Why do you think climate change is bullshit?

Why do you think climate change is bullshit?

Attached: five guys.jpg (800x789, 94K)

it's not bullshit but consumer choise won't do jack, it's not our responsibility

Most of the ozone stuff doesn't take into account the physics of the Earth orbiting the Sun and the Sun's constant barrage against the Earth.
If you spin a sphere in a fluid a barrier will develop. Think about the Earth and it's spin. The atmosphere would be that fluid barrier.
The barrier is weakest at the poles of the sphere.
Using this analogy, the constant solar wind against the weakest part of the atmosphere would create a hole.

Climate change is not necessarily bullshit but the things that are done in its name most definitely are.
Wind power, for example, is complete nonsense. The average lifespan of a windmill is 15-20 years but it would take 30 years for a windmill to create the same amount of energy that is required to fabricate, construct and maintain it.
Germany has spent a trillion Euros this century on "renewable" energy infrastructure and plans to spend a trillion more. The result? Germany's CO2 output has increased because of the inconsistency of renewable power sources and their use of coal power stations to fill in the gaps. Their cost of electricity has also gone from the cheapest in Western Europe to the second dearest.
Almost everything done in the name of climate change is nothing more than a way for politicians and the general populace to pat themselves on the back and tell themselves they are saving the world, nobody has any interest in their efficacy. Pretty much the same thing could be said for every major left wing policy ever too.

post original you fag

Attached: greta2.jpg (1024x1010, 100K)

Nice. So assuming we don't get exterminated with nuclears, they (kids 200 years forward) would create great lack of resources and die?

Why would they lack resources? Which resources?

My country has almost 100% renewable power with hydro electric dams. Solar power is also getting really cheap now. Nuclear power is more expensive, but with more research we could use that as well.

Which country?

Climate change and "climate change" are two different things. No shit, the environment is constantly changing and always has. Still doesn't address the fact that there is no conclusive causal link between human civilization and changing global temperatures.

Norway. And yes we are earning a lot of money on oil and gas. And I'm not against it, but I like that we are investing that oil money in renewable energy generation. Like windmills in the ocean.

Why is there no rule 34 for Greta?

Blame china USA Russia India

Ahh, yes. Hydro power is basically the only renewable that actually works but, obviously, only a limited number of countries can use it on a large scale.

When it comes to politics, there is always big money behind agendas. I'm not anti "green" but if there are changes to come, it has to be gradual and steady. Not unrealistic and spastic.

Nah, Solar and wind can also work, especially solar is getting profitable. But it does need supplements, due to the nature of sunlight. The battery banks are a good balancing solution. Nuclear power is also an alternative. It's way better than coal, and kills much less people. But it's currently expensive and complicated to build/manage.

Attached: Are you tired of not seeing Greta fully nude~ .jpg (1095x1080, 245K)

I am also curious about that.

Attached: original.jpg (800x789, 130K)

Nuclear is the only viable option. Wind power is just complete nonsense and would not exist at all without government subsidy. Solar can work in some countries but is not a viable option for large scale production of energy.

Climate change isn't bullshit it's just something we don't need to worry about.

We'll solve the planet's biggest problem (overpopulation) with a nuclear accident a world war or a really good famine.

"The West" is finished. When we collapse it all collapses so relax and it enjoy being alive during the last of the good times.

Thank GOD someone else sees this, too!

Attached: greta4.png (1189x997, 1M)

I think this image is shameful and whoever posted it should be banned. I guarantee that she does not feel the way that obviously photoshopped sign tries to portray. the thought that this image will circulate now forever and she will be associated with those words is wrong. you should not do this op. you can criticise her but images like that should not be further promoted by propagating them further.

Why did you put a comma before the word too? Do you just use punctuation marks randomly?

Solar is viable and getting more for everyday counting. Wind also works now. Wind power is actually cheaper than natural gas. So your argument is dated.

Overpopulation isn't the issue. Lack of fusion reactors is the biggest problem.
Every generation believes it is the last. You're not any different.

Attached: burnthecoal.png (409x595, 433K)

Solar and wind have been proven to not be viable. Your argument is dated.

A fusion reactor producing cheap energy would be great. But we should continue research on nuclear as well.

>fusion isn't nuclear.
Classic.

