Redpill me on Global Warming

I have believed in global warming my whole life, always thinking deniers were brainwashed by oil companies or what have you. Please enlighten me.

Hard Mode: Convince me that solar panels are a bad investment

Other urls found in this thread:

theguardian.com/environment/keep-it-in-the-ground-blog/2015/mar/25/what-numbers-tell-about-how-much-fossil-fuel-reserves-cant-burn
theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/21/climate-change-denier-willie-soon-funded-energy-industry
accuweather.com/en/features/trend/swedens_ice_hotel_to_stay_open_1/53799703
mobile.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/science/earth/arctic-resources-exposed-by-warming-set-off-competition.html
livescience.com/37821-greenhouse-gases.html
youtube.com/watch?v=Gh-DNNIUjKU
mdpi.com/2225-1154/1/1/4
nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n3/full/nclimate2938.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_M._Gray#Climate_change
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy#Political_pressure_on_scientists
space.news/2015-10-06-entire-solar-system-is-heating-up-scientists-blame-solar-warming.html
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5f/All_palaeotemps.svg/1760px-All_palaeotemps.svg.png
geosociety.org/gsatoday/archive/14/3/pdf/i1052-5173-14-3-4.pdf
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

The big thing for me is that there is nothing we can do to alleviate the problem, and yet the global elite insist on investing their money into (((preventing it)))

Where does that money go?

>Convince me that solar panels are a bad investment
If you care about the environment then you won't get them. Solar panels are either manufactured from scare minerals and are highly toxic, or they're incredibly, incredibly, incredibly inefficient. Solar panel technology as it exists right now won't solve jack fucking shit.

If you give 2 fucks about the environment call your representative and shill nuclear power.

China is causing it. Also before Saddam was killed he ordered his troops to light up the oil fields in Iraq in one last act of madness. This one event has caused years of damage to the planet

Oh to add, if we do see solar panels made from plentiful materials that are efficient, then they're probably fucking horrible for the environment because they're probably nanomaterials.

Solar plants are shit. Low inconsistent output. Hydro electric is what we need. The 5 largest power stations are from dams

To add, 9 out of the 10 largest power station are dams.

The amount of fucking ignorance about nuclear power is astounding. Nuclear is the future.

...

Yes, yes it's all another Jewish conspiracy!

You've out played us goyim!

Solar panels are a great investment if you can get those juicy government subsidies. Plus, if you live in a sunny state you can be self-sufficient in terms of electricity, which is pretty cool.

This too.People are scared of Nuclear while modern plants are safer than a coal plant. Nuclear is truly the best form of energy. Only downside is the waste, but that's been solved by putting it in old bunkers in mountains.

It's a scam, user.
Have you noticed how they never back up the claim of warmening?
The science is clear.

CO2 doesn't cause warming.

In fact, life on this planet almost died out for lack of CO2, and we aren't far above those toxic levels right now.

>solved
I think you meant "conveniently ignored".
Putting it somewhere where you can't see it doesn't make it disappear.

>Hard Mode: Convince me that solar panels are a bad investment
This is Moron Mode.
You calculate the cost/benefit of panels or a utility hookup.
My guess is that you believed in man-made warming because you're an idiot. Nothing in your post suggests otherwise.
Here's another CO2 pic for the warmists to ignore.

global warming as a theory is fine. carbon isnt the bad guy though. not in any form. other gases are more hazardous potentially but carbon CANT build a permanent layer that causes a green house effect

c14 rains down from the atmosphere. radio carbon dating relies on this. its happened well before humans existed and it breaks down at a consistent rate

next thing you know some hippie will say the ozone layer cant be replenished. as if o3 isnt produced easily by electricity and you know lightning is made of static electricity

What the fuck is CO2?

man has an impact on it, but to not the GREAT EXTENT that some far left nut jobs go on.

Now ultimately, it can either be good or bad.

