Politics of climate change/global warming

Why is there such a political divide in relation to a purely scientific issue like anthropomorphic climate change?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=Mcf9CLMQuRQ
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Why is climate change a bad thing? I for one am excited for the opening of the Northwest Passage

global warming =/= climate change
but they want you to think it does.

>pic related

Phrase the question as "how many scientist think that reducing C02 emmisions will reverse global warming?" and these pie charts would be reversed.

Also what is a "scientist"

youtube.com/watch?v=Mcf9CLMQuRQ

>it was warm in the past therefore we should keep burning coal and building oil pipelines that constantly leak and pollute the environment

poor argument

Delete this and purchase my carbon credits, goy

Purchasing my carbon credits is the most efficient way to make it cooler during the summer

Because it was immediately hijacked and used as an excuse for a massive plan to redistribute wealth for a nice little cut.

Maybe if battling climate change was done in such a way as to force businesses to adhere to strict guidelines, rather than allowing to them simply purchase 'carbon credits' to 'offset' their carbon footprint, I would take it more seriously.

Im all for proactiveness, but what we currently do reads more like a jewish scheme to grab for more shekels rather than something that would really help the environment.

Currently all that happens is the businesses with money can pay to simply pollute more.

They havent been protecting the environment, simply comodifying and monetizing it.

Who pays for those?

Isn't it more of a question of scale? I don't think anyone is arguing that human activities having an impact on climate trends. But, the important questions seem to be more nuanced: how much is human activity affecting the climate, and how meaningful is this effect? I don't think there is any such consensus in the scientific community on these questions, OP.

>all global warming scientitst say its real

and all feminists say rape culture is real

and all toyota salesmen think you need a brand new toyota today

and all vegans think you should never consume another animal product again

>anthropomorphic

This word doesn't mean what you think it does.

Lol

He fell for the propaganda

He obviously meant 'anthropocentric'

>purely scientific

G8 b8 m8

>some other totally unrelated groups are being deceitful therefore we should pollute our environment and build leaky oil pipelines and start burning coal again

poor argument

I think you'll be surprised to know that most published analyses of the human contribution put the figure around 100%, some even higher than that (I'll let you work out why).

And also notice the "delayed acquiescence" that's going on here:
you and I both know that not so long ago, the main 'skeptic' position was that the planet was actually cooling (you can sometimes see the remnants of that in certain threads), then the argument was, yes, the planet is warming, but human emissions have nothing to do with it. Now we're slowly edging towards the position that human emissions are indeed warming the planet, but the contribution is small/insignificant/negligible.

I suppose in a few years time, the new position will be that human emissions are indeed responsible but that it's actually to be encouraged because there will be all kinds of wonderful consequences.

Because the science isn't settled.

If climate change were rocket science, we'd be at the point where we knew the properties of rocket fuel, but still didn't understand proper rocket design and how to safely launch to orbit.

The basic premise of climate change is correct. Carbon has a greenhouse effect. Everything else is not proven and is conjecture.

>thinks oil pipelines and coal are ruining the environment

Yeah it's those things we use for energy and energy transfer and not the ships and planes that burn literally thousands of gallons of fuel in an hour that ship 5 cent shirts from china.

you mean anthropogenic not anthropomorphic. That would mean the climate change assumes human form.

I think he meant anthropophagic

>Because the science isn't settled.
It actually pretty much is. It's a fact that golbal temperature is warming. It's a fact that Humans are having a considerable effect.

Now the discussion is the extent of our effect, and the outcomes.

>China does something
>therefore it's ok that we do the same or worse

You guys have the same mentality of a 12 year old child

Don't ask scientists about things that are beyond the capacity of science to measure and especially don't ask them how confident they are about those things.

I know being a leaf and all this is hard for you, but try to do some fucking research into something that isn't related to maple fucking syrup you cunt.

Climate scientists have abandoned attempting to prove causality in regards to man made too so warming and rely on giving made up numbers and variables In to made up statistical programs to randomly generate made up graphs consisting of a snippet of time period

>implying you don't see that fucking red spike at the end
Plz go

I think he meant 'anthropophobic'

because climate "scientists" keep fudging the data and getting caught
most recent is the whole hullabaloo last week over them dropping historical temperatures values in their data to make present day temperatures look warmer by comparison, google
it

I dont tho

Because 5 years ago we were told there was going to be a second ice age any day.

