If it was truly a scientific issue it should not be politicized at all, so why does the far left insist that it is happening while conservatives take a more nuanced view?
My own theory is that leftists use global warming as a kind of blank slate upon which they project their own personal insecurities about their own future. And as most of them will not be leaving behind a genetic legacy that future is pretty bleak.
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
youtube.com
news.nationalgeographic.com
usnews.com
defense.gov
theguardian.com
colorlines.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
>whats wrong with politics around environmentalism
The timeless saying good intentions pave the road to hell. The Left is right but wrong in getting to the end result. The Right is wrong in end result but correct in saying we need to take nuanced steps to achieving that goal.
Reality is both are shit. One doesn't want to kill their golden goose, the other just wants to throw everything into chaos just so they get a few good feelings out of it.
>at die day
w-what happens at die day
Yes but we don't have to accept the leftist premise that the world is in deadly danger. In fact the whole environmental movement is not even grounded in reality and now promotes lies to justify its existence.
Nah, bro, it's more utilitarian than that.
Notice how every "solution" involves massive new taxes and regulation? How they never explain exactly how these taxes are going to make the world colder? (A few of the zealots might blurt out that the point is to make the masses poorer and thus less carbon-emitting). How it involves making poor people ride the bus while they jet around to one conference after another? How when someone points out that all their proposed measures will have essentially zero impact on the climate - even according to their own estimates - they say we must do them anyway?
For some it's a cult, for others it's a racket, for the bovine masses it's just virtue signaling.
it serves as substitute for religion. michael crichton was the first to point that out
Most people need some kind of religion, and the unquestioning belief in global warming satisfies this. It makes them feel like they are a good person because they believe in something and take small steps to fix it.
They predict doomsday if we "sin" by using carbon. Sounds a lot like the crazier Christians like WBC.
Because they are worried that if we do not take action sooner rather than later, we will end up paying far more to correct the damage than if we'd just prevented the damage in the first place.
I know it's a bit difficult for an economic illiterate like yourself to get your head around, but there you go.
Why did the girl in middle have to turn around and ruin the whole fucking shot.
I had no idea Michael chrichton thought that. Pretty neat
>If it was truly a scientific issue it should not be politicized at all
Tell that to the fossil fuel companies that have a vested interest in it being politicized and slowing down a shift from fossil fuels to renewables
>While conservatives take a more nuanced view
You mean flat out denying anthropogenoc global warming?
There's absolutely 0 debate on the reality of it, and there hasn't been for a while.
The only debate now is how do we slow it down/reverse it, and THAT is political. Do we leave it to individuals, governents, corporations, carbon credits, carbon tax, do we finally stop fossil fuel companies from stifling renewables, etc etc
Because the only way to fix it (according to them) is for the government to do something. Naturally that would involve
1. High taxes, specifically a carbon tax
2. Punishing "evil" oil corporations
3. more industry regulations
Everything the left loves and wants more of.
It was going to be a tax on the very air we breathe. Muh shekels.
>aT diE day
WTF
Should we pay now for a future alien invasion too?
damn what a butterface
also, climate change is a scam
Global warming theory is tied directly to the globalist hope of uniting the planet under one banner, one bank and one ruling elite. It's a key part in bring humanity together for another common cause, despite it being a fraud.
Leftist media is just doing what it's told basically. The rhetoric for supporting such a theory is incredibly weak, but you know the saying. Repeat the lie enough and everyone will believe it.
anything that makes the civilized world PAY whilst the shitskins/non-whites of the world continue shitting up the planet
Global warming is a myth, climate change is not.
huge tax benefits and the ability to be holier than thou
It is a way to stop the utility companies and corporations from jewing us.
Wrong.
Way to lie about it and prove the point.
1: Secularized Christian narrative of original sin of Man (pollution) that all must repent for fiinds great traction among leftists.
2: Better, it's a sin that can be paid for by the elite with indulgences (carbon credit)
3: Get to brutally tax a necessary commodity (petrol) until "the climate stops changing".
It's because the "Green" industry has been conjured up to meet a demand that doesn't exist. It's classical Kikery 101, kvetch about a "problem" endlessly - then use the media and state to generate funds for it. Crash your companies, go bankrupt and profit. Lather rinse repeat. Global warming is a scam - follow the money.
