiot.

Read it
quora.com/What-are-some-widely-cited-studies-in-the-news-that-are-false/answer/Richard-Muller-3

To illustrate my point, see some of the posts:
A lolbertarian vehemently opposed to any state action, but also note how he has a knee-jerk reaction against any leftist idea. Caution is necessary for us, obviously, but some of us tend to take it too far and reject 'other' ideas out of hand.

Another lolbertarian.

Again, this guy is wary of leftist """solutions""" and associates climate change with them, rather than addressing it from a right-wing perspective.

And this dumbfuck thinks we have a way to find out what the atmosphere's composition was millions of years ago. The graph is literally made up numbers.

The point is that it has happened many times for various reasons, all of which are far bigger than any human influence. The sun could start going into a minimum ouput period tomorrow and you would be on here telling everyone to burn as much as possible. Don't get tangled up in these cults, son

There is no point in doing anything if we can't bring China and India into line, which we can't so fuck anyone trying to tax us for it.

the real climate pill:

youtube.com/watch?v=SXxHfb66ZgM

You entire argument was ad hominem as such I will reciprocate.

Just because you had a hard day at the shoe factory and are intimidated by the fact that your unskilled labour can easily replaced by immigrants who do it better and cheaper.

Doesn't mean you have to take the anger of getting fired out on the "globalists" who you perceive to be taking away your job.

I get it it's a changing world and you're too bigoted and simple-minded to understand so you get overwhelmed resulting in anger.

The language was a parody of the typical academician with superiority complex...dumbass.

I don't see anything wrong with extremely hotter. Please explain.

Again lacking with the self-awareness, typing angrily about ad hominems while failing to produce more than 5 incoherent sentences.

Did they stop paying shills by the character?

It's called phoneposters senpai, they have this retarded thing called autocorrect they sometimes forget to turn off. I would've had the same complaint.

And the point I'm making is it doesn't matter if it happened thirty times by other causes if we have evidence it happened anthropogenically.

China and India are already investing heavily in renewables. India is probably one of the biggest importers of solar panels right now, and China is the second biggest producer of electric cars. At this point I don't think the issue is India and China anymore.

Is this the fabled "I was only pretending to be retarded" retort?

You have no understanding whatsoever of geological timescales. The climate changes naturally over thousands of years, not decades.

It's the equivalent of breaking apart Michelangelo's David because "lol erosion would've happened anyway, and I need the marble."

>At this point I don't think the issue is India and China anymore.
You are thinking wrong then. I now disregard anything else coming from you.

I'm sorry for hitting your wrongthink trigger.

I think it's clear that the only complex going around is your inferiority one.

>unskilled labour can easily replaced by immigrants who do it better and cheaper

Not samefag obviously but bullshit. I used to do piece work assembling auto parts in a plant in London and slowly witnessed the staff being replaced by immigrants. All of them couldn't follow instruction because they had poor english, those who could speak english were as unmotivated as your typical Canadian born youth only born in another countries, and once they brought in a second manager to help with communications things turned into a total cluster fuck as the two supervisors couldn't communicate well with eachother either. Hiring immigrants fucks shit up, least from what I witnessed

>I don't see where you're going, are you another "environmentalism is socialism" retard/shill or are you actually trying to make a point?

Tell me why every predicted model was wrong and then explain why I should belive anything "climate scientists" say after that.

Also give me a solution to this problem that isn't socialism/communism, please... pretty please.

So, I assume you believe that if an ice age began to start now instead of the warming that is supposedly anthropogenic, it would be our responsibility to try to stop it? Or would it suddenly be that we were now actually causing the ice age?

Whether it's true or not there has been no solution presented that will fix it.

>Again, this guy is wary of leftist """solutions""" and associates climate change with them, rather than addressing it from a right-wing perspective.

That is the perspective I'm coming from toolbag, give me one solution that isn't some lefty wet dream and I'll be more inclined to belive it.

>The graph is literally made up numbers
you do know where the "made up" numbers are coming from, or are you just trolling?

You do realize that like any predictive model, they are subject to new data which requires the model be updated right? Go back and read articles from the 1980s and 90s, you'll find that there weren't as many 'alarmists' as you'd expect. Typically a scientist who makes a ground breaking discovery doesn't take it to the press, they publish it in a journal for academic review

Sometimes it happens much quicker than thousands of years. Maunder minimum got colder and then warmer again in a period of three hundred years or so and scientists can't say what caused it and there were scientists alive during the time.

Do yourself a favor Leaf google "climate change scientists fudge the numbers"

>Charts
Irrelevant when the data they are based on was simply penciled in by activist bureaucrats at NASA and NOAH under Obama. There is literally no science behind this, it's all computer modeling based on corrupt data. KYS.

You do realize the Maunder minimum you are refering to, the only one we currently have on record only lasted 70 years right?

