Climate change denial is corporate cuckoldry

>Ever since the nineteen-seventies, when scientists began asserting that the burning of fossil fuels was causing the planet to warm, Exxon has been in the vanguard of American corporations attempting to undermine their conclusions. According to public records, Exxon gave tens of millions of dollars to organizations, like the Competitive Enterprise Institute, that challenged the science. Records show that, even while Exxon was publicly denying that the climate was changing, its own scientists had concluded that it was. Naomi Oreskes, a professor of the history of science at Harvard, examined nineteen papers and reports on climate change produced by Exxon scientists between 1999 and 2004, and compared them with a series of essays from Exxon that were periodically published as advertisements in the Times. “Exxon’s scientists were very good,” Oreskes told me. “At the same time that they were telling their bosses that the climate was warming, Exxon was taking ads out in the Times saying that the science was wrong.”

Do you think climate change is a hoax just because the American Left took it up as an issue? Do you think it’s not real just because 1/2 of the two party system - the one most in league with oil businesses - campaigns against climate change policy to please its financial donors? Do you really think this has anything to do with ideology? With being “redpilled”? The idea that a simple distinction of red and blue is a meaningful way to view the world is probably partly a consequence of your broken two-party system, Americans. Team sports politics. Given that so many of you are Naziboos, who would not align neatly, if at all, with either party, I thought perhaps you would have awakened to the fact that a whole world exists outside of the contemporary political bubble.

Climate changes. Weather changes. Global warming caused by men is Jew bait to tax carbon.

Why the fuck would Jews want to tax carbon? Jews own banks and businesses, they lobby government, they don’t work for it. I don’t know to what extent Jews have been involved, if at all, but I don’t know how they’d particularly benefit from it. Do you think the carbon tax will affect families and workers and not just be another minor govt-imposed grievance to big businesses?

If someone wanted to increase government revenue as much as possible there's no way they'd implement a carbon tax:

1. Emissions will eventually decrease as a result of the tax, all profits will be temporary
2. Carbon taxes are politically unpopular the globe over, good luck passing one without losing the next election in a landslide (See 2013 election Australia). Simply raising the corporate tax a few percent is far more politically viable and would have the same effect.

Corporations argue against climate change so they can drill and make money.

Liberals argue for climate change so they can gain super national power and redistribute resources from rich white countries to poor brown ones.

Of the two evils, the first one is lesser.

Conservatives and liberals aren’t the two sole struggling factions and competing interests in the world, not with regard to climate change. I would say the first in your false dichotomy are the greater evil, especially since the problem concerns the whole Earth from which there is so far no escape for us. I also don’t think libs, for all their multiculturalist bullshit, aren’t supportive of climate change policy in some deceptive bid to kill whitey’s economy.

Bump

If there is anything that climate deniers can point to, no matter how frivolous or nonsensical, they will run with it forever. Anything, as long as we can be in denial about the phenomenon and it's causes - because to look at the causes would mean to look into a mirror. And that's the one thing that the masters of mankind have to avoid at all costs.

>climate change denial
very few people actually deny that the climate is changing you emu cuckold.
Most people are labelled 'climate change deniers' because they dispute the severity of the change or the fact that big government regulation in a single country don't really do much for a world-wide problem.

Climate change denial isn't really a thing outside of science-denying Bible belt America. Climate change is something liberal politicians tend to care more about than conservatives, therefore it's some communist scam.

Libertarians are the useful idiots of the (((elite))))

Ultimately it doesn't matter what their intentions are. If they're useful idiots or what.

The point is that giving in to the climate alarmist "do this or you're all going to die" pascal's wager is the same as negotiating with terrorists. It's stupid to do it, because they can always make up some apocalyptic threat unless you do xyz.... and by giving in to it, you only encourage more bullshit.

The biggest mistake when dealing with libshits is to think "if i give in to this, then then everyone will be happy".

No, we need to retain our sovereignty, our Independence, and simply overcome any obstacles in our way. It seems that for the most part, europe and the US will feel a net positive benefit from climate change anyway.

Hey here's a climate policy i can get behind:

Let's destroy the technology and infrastructure of all developing countries and stop feeding them. Reducing their populations will cut carbon emissions way more than a carbon tax.

Because we both know that what it refers to isn’t a minority disagreeing in good faith, but a movement spurred by vested interests. If they could try to deny the whole idea of climate change at all they would (and did) but its about trying to keep as much ground as possible to protect financial interests. Notice the prominent talking point that “human action isn’t responsible” or that “no action will be effective”? Very convenient... Again, it’s not particularly ideological - it’s more like a coverup, except it’s a lot harder to cover up something that affects the whole Earth than it is some river or local water source.