It was politicized by al gore. Indeed fossil fuel interests responded.
That doesn't stop a shit ton of people treating this as the #1 political issue. A lot more of them are on the left.
have you seen this?
Wish I could find a better chart.
Basically liberals with no other worry in the world tend to latch onto global warming as their reason to vote liberal.
BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRTTTTTTTTTTTTT
Stop it. Al gore isn't some boogeyman leader of a hippie cult, he's an ex politician turned activist who's crusade is climate change.
He's not an authority, and people attacking him makes no sense.
The vast majority of climate scientists all around the world, from different countries and institutions, all agree thay mankind is the main driver behind the rapid increase in global average temperature.
This objective issue has been politicized by fossil fuel companies, and there is an extensive paper trail to prove it.
Every single high profile dissenter on this topic can be traced back to some institute or group giving them funding, which also receives funding indirectly from fossil fuel companies.
These dissenters, while making a tiny tiny minority, are constantly portrayed in 1 on 1 debates in media, creating a false depiction of what scientific stance is on the matter
it was global cooling 10 years ago, don't believe their bullshit
>everyone who agrees with me refuses to debate it
>therefore there is no debate
Fucking classic.
the NE of america set record low temps this last week, but we are in a global warming cycle.............ok,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, the sun dictates the weather, but liberals refuse to think that anything they can't control affects them
Global warming is the final boss of conspiracy thereory
>global
Well. You are half right.
I talk about al gore because his presentation was an absolute insult to science. Correlation is not causation.
I actually do believe in agw but pieces of shit like him have polluted the debate. Now I have non scientists trying to argue science to me like it's their religion.
The world isn't in danger.
Humans are.
The world will get on just fine.
It's not just a political issue. The military considers global warming to be the most significant threat to national security and stability. The Pentagon is terrified of climate change.
Get learned.
defense.gov
theguardian.com
So you can say whatever you want about personal insecurities and genetic legacies.
People who are actually in charge of preparing for catastrophes are afraid, and you're just a silly philistine trying to project a false sense of masculinity on Sup Forums.
>tens of thousands of scientists specializing in the field of climate science hold a unanimous position through scientific consensus vs a plucky band of a couple hundred dissenting oil-payed scientists who specialize in fields completely unrelated to climate science
>There's a debate
The only debate now is policy moving forward, and I don't really have a strong position on that except that we have to do something
The theory behind global warming is sound. Th epredictive models have shown themselves to be shit though - so the actual extent of human influence and what would be reasonable things to do should remain a discussion.
Somehow the current left just have gotten their hands on of this possibly real big time trouble to use as a boogeyman to force their own specific brand of global totalitarianism. For some reasons always their "solutions" involve more and more centralized control over everybody. Also for some reason they also seem to involve fucking with western countries and their population while demanding their resources to be spread around for some retarded meme-projects in some cannibal infested jungle countries.
>corellation is not causation
Unless there's ample evidence to support it. Which there is.
Al gore said the arctic would be gone by 2013. He was wrong. However, the arctic has been rapidly diminishing, and its rate of loss was predicted by actual climate scientists.
He's one guy, and he's not an authority on the subject. And he said some erroneous things, but he still happens to be taking a position that is correct
The frequency of record breaking cold temps is dropping, and the frequency of record breaking hot temps is drastically rising
The universally agreeable way to move forward is renewables, a border wall, deportations, and ending aid to Africa.
Lefty environmentalism will be a fucking joke so long as they support illegal immigration.
Global warming is happening, it’s obvious it is. It’s a cycle that’s happened before and it’ll happen again. The stance of “its solely humans fault” is nonsense as much as “LOL FAKE NEWS ITS A LIE” is.
Humans didn’t start global warming, but we have contributed to it.
Models are actually fairly congruent with measurments
How does illegal immigration affect climate change?
And yea you're definitely gonna want to build a wall when the middle east becomes uninhabitable.
Kuwait reached temperatures of 54°C for multiple weeks last summer
My point is the retarded way in which most people argue, using anecdotes like hurricane Harvey. Not even hurricane scientists said global warming was the issue. Engineers will also point out this simple law of thermodynamics - in theory global warming actually weakens hurricanes.