Yeah.. you are full of shit.

regular fission nuclear plants. You understand what I'm saying, don't be a retard.

Which country is producing the majority, or even a large minority of their power from wind or solar?
None.
If it was viable, surely SOMEONE would have done it.

Good try, the earth is flat

Fusion reactors make fission reactors obsolete.
That's the whole point...

None yet, it's just starting to be viable. It will still take a while. Changes like these aren't done in a day.

God is want to fuck her

No shit man.. but nothing indicates that fusion power will be profitable yet. That's the issue. If they figure out fusion it's of course a better solution.

just another leftist hoax-

No. Solar has some uses but large scale production with it is not practical. Wind power is utter nonsense. A nuclear power station creating 1000mw of power can be built on a few acres of land and requires relatively few people to run. To create the same amount of power from wind, you need about 300 square miles and an army of technicians to maintain them. In order to power the world with wind turbines, we would need to cover all of Russia and cover an area the size of Britain every year to keep up with the increase in demand.
A friend works for a company that installs windmills, or I should say used to install windmills. The UK government ran a scheme where new wind turbines were given a subsidy for 10 years if they were built before April 2018. They built hundreds of windmills in the couple of years leading up to that date and none since. Now, they just maintain the ones they built. In order to recoup the energy needed to build, install and maintain a windmill, they need to run for 30 years but their lifespan is 15-20 years. Worse than all that is they destroy the beauty of some amazing places of natural beauty. They are utter bullshit.

I'm not the guy you're arguing with but I'm interested as to why you think that because the tech has not yet proven to be viable, that negates the need to strive to improve it or place value in it. I mean with that line of thinking we would never have had electricity or agriculture or anything in the first place. Obviously any technology in its infancy is going to be sub-par. But the Sun is constantly emitting energy and is not going anywhere anytime soon. It's literally free energy waiting to be harvested. Nowadays with better batteries and R&D solar tech has proven more efficient than say 50 or 30 or even 10 years ago. Why then are you so doubtful that it will still gain even more ground? Even though I agree that we're not quite at that point, getting the world to a place where we can rely on solar energy seems to be the more logical long term energy investment for mankind, since its supply is for all intents and purposes infinite.

If you're talking about small scale, individual type systems, I might be more inclined to believe you. Large scale just doesnt work.
Everything indicates fusion power will be profitable. That's why 35 nations are building the first proof of concept reactor right now.

Solar panels can only be so efficient. The land mass required, even with ideal panels that dont yet exists, is insurmountable.
Energy storage is another major hurdle.

Because China and India are the number one polluters and no one is giving them shit over it. In fact they get special exemptions as emergent technologies when ever a global warming treaty is drawn up.

>climate change is bullshit?
Never said it was. Expand your horizons - the polar ice caps on Mars are melting, too. What part of "human caused" is that? If you Socialist are going to push your agenda and try to take over the world you'll have to choose a better spokesbabe. That child doesn't get to dictate policy to whole countries without being questioned for her "belief".When does her Communist China Tour start? Also turning your tree hugging into a religion doesn't exempt it from being scrutinized.

But I mean thinking in terms of mankind's interplanetary and interstellar space exploration that kind of energy gathering will be one of most reliable and readily kinds available. Think of the lunar and Martian bases we want to build in the coming decades - we're not going to be having any nuclear reactors built there easily, nor mine or ship them coal or oil. Investing in improving that technology is vital to our species ability to live beyond this planet, and it seems naive to assume we will stay confined to it. You havent really answered my question, as to why solar power is not worth pursuing at all in your eyes. You said they can only be so efficient - this will get better with time and creative ingenuity. Not to mention there is so much unused surface area on this planet that we could use to solar advantage - why is it not worth it at all?

Thermodynamics disagrees with you. Solar panels can only be so efficient. Period.
As I mentioned previously, small scale arrays are feasible. Large scale arrays are not.
If you could somehow use all the of the land in the Sahara for arrays, that would be great. Storage and transporation are the issues then. Which I mentioned.

If you think interstellar transportation is even remotely feasible without fusion reactors or the like, I think you may be confused. By definition, you must leave this star to reach another one. Do you know how far away the next star is? What do you plan to do for energy for the 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999% of the trip that you're not close enough to a star to use solar?