>The point is that giving in to the climate alarmist "do this or you're all going to die" pascal's wager is the same as negotiating with terrorists. It's stupid to do it, because they can always make up some apocalyptic threat unless you do xyz.... and by giving in to it, you only encourage more bullshit.
Perhaps a true assessment of human nature. But consider that sometimes alarmists are right. Shit really does happen. Hysteria is a human fault, but so is complacency. Neither are inherently right or wrong like we’re a part of some moral picture book narrative - sometimes human reactions to things are more justified and somethings they’re less justified.

The climate change thing reminds me of people who warned about the impending European war. Few wanted to believe it, fewer still wanted to act upon the possibility - and for noble and justifiable reasons. But war came, and it took everyone by surprise. The Allies paid a heavy price for their lack of preparation. Part of the problem is that you have allowed climate change to become a “liberal” issue, since you have let Party interests so totally dominate the definition of conservatism. Isn’t that part of the reason Trump was elected? To tell the Republican elite and the neocons and all that waste to fuck off?

Man caused climate change hoax is corporate cuckoldry.

But most big corporations, including petroleum giants like BP, push so-called green technology and the anthropogenic climate change narrative.

This

My point is that as long as we're supporting developing countries to the degree we are, we aren't serious about climate change and i'm not going to support any measures.

As long as we have this extreme immigration of people from 3rd world countries to high carbon emitting first world countries, we aren't serious about climate change.

If the liberals care so much, let them show me they're serious. The truth is, they aren't serious. It's a sham.

>Why the fuck would Jews want to tax carbon?
Because everything organic emits carbon, so carbon taxes provides increased control and is very lucrative; also carbon credits will act as a crypto-currency allowing financial institutions and transnational conglomerates to more easily launder money across borders.

But the no action will be effective 'talking point' is completely spot on.
IF climate change is as severe as every fucking alarmist says - which I really fucking doubt since every major prediction like melted icecaps, or extinct polarbears, or ice age by 2000, sea level rising by meters etc. hasn't happened - then even if we make so Europe AND America have 0 ecological footprint we still have Africa, India and China to shitting up the planet which will only become worse as more and more of thep lanet enters modern era

>modern governments and NGOs having good long-term planning
>things that ever happen
Pick one and only one.

>backwards north american worldviews

None of the models of the global warming alarmists can come close to accurately predicting actual temperature trends.

Nah. They were still working on over population in 70s. Nuclear winter came after. It was the late 80s after a heat wave they dreamed up politicizing the weather. They have had 30 years of prediction and NONE of them have come true. They have been caught in fraud so many times it's ridiculous. I'd sooner buy a car form a used car salesman who has tattoos on his face.

Hell, not too many years ago there was a major scandal over the ICC upwardly revising raw temperature data to try and fit their failed warming models.

Climate change is not even the biggest issue tho lmao.

Microplastics in the food chain that are small enough to build up in are organs are a much bigger threat, as well as massive increase of respiratory problems such as asthma and allergies since the industrial revolution.

Inhaling industrial byproduct literally kills people.

Carbon monoxide poisoning from cars is a way people actively commit suicide, and yet non electric cars are still legal and people don't give a fuck.

If you took all the chemicals that are in a cigarette and burned them in a jar beside someone you could be charged with attempted murder!!!

There is a new content twice the size of Texas in the middle of the Pacific Ocean made entirely out of plastic debris and ur worried about the FUCKING WHETHER! !!

Give me a break. If our oceans die, guess what. WE ALL FUCKING DIE.

The survival of the human race is not a political issue. Politicians don't give a fuck about anything except the survival of there own power.

They will pander to voter demographics during election Cycles but when it comes down to actions all they do is support the interests of their corporate sponsors so they can secure funding for the next election.

Even the king of cucks Trudeau hasn't done jack shot for any environmental cause.

Carbon tax is an obvious cash grab and everyone knows any big companies who would be negatively affected will receive massive government subsidies to stay in Canada.

The Paris accord meanwhile is more of an "I'm doing sonething" badge for virtue signaler's

This is FUCKING PATHETIC the survival and continuation of the human race should not be brushed off or forgotten.

This is not up for debate! Our survival is the single most important thing and Noone does any shit about it because we are too FUCKING greedy and like our plastic disposable lifestyles and polluting machines that are literally killing us and are used as suicide devices by literally just turning them on.

SAD.

you are using the laziest memes for the cheapest purposes

(btw because my graph only goes up to 2015 and 2016 was warmer than 2015 by a large margin, the temperature anomaly is actually in the upper half(!) of the CMIP5 ensemble).

