We must instill this idea in the left

The left is in a panic mode. They are flipping out because Trump refused to join that Paris climate agreement...

I have caused serious mental gymnastics in any, and all lefties who I express my idea to.

They come at me with "99% of scientists say..."

My retort was "Scientific consensus is always changing. 80 years ago a lobotomy was praised in science. 50 years ago science said homosexuality was a mental illness"

They are like "Oh your hedging your bets on scientists are wrong. We are all gonna die!"

My retort: "Thousands of nuclear weapons have been tested. We are still here. We couldn't wipe out the planet if we tried. It would severely damage our economy if we were too strictly environmental."

Then they are like "It wouldn't hurt the economy that much..."

Finally I pull out the big guns, and fire this at them for which they have absolutely no way to respond to if they wish to defend all of the leftist talking points:

"Alright then you must be very much against taking in more immigrants or refugees. As you well believe these people quickly acclimate to the new nation within a generation or 2. The great melting pot as they say. More immigrants equals faster population growth. This means more people. This means more pollution. If you truly believe in your environmental ideas you must be against immigration, and want to build a wall. If you are truly for immigration you must not care about the environment enough. So which is it?"

Here they just curl up into a ball, and say "Where is my safe space" while sucking their thumb.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=VNgqv4yVyDw
youtu.be/zQ3PzYU1N7A
politico.com/agenda/story/2017/09/13/food-nutrients-carbon-dioxide-000511
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

>We couldn't wipe out the planet if we tried.
Do deniers think climate change is about the planet exploding?

>Do deniers think climate change is about the planet exploding?

No, we think it's about fluctuating temperatures, and strange weather.

Also "Deniers" is a lefty term. We prefer the term "Level headed realists"

Well, that's also wrong, but less funny. Always love the strawman of the boiling oceans and dying planet.
youtube.com/watch?v=VNgqv4yVyDw

Fair enough - I call evolutionists "lizard huggers" and gravitationists "appleheads", but I guess that's a bit insulting.

fyi the main reason he opposed it had nothing to do with science. the agreement basically makes it so that the US gives billions of dollars to third world countries, all while chinese pollution is completely unaddressed. i don't have the number handy, but the agreement would have an extremely small impact on climate change- laughably small in comparison to how much it would cost us.

>boiling oceans
This is not really a strawman argument.
I have been following the Global Warming issue since the 1980s. Back then they were telling us that there was going to be a 30 degree increase in temperature by 1994 and we were going to have 25 million or more dead from starvation in the USA alone. It never happened so they lowered the bar and moved the goalpost back. Why should I respect a position that shapeshifts to always ensure that I am wrong even when they cannot meet their stated goals?

I love that they celebrate governors and mayors supporting the Paris Agreement, yet can't name one that has done anything.

>Back then they were telling us that there was going to be a 30 degree increase in temperature by 1994 and we were going to have 25 million or more dead from starvation in the USA alone.
I'd be very interested in reading this study and any available response to it from the scientific community. Got a source?

The climatedaddies have a 5 years prediction. If we dont suck up to niggers and let china pollute we will all be dead in 5 years. And we dont do shit this year we will still all be dead in 5 years after.

>fucking SYRIA of all countries opts into PCA
>usa still in denial

this is the only first world country whos conservatives argue with overwhelming scientific evidence and consensus

Do environmentalist thing we, human have power to stop climate change?

*Think

The scientists and research companies that support that narrative and participate in those polls are carefully chosen and funded by the govt. serious conflict of interest.

CO2 is plant food. Vostok ice samples showed that the CO2 levels were 20000 PPB during the last ice age, vs today at 450 PPB.

The correlation between CO2 and the climate is pretty much 0%.

Not if they "believe in science"

At this point, I wish that I had saved it. It was one of the most prominent paperback books on the subject at the time. My grandmother had a copy. There was a big dieoff in the movement when the doom and gloom predictions failed. What we have now is a new generation of "climate science". The new generation has a lot of money behind it and they learned some lessons about keeping the predictions less extreme. The well is poisoned. If we question anything then we get ad hominem attacks. We get 97% of scientists agree garbage. Science is not consensus. Science is not force. Truth should stand on its own merit - such is not the case on this topic.

The climate is always going to change - the main concern is to stop making it massively worse than it would naturally be.

>*tips fedora*

these same type of climate scientists in the seventies said thered be global cooling and mass starvation bc of it and over pop. my dad saved some literature about it also... pretty crazy how theories evolve

youtu.be/zQ3PzYU1N7A
>Science is not consensus. Science is not force. Truth should stand on its own merit
Agreed.

In the 70s the same “scientists” were telling us we were going to cause an Ice Age. They are all political hacks.

Paul Ehrlich flip-flopped. He was an ice ager. There was no real money in that so now he is a global warmer.

and what happens when you debate a right wing person who doesn't want immigration and thinks climate change is legit?

Not to mention your examples about scientists being wrong both pertain to mental illness which isn't easily tested. Climate change is chemical, name something we were wrong about in chemistry 50 years ago.

There was just starting article quoting Stephen Hawking saying the the " world will be on fire" literally ablaze in a couple hundred years time.
You tell us

Sounds like climate change is btfo and will never recover?

>50 years ago science said homosexuality was a mental illness"
This is true though.
Most scientists didn't agree in removing it from the list when they did it.

>Stephen hawking
>Theoretical physicist
>Talking about climate change
What the fuck

I don't see why his goofy opinion on this should be considered relevant.

Maybe it's because he sounds exactly like every other Chicken Little earth worshiping faggot.

Why is it that every leftist political cartoon I see on this board is very far removed from reality?

Just because I don't have a TV?

You are like "Finally I pull out the big guns"

My retort: You're a chillingly stupid person, don't reproduce.

>It would severely damage our economy if we were too strictly environmental."

no it wouldn't.

not being strictly environmental results in the economy failing. Unless it is sustainable it is by definition unsustainable - it cannot be sustained in current form.

>. This means more pollution.
not if we create a sustainable economy.

have you any more straw left to make more men with?

>"Alright then you must be very much against taking in more immigrants or refugees. As you well believe these people quickly acclimate to the new nation within a generation or 2. The great melting pot as they say. More immigrants equals faster population growth. This means more people. This means more pollution. If you truly believe in your environmental ideas you must be against immigration, and want to build a wall. If you are truly for immigration you must not care about the environment enough. So which is it?"

>response:

So you're so fucking retarded on climate science that you want to start banning people? Or, you know, you could stop being stupid and learn how this shit works so we don't fuck up this planet already more than it has been.

We have the knowledge of how a lot of climate works and while we may not be able to predict with 100% accuracy we know there are cause and effect rules.

If your argument is against the Paris accords due to how international laws may effect things at home that's one thing, but if your argument is against the science then you're being disingenuous due to your inability to understand.

climate change was wrong 30 years ago
literally the same field, not chemistry

ah you actually think? but don't read any science. well at least you are on the road to rationality if not there yet.

you just imported a ton of wogs because you couldn't even support welfare, but you have goals for a sustainable economy?

except that China is addressing its problems and is now leading the charge towards a sustainable CO2 level - whereas Trump didn't want to have to force his billionaire coal and oil buddies to loose profits. it isn't about climate change, it is about the money, stupid.

but high co2 leads to faster growth with less nutrient content - so people starve while eating more.

politico.com/agenda/story/2017/09/13/food-nutrients-carbon-dioxide-000511