Climate change does not exis-

>Climate change does not exis-

Other urls found in this thread:

marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/centerx:-12.0/centery:25.0/zoom:3
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corium_(nuclear_reactor)#Chernobyl_accident
gizmodo.com/5990383/the-future-of-nuclear-power-runs-on-the-waste-of-our-nuclear-past
sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140602170341.htm
elifesciences.org/articles/02245
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

-st

>it's a "changes in climate must be man-made" episode
Look up "Milanković cycles".

Why do only Americans deny climate change?
It really makes me think.

Industry lobbying is the strongest there

will it reach spain? that white line seems pretty close to where i live

>it's a "changes in climate must not be man-made" episode

gotta say kudos to americans for being so WOKE even if it means sounding retarded sometimes. the rest of the world just eats up everything their governments tells them

there's a swede here that denies it too.

climate change does exist, earth temperature always change. The real question that nobody knows to answer is: Are we responsible for earth's temperature variation?

There is no real proof to claim we are.

>Are we responsible for earth's temperature variation?
It's CO2

>There is no real proof to claim we are.
We release tons of CO2 in the atmosphere.

>The real question that nobody knows to answer is
Its "Is it really bad for us?"

>50 of the worlds largest cargo ships pollute more than all cars on earth combined
umm dont tell anybody that fucking racist :)

but what if we create a cleaner less polluted world for nothing?

isn't better to be safe than sorry? even if climate change isn't real, what if in the off chance it's wrong?

Free speech. Idiots are allowed to voice their idiocy for other idiots to follow.

what if we spend all our money on green energy and letting third world countries who don't give a shit surpass us in economy

Climate change is real, but it's not man-made like the governments would have you believe. We are simply in the started stages of the next big ice age.

Cargo ships pollute with sulfur oxide, not carbon dioxide.

>climate change isn't man-made
>all the plastics now floating in the ocean and ending up in fish ecosystems are perfectly natural as well

tin-foil hat time

2/3s of the energy that was installed last year was solar. An auction for Solar in Saudi Arabia sold for 1.7 cents per kwh. The average price of coal and other fossil fuels is around 6-8 cents per kwh

ah yes sulfur oxide
much better for the environment

Oil and coal industry is quite big.
Politicians get funded by receiving money from corporations, in the end money dictates everything.
To be fair though, Indonesia and Brazil deforestation alone has caused as much CO2 as USA.

This always seems like a moot argument to me, the future is in some form of renewables anyway.

dude lmao who told you that shit?

Its shit for the environment, which is why its only used in the middle of the ocean, but its fine for climate.

When it comes to climate, the problem isn't plastic bottles. They are a problem, yes, but not for the climate.
The current changes in climate are due to the extra amount of carbon dioxide released in the atmosphere.

>There is no real proof to claim we are.
Yes there is, but ideologically driven cretins like you are happy to reject reality whole cloth if it impedes your ego driven worldview.

wrong and wrong, but thanks for trying

>ships only ever go to the middle of the ocean

that's really nice but living in a country that invest a lot into green energy and plan on only using green energy, it's expensive as fuck. a nuclear plant would be a lot cheaper but 'oh no see all that smoke coming from those ugly grey buildings!! bad bad more refugees'

>There is no real proof to claim we are.
Yes there is

because americans have brain damage

How am I wrong??

Come on, man. You can't be this ignorant.
Nuclear energy is actually good for the climate.
The smoke that comes out of the buildings is water vapor, not products of burning of fuels.
The problem with nuclear energy is that you can have some really nasty accidents, and you end up with tons of useless, highly radioactive material.

Are you illiterate? I said that "climate change" is not man-made, which implies that the meteorological changes that we observe are not man-made. I don't deny any of the other environmentally damaging issues like microplastics, rare earth extraction and oil spillage which are all completely our doings.

He's agreeing with you on Nuclear, as do I.

i know nuclear energy is clean, but it is viewed as not and thanks to fukushima and that city in ukraine, everyone is scared of them and would rather have big windmills ruining the landscapes and solar energy even though the sun never fucking shines here

Galicia is tropical now

>only Americans deny climate change?
We don't count?

desu its just g*d wanting to punish spaniards because of latest catalan bullshit.

Then why would he mention the "smoke"?
That's not what concerns people.

There was also three miles island in the US.
But again, I agree, I like nuclear, but let's misrepresent the concerns people have about it.

Tell Allah he's a cunt.