For my cunt, it's pretty good, apparently we'll get a giant river in the centre of Australia, which we can use for multiple purposes.

On the bad side, there are a lot of people who will be displaced as their islands LITERALLY sink due to rising sea levels + more extreme storms/ weather will come.

What I think will happen in the future is basically a shit load of renewable energy, a shit load of vertical living and who knows, maybe even giant boats that can sustain life on them.

What I'm trying to say is that I'd really give a shit.

Man kind always finds a way to get itself out of the shitter. From developing countries in Africa to War etc.

Live for today, plan for tomorrow.

>This one event has caused years of damage to the planet
No, it blew to lands where it was washed out in the rain.
Days of damage, that was reversed by the Earth, then turned into plant nutrients.

>In fact, life on this planet almost died out for lack of CO2
Are you referring to the time on earth when trees were the ultimate lifeform and made the atmosphere way too oxygenated, didn't decompose due to the lack of fungi and other predators of trees, and eventually all caught on fire, setting the world ablaze and producing the coal deposits we enjoy today?

That was the most metal part of Earth's history.

>Because flooding the land is a good thing
Truly the ignorant will inherit the earth err that is whatever isn't flooded, covered with solar panels or made unliveable by 100 meter tall bird choppers.

It'll disappear after a (long) while.

Not really ignored. It's highly regulated and secured. It just sits there doing no harm until a better idea comes about whether that's being able to use that waste or launching it trillions of miles away.

>as their islands LITERALLY sink
Was it Hank Johnson who said that Guam would tip over if we put too many people there?
user? Islands don't LITERALLY sink. They don't tip over either.
Islands come and go. Every island today will be gone eventually due to seismic activity and wave action washing it away.

Not soon, though.

The glaciers are expanding.

The Holocene is drawing to a close. Bad times ahead. Humans die by the boxcar load when temps fall.

Drumpf does not believe global warming is real. It's not even a stretch to say that if he's elected, methane leaks could very likely make the earth uninhabitable. Drumpf would literally destroy all life on Earth. That is, if he doesn't nuke it first.

And how is it going to hurt anybody if it's sealed away deep in a place inhabitable to all but little bacteria and lichens?

Solar panels actually are often a bad investiment and well never in their lifetime make back the money it takes to install them. This isn't always true and it's not true for large scale installations. It's mostly for schools and such that throw them on their roof to shoe how Green they are.

I mean it does make the money from doners. But not from energy savings.

They sink due to rising sea levels user.

That's what I meant.

>glaciers are expanding

Wouldn't be too sure about that.

That's what I meant about more extreme weather.

The winters will colder, the summers, hotter, and as a result, more storms will follow.

That's exactly it.
Here's a greenie explaining it:
technocracy.news/index.php/2015/10/30/former-president-of-greenpeace-scientifically-rips-climate-change-to-shreds/

Then why not donate to nuclear power?

Or use more hydro dams.

Look. The idea that the Global Average increase of 1-2 degrees C will cause an apocalypse is fucking retarded. Never mind that a global average means you're trying to unify temperature measurements from all around the world and say they'll all have the same effect on every region, the fact is that temperatures have always fluctuated and the so-called baseline tempterature, a pre-18th century pre-industrial temperature goal, is that of a fucking Ice Age.

>does not believe global warming is real
No intelligent person does.

>glaciers are expanding
>Wouldn't be too sure about that.
I posted proof.
Is someone paying you? Do you make money from the warming hysteria?

I posted proof too.

What's your point?

Governments are creating target temperatures and telling us exactly how much fossil fuel we can burn to get there.
But none of their hundreds of computer models have ever come true.

theguardian.com/environment/keep-it-in-the-ground-blog/2015/mar/25/what-numbers-tell-about-how-much-fossil-fuel-reserves-cant-burn

Show me one prediction that has actually panned out?