>our measurements agree with us
alrighty then lmao
Lets go genius, treat me like a child:
How are humans contributing to climate change?
Pic related
>treat me like a child
If that's what you're in to.
Greenhouse gas emissions
Americans use MUCH higher carbon per capita than Mexicans. When they move to the US they increase emissions.
I have zero respect for environmental groups at this point because of this.
colorlines.com
There's no rational explanation for this. Environtalism is leftist,
Ok, but doesn't that kind of seem like a superfluous thing to worry about? I mean if you yourself acknowledge the reality of AGW then what does it matter that some people are being retards about it?
I for myself welcome global warming
At least it will get warmer here
I think you've taken the tinfoil position here friendo, rethink your argument. It's unproven and very conspiratory.
lel the earth gets all its heat from the sun
none from the magma core xD
That's a good point.
I guess the best solution would be to find a way to lower american's emissions per capita.
Don't know how though.
Electricity is a pretty straight forward fix, but when it comes to manufacturing i honestly don't know how we can replace oil
The hard left loves environmentalism as an effective means to punish industry. That's why the founding members of orgs like the Sierra Club and Greenpeace grew disgusted with their own creations. They were infiltrated by morons who didn't understand the science and just liked the romanticism of fighting established interests and being in harmony with nature.
It's politicized because the people who push "Global Warming" hardest are usually saying the Earth will be an uninhabitable mess unless we do all the things they conveniently wanted before they knew about warming.
Not real science. The models that involve a runaway water vapor effect are not falsifiable and the real data has been diverging from the models for a decade now
This shouldn't be a political issue but the right is fucking retarded with their denial of science.
The solution they offer (carbon credits) amounts to killing the US economy.
As I said I would fully support a massive investment in renewables. It's a positive effort and helps energy independence. Also helps rural people. Renewables shouldn't be seen so politically, they're good for everyone.
The evidence is overwhelming. Literally every single country in the world except for the united states is signed on to the paris accord.
Hundreds of thousands of government officials taking scientific advice from tens of thousands of scientists who've cited over a century and a half's worth of papers and documents.
At this point, the burden of proof is on you, and I promise you, you aren't going to prove jack shit
Lol no
>posting the sociologist study with poor methadology whereupon any paparr that mentions agw is taken to mean an agreement with the status quo
Lmoa brainlet
Science is gay and perverted now, completely ruined by jews. Don't you fuck wads know this by now? Even space is a giant fucking farce.
I agree.
Fossil fuels received subsidies when they were getting started, and still receive subsidies today, so why not renewables?
Mostly this. The world is in fact going to shit and this is caused by human forces, but global warming as it is currently taught is a crude caricature of scientific thought. Then we get to the solutions, which are as ridiculous as cutting down the number of cows we raise (because one species can directly cause geologic scale change, right?).
Furthermore, jumping from global warming to forcing use taxes is pretty ridiculous when system level change is necessary, rather than concocting another money siphoning scheme.
Yet despite everyone on the same globalist bandwagon, you still haven't proven anything. Does this tell you nothing at all?
You're either a naive zombie or you're in on the agenda. I'm going to go with the former, and that's really a compliment, because it means you have time to realize your mistake.
>over 90% of the modals are wrong
B-b-but muhhhh water vapor is acting is predicted we will all die unless we all burn money and use JEWNEWABLE energy and not EVIL DIRTY ANTISEMTIC 4TH GEN NUCLEAR REEEEE
Because it's a government-subsidized communist front.
>Literally every single country in the world except for the united states is signed on to the paris accord.
What makes you think the United States has to participate in the Paris Accord? Trump is right, if we are to change the world we won't convince others to do so by doing it simply of our own good graces. We should be economically incented to do so.
Would it be in American best interest to bring everyone erlse down to crushing poverty where they emit next to none greenhouse gases because they are too busy starving to death while they keep their current living standards?
The "environmentalist movement" in the grand scheme is not truly in favor of less greenhouse gas emissions. They don't mind if emissions stay the same, they just want people to suffer for it and become poorer. Because poorer people are more likely to vote for the leftist parties.
Why do I say this?
Back in the post WWII years we finally discovered a cheap alternative fuel that could power energy plants and other needs for a really long time. Of course, I'm talking about Nuclear Power.