Because Euros get really assblasted every time we do

>can accept man's actions affect planet world-wide
>when it comes to climate OMG IT'S ALL A CONSPIRACY MAN

tin-foil hat is working overtime

Like saying hurrr cars don't only run outside, because you start the engine while in the garage.
Oceans are bigger than what they look on a map, ships spend most of their engine running time away from humans.

It was sarcastic, read it again. He refered to other people. People are literally scared of the smoke, because they don't know better.

Don't underestimate the Danish resistance against nuclear, we got Sweden to shut down one of their plants.

Danish opposition to nuclear energy isn't due to smoke concerns, tho, is it?
Come on, don't strawman your opponents.

>human activity has no impact on the environment
You must be retarded if you think this.

You can see human activity on earth from space, how is something that big not going to have impact?

dear allah,

you are a cunt. stop being such a cunt pls. thx bb.

t. turk

It isn't, but you read his statement wrong. He was being sarcastic.

>garages are the same as open air ports
>wind doesn't exist in the middle of the ocean

why do turks say elleh ekber instead of allahu akbar?


I see. well, must have been my crippling autism.
i dont get sarcasm sometimes

>turkish is different then arabic

All the "proof" saying that it's man-made are negligible and based entirely on circumstancial evidence. There's no clear proof that we have anything to do with the changes in temperature due to the planet's tendency to work in cycles of ice ages where there are major shifts in the temperature the closer we get to the ice age. The theory is based entirely on the fact that it's getting warmer, which already fails when put against the fact that the world is also getting colder.

It's really all a scare campaign to impose """carbon taxes""" on everything so the rich can keep getting richer while destroying nature in other ways, completely overshadowed by the big bad CO2 boogeyman.

marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/centerx:-12.0/centery:25.0/zoom:3
Dude, dude, dude...

>isn't better to be safe than sorry?
not if it costs even more than we'd gain. Catastrophic climate change is a joke, even the most alarmist predictions put the worst effects at more than a century away

Also trusting governments, especially Western governments, to know what to do about this is grade A retarded. They can't even reliably pick winners and losers in solar like they do with literally every other industry. The auto industry has already done more to reduce CO2 emissions by making truggs more fuel efficient than Elon Musk and his merry band of ecofags will ever be able to do

>The theory is based entirely on the fact that it's getting warmer
No, it isn't!
We know for a fact that CO2 is involved in the green house effect!
If you pump more of it on the atmosphere, it will hold more heat.

>Also trusting governments
You don't have to trust governments.
Just the science.

Okay I'll bite. Lets say the temperature increase isn't directly related to human emissions. We can't sustain ourselves in a warmer climate, you don't deny that the ice melts and the ecosystems failing with a warmer climate, do you? We need to stop emitting such vast amounts of greenhouse gasses to halt the increase, so that we can actually live on this planet.

>You don't have to trust governments.
That's why most people on the planet are asshurt about us pulling out of the redistributionist bullshit that was the Paris Accords

There isn't a reliable consensus on what can or should be done to reduce the adverse effects of human industrial activity and there's no telling what that could do to impact our standards of living. Climatologists aren't very good at crafting policy, they're only good at telling us about the state of the environment

Nuclear energy is also shit because it generates waste that we have no effective way of handling and stays dangerous for hundreds of years.
There is a consensus to everybody that is not lobbying for polluting enterprises.

>There isn't a reliable consensus on what can or should be done to reduce the adverse effects of human industrial activity
There is! Reduce emissions of CO2!

> Climatologists aren't very good at crafting policy, they're only good at telling us about the state of the environment
Yes, that's up to everyone else.
I'm sure the free market can come up with something.

But that's irrelevant, if we truly cared about maintaining the planet's ability to sustain life, we would reject ALL modern technology. All of it. All technology today is completely reliant on methods that completely destroy nature.
Look at China, they hold a monopoly on rare metals due to the fact that they are the only ones who actually extract them, a process which not only pollutes nature, it turns it into an irradiated wasteland. And we need these resources to sustain modern civilization.

That's why I don't buy into this "co2 emissions are our greatest threat" campaign because even if we did have some kind of effect, it would be more or less negligible since we don't even produce a fraction of the CO2 that planet itself shoots into the atmosphere. We have much greater issues than "climate change" that are more likely to destroy us in the end.

>I'm sure the free market can come up with something.
You mean like the car companies eliminating millions of tons of CO2 by making cars more fuel efficient because no one wants to pay for gas. Or coal plants shutting down because they aren't viable when compared to shale gas plants

you're a fucking retard

>Nuclear energy is also shit because it generates waste that we have no effective way of handling and stays dangerous for hundreds of years.