If you're autistic like most Sup Forums fags you only consider the utilitarian aspects of energy. Notice how they only consider how much energy is preserved not other things like total impact on environment, short and long term, potential dangers like nuclear meltdown, ethics etc. Listen solar is the best way to go because it doesn't disrupt the environment like dams and coal and doesnt have that big ass risk like nuclear. Some shills might just say "who gives a fuck about beavers n shit" but this autism is easily ignored.
>implying solar is the only method that is incredibly inefficient.

Only fucking retarded conservatives would ever try to deny man made climate change. And you're right theyd have to be brainwashed.

The proof is always in the money.

Ok, so warmists never try to back up their claims with scientific data, because there is none.

So what's the motivation?
The same one that gets you to go to work every day. Money.

Al Gore bought a mansion on a coastline.
You have to have a negative IQ not to see something wrong with that. (Insurance won't pay for your personal things like heirlooms, old photos, etc. He feels safe there.)

>implying there isn't a huge risk of a complete shitstorm with nuclear.
And don't say there have been advancements in safety precautions etc etc because there can never be an absolute 0 percent chance of a meltdown or nuclear radiation leaks. The whole point it isn't favored is because it is extremely dangerous.

>Is someone paying you?
This is the stupidest argument in Sup Forums and immediately will make me take the other side. Shills don't come here because we're insignificant and idiotic, this is just an attempt to feel all powerful and mighty.

>I posted proof too.
Look up definitions of 'proof' and 'opinion'.
You'll be shocked.

Nice meme.

theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/21/climate-change-denier-willie-soon-funded-energy-industry

So? All the alarmists' funding comes from the governments who stand to gain the most from the public believing in MMGW.

Once again, you cant actually prove the science

>Listen solar is the best way to go
It's not efficient. That means waste.
Surprise fact: the metals used in solar are intensely polluting, much more so than oil.
There's a lead mine in Canada that NASA uses to test hazmat suits.

Electric cars are the biggest polluter of all time. Not only do you create massive amounts of toxic waste in building it, but the electricity is made with either coal or oil, the conversion of which to electricity causes massive waste.

is CO2 the ONLY greenhouse gas? Isn't the theory that greenhouse gases, clouden the atmosphere are keep the energy from the sun from escaping and being deflected? Merely having CO2 isnt what causes Global warming.

There are books and books of scientific proof, do these not exist? The money is also in denying that warming exists so that point is useless. Exxon alone has donated millions to groups that argue against global warming existing.

>The proof is always in the money.
There is a lot of money in proving climate change wrong, so whos paying you?

Just show literally any evidence that man made global warming is happening. Like, one computer model that came true

Can you sum it up, user?
Almost no one reads outside links. I'd have to follow up on claims made, check to see if the author revised it, etc.
If you don't care enough, neither do I.
accuweather.com/en/features/trend/swedens_ice_hotel_to_stay_open_1/53799703

>global warming
>climate change

No such thing.

You're a fucking faggot. A nuclear accident isn't a goddamn atomic bomb. Not even close. Not even if you tried, and by Jove the Russians tried. Especially not with modern reactors.

It isn't favored because of mouthbreathers like you, and because the oil and coal industries don't want their profit hurt. Are you really willing to be such a goddamn pawn?

There's a reason why every ship of note, ships filled with highly important things that are extraordinarily expensive, ships filled with things critical to the security of this nation, ships filled with some of the nation's finest use nuclear reactors.

>There are books and books of scientific proof, do these not exist?
YOU can write a book, user.

Look at these:
What do you think about them?

What exactly would I be summing up?

mobile.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/science/earth/arctic-resources-exposed-by-warming-set-off-competition.html

H2O, CO2, CH4 (Methane), N2O (Nitrous oxide), O3 (Ozone), and CFCs (Chlorofluorocarbons) are most if not all of the green house gasses. CFCs were freon, but for the most part CO2 and Methane are the problem.

Why models? Why not the evidence and correlation of high CO2 rates in the northern hemisphere as well as the melting of permafrost? If it isn't manmade than it needs to be stopped by man since we're going to either fuck up the planet ourselves or watching it die while doing nothing.

