Why don't conservatives believe in anthropogenic climate change? Post something with substance to defend your denial...

Why don't conservatives believe in anthropogenic climate change? Post something with substance to defend your denial, not le edgy memes

Other urls found in this thread:

skepticalscience.com/klaus-martin-schulte-consensus.htm
skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements.htm
friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=744
friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/Consensus.pdf
friendsofscience.org
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Personally I see it as a great opportunity for the free market.

here you go Mr. Gore

Because most climate change deniers don't understand that aerosols cool the climate, and just assume that climate change isn't a thing. Libs are no better with their exaggeration of literally everything, and yes most predictive statistics do NOT take aerosols into account. On the day after 9/11, as planes came to an almost universal halt, global temperature dramatically rose by a few degrees then suddenly fell when planes came back into service. This is still an issue, however, because aerosols are STILL a pollutant. Climate change is REAL. Anthropogenic climate change is ALSO REAL. Our massive use of aerosols just prevent us from seeing its true effects, despite the atmosphere being heavily polluted.

>opinions
>belief
>denial

skepticalscience.com/klaus-martin-schulte-consensus.htm

Got damn rekt

I reject the premise -- it's a little more nuanced than "hurr durr... I don't believe in that because Fox said so."

I'm conservative. In fact, I'm the guy working 40 hours a week to advance conservative issues and policies. And I believe both that the climate is changing and that human activity has a role in that.

What I *don't* believe -- because there's zero fucking evidence of it ever working -- is that humanity can band together with one voice and one plan to somehow fix it.

China needs to grow its middle class or its leaders will lose control of the country. South America is rich in resources but poor in industry -- people would rightly vote leaders out or revolt if they were told that their bite at the economic apple had to wait until we could afford universal renewables in shithole countries. Africa can't afford an energy economy based on renewables either.

So the only way these save-the-climate plans work is if rich, first-world countries take it up the ass and make most of the sacrifices. That might sound good to a lot of liberals, but it won't play with the broader electorate when they see what it really costs.

So, yeah -- the climate is changing. But it's changing slowly, which means that rich, first-world countries will work out local and national solutions while poor, third-world countries do what they do best: Look sad and get fucked over by nature, their rich neighbors and everyone else.

That's not fair or pretty, but it is 100% in keeping with humanity's track record thus far and, so, it's the safest bet.

Not bad, that's a good post

listen up faggot:
Global warming/climate change bullshit is a meme pushed by oil companies to increase the value of their natural gas reserves. When global warming first became relevant, oil companies panicked because the (incomplete) data and hysteria from the media made it seem like controls were going to be put in place over fossil fuels. Most major oil companies purchased mineral rights to natural gas reserves since it was likely going to be a less carbon-intensive alternative to coal.
Now oil companies are lobbying for a carbon tax because it would make coal for electric power plants cost prohibitive compared to natural gas, which the oil companies conveniently now own.

Global warming is nothing but a corporate power-struggle to replace one fuel with another. But to answer your question, global warming science is also bullshit; they've been trying for 20+ years to prove it's man-made but haven't been able to conclusively prove anything. They can't even give a ballpark figure for the amount hupeople contribute to global warming.


For the last 15 years oil companies have

How much of the climate change effect is anthropogenic and how do you know?

It's logarithmic and by the levels of increased greenhouse gases by year. Essentially, if we start of with a co2 level of 1, and next year it rises to 2, then 3, and we see an average increase of X per year, we can then extrapolate that humans contribute this level to the environment. Furthermore, green house has level reading on permafrost that can be carbon dated to certain periods of time tell us how much co2 was in the environment before we started pumping more into it. Yes, there are several factors to consider; but it produces relatively accurate results.

I don't care about climate change because in 50 years the western world will have whites as a minority

>charts are in the order of millions and thousands of years
>somehow explains 1C rise in only 50 years

Can't prove a negative.

I'm sure most psychics would cite the critical need for psychic outreach too

>somehow explains 1C rise in only 50 years
>i have no idea that most of the temp sensors are surrounded by concrete and tarmac now
skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements.htm
Why can anyone on this board do even the simplest fucking research?

so humans account for how much climate change then?

Did you literally just argue against yourself?
>Numerous studies into the effect of urban heat island effect and microsite influences find they have negligible effect on long-term trends, particularly when averaged over large regions.

You realize the site you're posting is pro AGW right?

My man, I sat in on a review board for the IPCC regarding oceanography related research on climate change, CO2/ocean acidification and some meteorological research. I can assure you that these ‘researchers’ are cultists and word smith their papers with spooky words and misleading graphs/data.

I have listened to Al Gore in private, shill his nonsense and promote his fairy tale data that he knows nothing about. These fucking people are dangerous.

The sun is far more influential in climate change. There is a wealth of information out there showing what is happening. CO2 is plant food.

>Why don't conservatives believe in anthropogenic climate change? Post something with substance to defend your denial, not le edgy memes

>posts meme

lol. SAGE this bait

>Why don't conservatives believe in anthropogenic climate change? Post something with substance to defend your denial, not le edgy memes
I'm not politically a conservative, but I'll explain my position.
I don't believe in anthropogenic climate change because I have never been presented with convincing evidence that it exists.
My position of non-action on any climate change avoidance strategies is due to the fact that no one can explain to me what the ideal average temperature/sea level happens to be.
If anthropogenic climate change is real and the earth's average temperature will rise by 1C over a specific time period is going to occur, why would I work at preventing this if the earth and mankind would be better off if this happened?

Oh, I've no hesitance to say I don't know exactly how much. It's enough for it to be noticeable.

recommended reading:

friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=744

friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/Consensus.pdf

friendsofscience.org

>the sun is far more influential

and what is the sun doing differently since the rise of the industrial revolution?

Not an argument

Then prove we haven't seen a warming trend since the industrial revolution