Wrong. The new generation of nuclear reactors can use the waste material of the older reactors.

Besides that, a few countries are working on Thorium reactors, which creates no waste and can't melt down, as they will shut down by themselves, when the temperature isn't upheld.

>as they will shut down by themselves
I get that they have that "plug" that melts when the thorium gets too hot and it dumps everything into the pool of water below, but isn't there still a risk of the fuel melting through the bottom of the pool

Rare earth minerals are isolated events, that doesn't affect everyone. Greenhouse gasses are the biggest threat to us. If we heat up the planet even more, the permafrost planes of Siberia will start to warm, which will release enormous amount of methan into the atmosphere. Methan is a much stronger greenhouse gas than Co2, but Co2 will be the cause to its release.

>you're a fucking retard

How am I a retard? As you just say, car companies made cars more fuel efficient.
There. One thing already done.

How hot do you think these things get?

and is that enough compared to what all the nature produced to have an impact one earth?

you guys must be aware on one thing, researchers who say that global warming is man made gets extra funds.

False. International shipping is the 9th largest contributor of atmospheric CO2, that's what's being compared there. The sulfur is in addition.

>How am I a retard? As you just say, car companies made cars more fuel efficient.
I thought you were being sarcastic, I'm dumb
no bulli

>How hot do you think these things get?
no idea about thorium but I've seen pictures of the remains of the core at chernobyl and where the fuel melted through like 2 meters of concrete

Single volcano erruption would cover yeara of human made pollution

>Rare earth minerals are isolated events
Huh?
They're not isolated events.
Once you're done with the fission, you'll still be left of radioactive trash, like picture related.

>and is that enough compared to what all the nature produced to have an impact one earth?
Yes.

>you guys must be aware on one thing, researchers who say that global warming is man made gets extra funds.
That's nonsense.

>where the fuel melted through like 2 meters of concrete
Post the picture if you can find it.

Chernobyl was a shitty Russian design, which failed due to the Russians pushing it beyond its limits.

Fun fact: It was only 1 reactor that failed, the last reactor were only shut down in 1999, 12 years after the incident.

Methane has a much shorter half-life in the atmosphere than CO2, so it would actually have less of an effect. Plus, only a tiny fraction of the world's trapped methane could ever be "suddenly" (i.e. over a hundred years) released.

The waste material can be used in new generation reactors.
I see, I didn't know methan only had a half life of 7 years. It's nonetheless not a good thing to be released into the atmosphere.

>new generation reactors.
Haven't heard about those.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corium_(nuclear_reactor)#Chernobyl_accident
Elephant's foot

Yeah, I just didn't know if LFTRs had the same risks associated with them

It' still pretty new.

Here's one article, but there's plenty more

gizmodo.com/5990383/the-future-of-nuclear-power-runs-on-the-waste-of-our-nuclear-past

Do you have any source on that because all i got was "future" and "could".

They are working on many things, doesn't mean it will exist and even if they will, today they don't.
Reasearches around the world work by collecting data on many different topics and when that data is analyzed and compared you can infer certain things such as human activity is accelerating global warming on a very dangerous scale.
There is no scheme here.

Yeah definitely, it'll still be equivalent to like 20 years or something of CO2 pollution. It's just not apocalyptic like some of the media has made it seem.

That sort of fear-mongering is very counterproductive IMO, because it makes people lose hope and gives ammo to the ones in denial. The same as what happened with Al Gore.

When I was a kid we had snow up to at least our knees every winter even here in the south. Now we barely get any.
What is debatable is how much of this is of our doing.

>When I was a kid
Climate change isn't measurable over the course of a decade

Actually no, it seems it's all speculative atm.

I'm part of group on Danish facebook group which advocates the use of nuclear power in Denmark. It has a lot of physicians and such holding lectures and they often post links about this stuff. I was under the assumption that it was already being done. I'll just lay down flat discard my argument.

I agree, but 20 years of Co2 pollution, on top the already ongoing Co2 pollution is quite bad.

I'm in my mid 30s but still true.

>Danish facebook group
i'll look it up

>gizmodo
>all that theoretical perfect world
>in the future guys, in the future
C'mon, this is nothing.
Then you can't say i'm wrong.
There is today no effective way of handling nuclear waste, there may be in the future or not.
It's pretty stupid to say there is no problem because we may (if everything goes as planned) in an unkown future be able to solve the problem.