There is absolutely nothing alarming, extraordinary or damning about atmospheric carbon levels, global temperature and their trend lines into the future. You're merely a dogmatic believer pushing your brand of secular millenarian eschatology.

WTF is wrong with you? Nobody ever said the climate wasn't changing; the argument is about WHY it's changing.
Stop watching your lord god MSM.
You utter fucking goon.

Because liberals are flawed and not willing to make hard decisions that would contradict their own ideological bubble the entire enterprise isn’t worthwhile? They’re suffering the same syndrome that politicians in bed with industrialists are. It’s a pragmatic cowardice mixed with self-interested lack of forward thinking. If the people you represent are gonna be fucked over by something it doesn’t matter as long as they don’t see it coming for now and will keep you sitting comfortably in the meantime. That’s the same attitude driving the mass immigration push.

Sup Forums has asked and Sup Forums shall receive. We will have our happening. I just wonder if it will really be so cathartic as it is in our collective, home-safe imagination.

No one ever debated that evolution was happening! They just debated *how* it’s happening. For instance, I think evolution can only occur within a species and that it can’t change something from one species to another. But I still believe in it!!!

Either:
1,) Climate change is a really serious issue and we're fucked - thus even regulating us back to stone age is not enough unless we glass/genocide majority of human population, especially the ones who are only about to bring the fitlh that mass private-car ownership is into their country
2.) Climate change is nowhere as serious as alarmists and profiteers say (notice how every prominent person worried about the planet owns 10 McMansions and flies around in private jets) and we don't need to further expand the power of already bloated governments and just need to raise awareness and encourage more ecological living and spending
That is the entire reason why I'm even in this thread, gotta make up your mind.

I still can't fathom why you give a fuck about climate chage when a majority of human activity serves to promote an environment that cannot support life.

Isn't that more important?
Why should I give a fuck about climate change?

This does not affect human survival. There are things that do.

You're flat wrong on that statement. Probably the only time in all of Earth history that atmospheric composition changed in a faster pace was when a meteor the size of Mount Everest collided with this planet at the end of the Cretaceous.

Even the most extreme hyperthermals in the Paleogene (which are associated with huge increases in the concentration of greenhouse gases) and were accompanied by ocean acidification, transient dwarfism of animals, increased insect herbivory, local ocean anoxia, terrestrial ecosystems getting kicked around etc. - those had carbon injection rates an entire order of magnitude slower than at present and onset-durations of millennia, not two centuries.

If you think there is nothing alarming about trying to forcefully bring about an unprecedented hyperthermal in the biggest geophysical experiment in the history of the Cenozoic, then I think you're being highly irresponsible with both human civilization and the only living creatures we know to share the universe with.

>“human action isn’t responsible”
It isn't. The Medieval Warm Period had less glaciation and higher average temperatures than the current warming trend, centuries before human industrialization occurred. The current warming trend is completely consistent with coming out of the "Little Ice Age". Hell, your little fucking human-caused global warming settled science narrative can't even begin to account for the Little Ice Age, the Medieval Warm Period, and various radical shifts in climate that occurred in human prehistory and early history.

>Because liberals are flawed and not willing to make hard decisions that would contradict their own ideological bubble the entire enterprise isn’t worthwhile?

No, I'm talking about judging their sincerity. This situation has all the indicators of being a con.
I think none of us really knows the fact of what is going to happen. Can you give me a cost benefit analysis of a carbon tax? No.

Rationality is not driving the push for this legislation. It's a con It's political posturing.

>Probably the only time in all of Earth history that atmospheric composition changed in a faster pace was when a meteor the size of Mount Everest collided with this planet at the end of the Cretaceous.
Wrong. And one abstract of one paper is hardly overwhelming evidence.

so what times do you suggest had faster carbon injections and what is your evidence for that?

How fucking stupid are you? Not 10 years ago the debate WAS whether global warming was happening. You cunts are always moving the goalposts.

Calling it: the retarded republican talking point in 2025 will be: 'yes global average temperatures are dangerously high due to fossil fuel use, but thats not whats causing all these hurricanes'

Than what? Than now?

yes

There is no dramatic increase in the number and intensity of hurricanes, despite narratives you may see on Talmudvision.

See chart linked in the post you originally quoted and the sources.

>you can't be a corporate cuck for Chinese solar power companies
>""Australian"" flag
I wonder who's behind this post.

...

what time interval do these sources suggest had a faster rate of carbon injection than now?

freedom belongs to the people, not to corporations!