Now apparently it's all about to melt.

>>therefore it's ok that we do the same or worse
Holy fuck you migas con aceite are retarded.

Do you understand how much carbon is released by these ships used for international trade? I am not kidding when I said literally thousands of gallons of fuel per hour.

Why isn't anyone up in arms about that? Clearly, we have to use shitty forms of energy at home that can not provide for the entire country's needs and tax traditional forms of energy.

since you're just going out of your way to be a faggot...

>Because 5 years ago we were told there was going to be a second ice age any day.
by whom? where?

The same reason people won't vaccinate their kids, they're retarded

by the same people saying climate change is real, and everyday, here.

Projections of previous warm periods are notoriously unreliable. Additionally, while rises in temperature such as the medieval worm period were largely confined to specific geographical areas, our present climate crisis is a pervasive, global phenomenon.

>migas con aceite
*migas com azeite

The rest of your post is not worthy enough to address

Your logic is "Hurr Durr someone else does it, that means i don't have to do it"

there's no point in arguing this because the graph is complete nonsense anyway

so you're talking about random people on the street?

>purely scientific

Good one, fagleaf!

No, my point is those things are irrelevant to the amount of pollution caused by international trade. But for some reason, you never hear about anybody wanting to stop international trade, in fact, in the US and Western Europe, it's considered a bad thing when you say you want to make your countries more independent in the manufacturing and energy sectors.
>The Guardian has reported on new research showing that in one year, a single large container ship can emit cancer and asthma-causing pollutants equivalent to that of 50 million cars. The low grade bunker fuel used by the worlds 90,000 cargo ships contains up to 2,000 times the amount of sulfur compared to diesel fuel used in automobiles.
>The recent boom in the global trade of manufactured goods has also resulted in a new breed of super sized container ship which consume fuel not by the gallons, but by tons per hour, and shipping now accounts for 90% of global trade by volume.

Because of the amount of politics in a purely scientific issue.

Because it shows off how corrupted, greedy, and authoritarian our "science" has gotten.

>Climate scientists have abandoned attempting to prove causality in regards to man made too so warming
No they haven't. Have you actually read any peer reviewed studies? Causality is all they look for. You faggots are keeping tons of people out of the Republican party by being retarded on this issue

I never heard that ever. Science has been talking about global warming since the 90s

It's not a science and you should be ashamed of yourself for saying so. (Actually, you should be sentenced to retaking the high school courses where you failed to learn this.)

What is the #1 hallmark of science (every science)?
And where is that found in either branch of climatology?

This is the classic "if you can't fix everything without crushing the economy, don't fix anything" argument

>calls other people's graphs nonsense
>posts an even more ridiculous graph
please, don't do this to us. I don't want us krauts to become the new leafs.

It's almost like the government pays people to agree with it.

care to elaborate why it's ridiculous?

They're changing the narrative to climate change bc man made global warming is bs. So is man made climate change. It will be mainstream that it is bs in 5 years.
And I'm a green guy otherwise, especially for grow local/eat local. But this CO2 thing is bs

These (((scientist))) say whatever they're supposed to stay to keep receiving funding. Biggest changes in climate happened thousands of years before Conspiracies of Green House Gases

the science will be settled when scientists can reliably predict climate changes years in the future, and reliably measure the results.

we have not seen accurate predictions from these scientists. if their older predictions were right years ago, the ice caps would have melted by now.

Your argument isn't against pollution it's literally MUH GLOBAL WARMING, now go pray to the prophet Al Gore dumbshit

Actually not true, CO2 is a by-product of warming temperatures, not vice versa

pls explain

Made up graph. If you don't think carbon levels were higher during the age of the dinosaurs when the entire planet was a greenhouse, then you're a moron.

>400k years ago
Go back further and see.

we would know about the importance of CO2, even if we didn't know anything about its radiative properties, because mother Earth has run this experiment many times in the past and we can read the traces it left in the geologic record like a book.

And there is almost nothing else that illustrates the crucial role of CO2 as the paleoclimate record does.

>purely scientific issue
That's adorable

>Biggest changes in climate happened thousands of years before Conspiracies of Green House Gases
You'll notice there was no intelligent life on earth at that time. Mankind's existence has depended on predictable climate conditions which are now being fucked with. If you want to say that climate change is no big deal because the earth itself will go on, fine, but don't act like it won't massively fuck up human civilization as we have designed it.