>on a very dangerous scale.
define "very dangerous scale"

because anything that predicts catastrophic change within our lifetimes is alarmism

>There is today no effective way of handling nuclear waste
Yes there is. You dump it into a deep hole.
Nuclear power is one of the purest energy sources on the planet.

As I said, I'll lay myself flat down and discard my argument.

reminder that even if you don't believe in man made warming from CO2 and Methane emissions

1. The oceans are acidifying faster than any time in history. 10 times faster even than during the Paleocene Eocene thermal maximum

sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140602170341.htm

2. More CO2 makes food less nutritious
elifesciences.org/articles/02245

3. CO2 is also bad for human cognition (as you know if you sit inside all day and the windows are closed)

it would not be responsible to keep emitting CO2 without the warming aspect of climate change.

>There is today no effective way of handling nuclear waste
That's mostly with uranium fuel afaik, and the biggest risks there are due to terrorism concerns and the possibility of it contaminating the water supply. Most of the alternative reactors were designed specifically to deal with that problem. Thorium is a lot easier and safer to store while we try to figure out a viable "clean" source of energy

Desertification
Coral reef bleaching increasing every year
El niño not occuring from around 7 to 7 years but almost yearly.
Fish getting smaller and less abundant.
>because anything that predicts catastrophic change within our lifetimes is alarmism
We can't know that, our understand of chain reactions in ecology is not that advanced.
>just hide radioactive waste that last for hundreds of years in a whole
That is not effective, the problem still exists.
>and the possibility of it contaminating the water supply
That's extremely dangerous.

>That's extremely dangerous.
That's why I don't think nuclear is the answer

Well that's why you dump it way deeper than any ground water supply. At least where I live our water supplies are constantly tested for any pollutants.
Any other form of energy is either very polluting or cannot sustain whole human population. Which would you rather pick?

Considering the earth is far from statical it is very stupid.
I don't know but sure as fuck i wouldn't burry waste looking at 100 years into the future at best...
>Practical studies only consider up to 100 years as far as effective planning[16] and cost evaluations[17] are concerned.

I don't think it's good to just dump the radioactive waste in the deepest hole possible.
Some of the German waste storages are in a very bad condition and the material is hard to get out again.
If we would find a way to "burn down" the radioactive waste into stable isotopes faster, getting the dumped material back would be a very dire task.

>Which would you rather pick?
At least in the US the smart move would be to convert coal plants to burn shale natural gas and then wait for solar boilers and PV to become competitive. I think wind is already competitive but that has problems of its own

>Considering the earth is far from statical it is very stupid.
Well sure. Don't bury it somewhere where there is earthquake hazard.
Natural gas is still something that is not in our atmosphere. Burn it and it creates pollution like any other thing you burn.
Solar, wind and wave/tide power would be the best pick but they just don't work everywhere on the planet and actually can't provide all our needs. Even if we tried we literally couldn't replace all of our current power plants with "green" alternatives.

>Burn it and it creates pollution like any other thing you burn.
It's a lot better than burning coal, and it's a lot easier to convert existing plants than it is to replace our entire infrastructure with solar, wind, or nuclear

>natural gas isn't something that's in our atmosphere
shale companies already flare natural gas. We're already retooling our natural gas infrastructure to capture and store it, we might as well use it to reduce emissions from coal plants

PV will probably reach parity with fossil fuels in the 30's and by that time it will likely be cheap enough for average people to install panels on their homes. No sense in building massive solar farms in the desert when people will be converting their homes anyway

>There are those who have argued, on the basis of complex geochemical simulation models, that relinquishing control over radioactive materials to geohydrologic processes at repository closure is an acceptable risk. They maintain that so-called "natural analogues" inhibit subterranean movement of radionuclides, making disposal of radioactive wastes in stable geologic formations unnecessary.[11] However, existing models of these processes are empirically underdetermined:[12] due to the subterranean nature of such processes in solid geologic formations, the accuracy of computer simulation models has not been verified by empirical observation, certainly not over periods of time equivalent to the lethal half-lives of high-level radioactive waste.[13][14] On the other hand, some insist deep geologic repositories in stable geologic formations are necessary. National management plans of various countries display a variety of approaches to resolving this debate.
Burrying where you guess it won't be damaged is not smart.

Climate change certainly exists. I think what's being questioned is whether if it's anthropogenic, and if so, to what degree.