You do realise that he's in the wrong field of science. He's nobel prize was in electromagnetism. He has as much expertise and credibility on this topic as anyone else on this board. A quote from him
"I am not really terribly interested in global warming. Like most physicists I don't think much about it. But in 2008 I was in a panel here about global warming and I had to learn something about it. And I spent a day or so - half a day maybe on Google, and I was horrified by what I learned. And I'm going to try to explain to you why that was the case."

Basically, Romaniabro, us right-wing environmentalists are an extreme minority. Feelsbadman.
Judging a trend is easy. Quantifying it accurately is hard, and nearly impossible for a system as large as the atmoshpere. If I pour water into a cup and it starts to overflow, you could tell me about the problem, and my smugly saying "but by how MUCH is it overflowing?" wouldn't be a valid argument.

Ice Ages don't just happen out of nowhere, you dense cunt. They take millenia to develop and draw down. If we woke up to glaciers on our doorstep, it would obviously be unnatural.

This is true for politics, actually. The solution will hurt.

The solution involves a lot of nuclear energy as a transition, general efficiency efforts for fossil fuels, and, most controversially, cutting off all gibs to 'developing' subhumans so that they return to carbon neutral tribalism, combined with radical depopulation efforts worldwide. That, or we just find a way to have viable nuclear fusion.
The problem with lefties is that their white guilt makes them give everyone but the West a free pass on the climate, which is pointless.

You talking about the Little Ice Age? That was localized to Europe, mostly.

You do realize you don't have to be an expert in a particular discipline, but be knowledgeable in a field to look at the data and come to an accurate conclusion.

...

No I don't think spending a "half a day or so" on google gives you the same amount of knowledge as a phd in a subject.

Yeah and I guarantee you the sources for most of the articles which would pop up would be from sites run by Fox, creationists, conspiracy theorists, alt-righters and other sites with a clear conservative slant

Thermometers don't lie dude and they've been recorded all over the globe since the 18th century. I can take the numbers and average them out decade over decade and I'd tell you now I'd get the same result as I actually have already done that for midterm papers

It's not hard to come to a conclusion with data. This is exactly the same argument leftists use in their circlejerks of academia.

Now, overseeing an effective solution that requires an APPLICATION of knowledge, that needs a lot of experience.

The true climate pill is that climate change is a hoax perpetuated by the left to divide America and hinder Republican support.
I've talked to several centrists who were conservative in beliefs, but couldn't pull the lever due to the rights "denial" of man-made climate change.
This is one of many issues that conservatives have fully fleshed out arguments for, but due to the scare tactics of "catastrophic" issues, very few people look into.
It is the left that shuts down reasonable debate on the issue.
TL;DR: Muh killer climate change scares people into voting for the left.

the IPCC is funded by people who believe in human-caused climate change without evidence.

Refute these or KYS

You're just falling for the trap where the last 100 years is shown to rise in temperature, without showing all historical data.

Do you wonder why none of the temperatures are shown in hichschool indoctrination? because EVERYONE would grow up thinking, what a load of BS

I didn't really think there was anything to the climate change denier's side until I saw these graphs.

more CO2 = better environment for plant life
your point is invalid faggot
yes humans contribute to climate change obviously, but not on a entire planet scale but a more local scale. ie super shitty air in china cuz pollute more, very goof air in rural places etc
im more worried about the plastic leaking fake hormones into the environment than the temperature change or literally any other shit we take. temperature change means nothing

Yes, Global Warming is such an obvious hoax that all you need to do is apply the Scientific Method you were taught about in High School to it and watch it completely fall apart.

not sure what ur on about, m8

the graph i posted shows 802,000 years of data, showing a correlation between variations in the earth's orbit and the earth's climate

I am sorry to burst your bubble but looking at a few charts on google images or fox news doesn't encompass the field of climatology. You need to understand the methodology and the underlying theory before you can give it a critical look.

There is a documentary with climate scientists who proved that there is no man made relationship with climate change.

>Judging a trend is easy. Quantifying it accurately is hard, and nearly impossible for a system as large as the atmoshpere.
Exactly which is why believing it's man-made is fucking stupid.

>The solution involves a lot of nuclear energy as a transition, general efficiency efforts for fossil fuels, and, most controversially, cutting off all gibs to 'developing' subhumans so that they return to carbon neutral tribalism, combined with radical depopulation efforts worldwide. That, or we just find a way to have viable nuclear fusion.
The problem with lefties is that their white guilt makes them give everyone but the West a free pass on the climate, which is pointless.

good job, now go get a government grant to put that in motion....

If the left is so scared of climate change, they should stop driving cars, live in huts and completely boycott anything else having to do with the effects.

They do not do this so fuck them and fuck the idea of govt. being able to fix anything, climate change least of all.

explain this then.

I don't quite get why you are using a cisgender picture, is it an important term for you? Are you one of those angry multi-gendered ppl that identify as a helicopter?

Please disprove climate change for me using the scientific method without any appeals to authority or ad hominem attacks.