The Oil Companies feared this, especially those in the Middle East who were newly powerful and wealthy. They knew that if Nuclear Power caught on, it would mean the end of the Oil Industry as we know it.
That's why in the 60s, aside from the good aspects of environmentalism like curbing river pollution and discouraging littering, the main movement was against nuclear power. Environmentalists said it was way too dangerous cause muh nuke bombs and because of the nuclear waste. Even though it can be safely stored, they said "well what if it spills or something". This, combined with the natural fear of the immense power of Nuclear Fission, was enough to scare the public and the politicians. Thats why the US stopped building nuclear plants.
also you need to do more research. Earth's temperature has fluctuated over it's multibillion year history. Many times in the recent past it was hotter than it is now. There's no reason to think the recent tiny rise in temp is linked to carbon emissions. Correlation not causation my dude
1. You don't actually understand how the cook et al study works
2. They've since revisited it and found that the 3% of papers not supporting agw was wrong
3. There's 7 consensus studies that all find the same results
4. These studies weren't opinion polls, they reviewed the papers and extrapolated the data, which overwhelmingly supports agw
>Many times in the recent past it was hotter than it is now.
not true.
My family, especially my father, are this unique brand of nu left environmentalist. All aside from me and my Mother are Atheist, and it's plain to see that they have replaced environment as their god.
I think it's similar to Marxist theory. Rather than bourgeoisie and proletariat, the oppressor is humanity, and the oppressed is the world. Neo-Marxism, if you will.
Because it is a collectivist line of thinking, you hear many environmentalists says things like, 'there are too many people', which obviously dehumanises people by collectivising them.
When you speak to these environmentalist types, challenge them on this point. Ask them if their close family is more important to them than the world's environment. Then close friends. Then extended friends. At what point, does the environment become more important than people? I've found people usually realise their level of daft once confronted with this question.
You know whats even funnier? There was an alternativr method of nuclear energy being developed in the 60s that was far more energy efficient, cheaper and safer than conventional fast breeder high pressure reactors. But it was shelved until the chinks and poos started developing it by using our old research. Its bullshit lmao
Who actually doesn't believe agw is real? Of course it is. The only dispute is whether we should cuck our economy over it, and to that I say no.
Also this. Global Warming is just hell for atheists. Instead of "Do what we say or you'll go to hell"
Now it is, "Do what we say or the earth will heat up and we'll all burn and die"
>The hard left loves environmentalism as an effective means to punish industry. That's why the founding members of orgs like the Sierra Club and Greenpeace grew disgusted with their own creations.
Indeed. Recommended reading on that subject: "Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout" by Patrick Moore. He runs a salmon farm these days and advocates aquaculture and nuclear power. Greenpeace hates him because he's a solutions kind of guy and if the problems they are wailing about get solved they'll have fewer problems to wail about. And that leads to a reduction in relevance and, ultimately gibs. Can't have that.
There are plenty of people here that don't believe it, but it is like arguing with flat earthers at this point.
give it up. climate change deniers are like flat earth believers : they are a lost cause and no amount of scientific evidence, peer reviewed research and statistics will convince them because their beliefs aren't based on evidence, but on instinct. They "just know" they are right.
Use your energy on something usefull instead of trying to convince a brickwall
they think science is the be all end all of authority. they defied science a lot and when they finally thought "scientists" were on "their side", they blindly accepted them.
It's a god damn scam from a fucking pedophillic death cult. Do you have any idea how many different pollutants humans put out, and they want to pin it on fucking CO2?!? On an increase that is several fold smaller than the margin of error!?! Literally the most benign gas human activity can produce? Literally the gas that HUMAN BODIES produce?
Literally the fucking gas that gives LIFE to this fucking planet? Actual, bioavailable matter; delicious carbon. Carbon that for thousands of years was locked away beneath the soil, physically dead, inert, trapped. Potential life doomed to an eternity in the depths of the earth to be freed by US. To rejoin the carbon cycle of life and replenish the Earth! It is no mistake that indoor farmers create a CO2 rich environment for abundance; it is no catastrophe that more plants create more oxygen. It is no wonder average IQ keeps rising; it is no coincidence that average height has increased with our use of fossil fuels.