>Talking out my ass, the post
Satellite measurements of infrared spectra over the past 40 years observe less energy escaping to space at the wavelengths associated with CO2. Surface measurements find more downward infrared radiation warming the planet's surface.

>Literally NASA data
Oh let me guess, you believe NASA is part of the grand conspiracy to fabricate climate change. Shoo shoo shill.

Because "manmade" climate change is all about taxing & regulating 1st world rich countries to get us all back to the level of 3rd world shitholes.... it is globalism & communism - that is what TPTB & the UN are pushing for

Several reasons:
During earth's past there have been several times when the correlation between CO2 and temperature didn't fit. This does not entirely disprove causality, but it means that there is only a weak correlation between CO2 and temp. In model building/machine learning terms we'd say CO2 is a weak classifier for temperature; it gives a hint, but it's impossible to build an accurate model just based on CO2, which is why all models until now are failing miserably. On this note, there were also cases in the past in which CO2 lagged behind temperature, thus hinting that CO2 is not the main cause of global warming.

Next from a scientific point of view. Most of the data is not really trustworthy, as several climate measurement stations have been torn down in recent years in colder places (e.g. mountains), while new stations have been built in the city, some even next to exhaustion pipes from factories and such. The most trustworthy data is sattelite data. And while this data shows a warming, it doesn't really fit with the narrative that man made CO2 is the reason for the warming. The increase in recent years is not out of the normal compared to the past (see pic), while, as this user has pointed out,
the amount of man made CO2 does not correlate with actual sattelite measured temperature.

Lastly the lobby. With carbon tax, the extreme push for green energies and such, lobbies for the corresponding companies were slowly built up, and they profit most from the recent politics against global warming, many with contact to politicians. If politicians make money from it (the carbon tax is also a massive income), that alone is a good reason to be skeptic.

I conclude that CO2 has probably little to none influence on the actual climate.
Currently the climate might or might not be warming, depending on the credibility of the data, but since mankind is unlikely to be the cause, it doesn't justify all this AGW lobby bullshit.

However, note that this does NOT mean that global warming is definitely wrong. It might be true, however it's unlikely that mankind is its cause.
Also this does NOT mean that pollution is ok. The environment should be protected nontheless, since otherwise we'll get smog like in China.

Pretty sure America is the only country where people think it's made up.

...

>You'll notice there was no intelligent life on earth at that time.
>implying that there is now
wew lad

several points to adress there:
- nobody but complete amateurs expects there to be a perfect correlation between CO2 and temperature. That's because on those timescales, at least 2 other drivers come into play, one major and one minor. The minor one is the position of continents and the albedo that results from that. The major one is the solar luminosity.
And far from showing a negligible or insignificant role of CO2, paleoclimate reveals CO2 to be of crucial importance. I can run through the details if you demand it, but for now I'll settle for this: CO2 is what has allowed the surface temperature of Earth to remain in a comparatively narrow section within the water window, because the increasing solar luminosity has generally been balanced by falling CO2 concentrations.
So CO2 is highly important and I don't think you would be able to find a paleoclimatologist who says otherwise.

- the point about CO2 lagging temperature is also, I'm sorry to say extremely amateurish. I can again run through the details, but in the interest of keeping this short I'll only say this:
A lag between CO2 and temperature is only observed for the glacial cycle in the Southern Hemisphere and this is perfectly consistent with the glaciation-deglaciation mechanism as it is understood today.
Same as before, far from showing CO2 to be of secondary importance, the period you're talking about here also shows CO2 to be absolutely curcial.

- lastly, satellites are NOT the most trustworthy observation platforms.
Again, I can provide more details if challenged, but you can see that purely visually in the different data sets: the two satellite datasets (RSS and UAH) show a much bigger spread of derived decadal trends than the terrestrial monitoring bodies, which essentially give identical trends.
So direct surface measurements > satellites.

P.S: your picture is misleading in two ways:

not only does it come from only a single location (and thus only depicts regional anomaly), but it's furthermore completely omitting the instrumental record of the past century.

Those are problems my graphic (the one you called "ridiculous") doesn't have: Mine is a global(!) reconstruction with the instrumental record (until 2016) added at the end.