(((They))) are literal fucking demons and They hate you so fucking much they can barely decide whether to torture or kill you. You need to finally fucking realize that every god damn thing you ever learned is a lie. All of your axioms are worthless, save one: I think, therefore I am.
You can figure it all out from there.
A lot of the current solution isn't sexy, it's things like insulation on houses.
The absolute game changer will be generating chemical fuel from the sun. Doesn't matter which one, this would solve most problems with renewables.
They should. That's why I'm pointing out why it's good for conservatives too. Energy independence is a conservative goal, as are reduced costs like through use of waste heat or solar thermal.
As for the political landscape I'm not sure how it'll move forward. Currently we are producing a ton of natural gas.
Fuck enviromentalists!
My country is not affected strongly by global warming. No sea level rise (through we get coastline in worst case scenario, who cares the sea would be anoxic and poisonous in this scenario), no unmanageable weather shifts. Why should we care? In fact why should we not pump the atmosphere with as much greenhouse gases as possible, as it hurts our competition way more than it hurts us?
>you dont know how the study works so you dont understand how it works
The absolute state of public "education". You do do realize the sociologists who did the study got in extremely hot water with the faculty for terrible absolutely wrong methadology. The fact that the 3% of papers they listed as disagreeing with agw has nothing to do with the fact that they categorically mislabled the intent of hundreds of papers to mean that those writing the papers agreed with the staus quo on agw.
Fuck learn how to critically think or dont say anything. Or better yet drink bleach. That will reduce your carbon footprint.
You genuinely believe that the whole world is in on some grand conspiracy and you want me to convince you otherwise? You're a fucking idiot lol
Na m8 it's more like the measurements rest 10% below the mean, which is an impressively small deviation for such a complex study
Of course one species can cause global change, it's simple physics. Look at that spike in atmospheric co2
Global warming is real. There is geological evidence of this occurring throughout the earth's history. Remember the ice age? Of course not that shit melted. Why? The earth became warmer. Same shit repeats itself nothing new here .
you are really dumb
They latched on to whatever establishment nerds agreed with their narrative, and now they're pushing it with all they have.
Climate theory is just another poorly veiled globalist push. I laugh when I see them try to attach any religous connotations to anyone trying to defy them. It's sad because of how easily the progressives fall to their own hypocrisy. Get any mudshit religion to defy global warming and watch them go full panic mode caught between the narrative dichotomy that supports anything non-white and trying to push globalist measures.
Don't forget how environmental groups also push for more immigration. They are an absolute joke these days.
Sure, the data are still there supporting agw though. Just because it's misused doesn't mean it's false.
The left would use everything that helps them put more power in the hands of the state because they are a bunch of insecure faggots who need to be bossed around and to make themselves feel better they try to enforce that on everybody else.
Counter one thing in that post, you little bitch.
interesting how the observations beyond the dotted line are at the very lowest ends of the predictions
Yeah, I do want you to believe just that and you're a naive kid for not seeing it yet.
Watch this. It's from 2007, before most of this global warming scam took root.
Al gore (Democrat former vice president) predicted in 2008 that all coastal cities should be underwater in 2014 because all polar ice should had melt in 2014.
And (((SURPRISE!))). Nothing happened.
>The evidence is overwhelming. Literally every single country in the world except for the united states is signed on to the paris accord.
The evidence is overhelming. Literally every country in the world, except for protestant renegades is signed on to the Catholic church and sells indulgences.
>Hundreds of thousands of government officials taking scientific advice from tens of thousands of scientists who've cited over a century and a half's worth of papers and documents.
Hundreds of thousands of government officials taking spirtual and political guidance from tens of thousands of priests who have cited over 1500 centuries worth of scripture.
"Everyone does it." is a poor way to argue. Try harder, shill.
>Of course one species can cause global change, it's simple physics. Look at that spike in atmospheric co2
I meant cows producing methane, obviously. For a single species to have that level of influence over a geologic scale parameter, it would have to be a very simple, massively replicated algae that covered every body of water, not a few million land cows.
al gore is a brainlet just like all these stupid pseudo-science niggers in here trying to back a flawed theory.
I) Al Gore isn't a climate scientist. His word is pretty much meaningless.
II) He didn't even say that.
...