>There is a lot of money in proving climate change wrong,
No.
No government funds climate research unless it's to prove warming. This is public policy, YOUR tax dollars, and you should be ashamed for not knowing how your money is spent.

Explain why every other planet in the Solar System is also getting warmer

CO2 is insignificant.
WATER VAPOR is the only 'warming' gas that counts.
But you can't regulate that to remove oil and coal interests, can you?

>are most if not all of the green house gasses.
You have zero science education, user. Shameful.

My high school physics teacher has forever shilled me to nuclear energy. We need this so fucking badly.

See
theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/21/climate-change-denier-willie-soon-funded-energy-industry

>Soon did not enjoy such recognition from the scientific community. There were no grants from Nasa, the National Science Foundation or the other institutions which were funding his colleagues at the Center for Astrophysics. According to the documents, his work was funded almost entirely by the fossil fuel lobby.

>Unlike the vast majority of scientists, Soon does not accept that rising greenhouse gas emissions since the industrial age are causing climate changes. He contends climate change is driven by the sun.

Global warming is fact, pretty much no one disputes it except retards. What is disputed is what's causing it. So no fucking shit we should fund climate change research.

According to this guy:
Exxon and other big meanies have taken over the solar system.

>Solar power is not efficient
>Thinks oil is better
Electric motors are 90%+ efficient
Solar panels are ~40% and rising

the whole move to greener energy is to make electric cars become powered by solar panel energy not to keep coal plants, you're just admitting that coal is shit.

Coal Power Plants MAX efficiency limited to the laws of thermodynamics
Internal Comb. Engines are max ~40% eff.
Coal Plant efficiency 34.12%
not to mention coal DIRECTLY effects the environment with pollution. Sure some materials in solar panels are toxic but using them to harvest energy vs. leaving them in the earth, which one sounds better to you?

What? You mean the runaway green house effect on Venus that turned evaporated all the water and made a thick atmosphere? Or on Mars where the gravity is weak and there was degassing of the atmosphere.

No, read some astrophysics articles on the spectra of planets, or here is something that may be helpful for you: livescience.com/37821-greenhouse-gases.html

Yes I can, but more mainstream ones or actually published papers are 'better'.

>his work was funded almost entirely by the fossil fuel lobby.
Obama has spent over $100 BILLION over his 8 years.
Aimed at business.
Business spends an insignificant fraction of that, and OMG THE SKY IS FALLING.
WHEN DID WE ALLOW ANYONE TO QUESTION OBAMA BURN THEM

>Global warming is fact, pretty much no one disputes it except retards
I keep posting facts. You keep acting hurt and linking to tabloids.

Nobody is arguing for solar panels as a replacement to coal or natgas. Not even the craziesy greeenies. Do you even know about baseloads?

youtube.com/watch?v=Gh-DNNIUjKU

mdpi.com/2225-1154/1/1/4

nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n3/full/nclimate2938.html

Observe how carefully controlled, doctored and edited this wiki page is: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus

compared with the citations at the bottom.

AGW is a hard red pill to convince people with because it really requires so much pre-red pill groundwork in your brain before you come to understand all the various interlocking interest groups, incentive structures and how they come together to push for AGW and why nobody has any incentive to stop it. if you've seen The Wire and can remember when Carcetti cooked the crime stats in order to get a better job and nobody was willing to point it out and the only guy who did (Daniels) immediately got his career destroyed, then you just need to understand that AGW is that but happening on a global scale with NGOs, governments, politicians, media, celebrities, environmentalists, anti-capitalists and research scientists who don't want to rock the boat who all individually benefit from the lie in some way.

also every single source of AGW truth finds its way back to the US Government, every single supposed authority on AGW from NASA to the DoE to the IPCC were all either set up by the US government or are directly funded from it and that the US government does not hire anti-AGW scientists by doctrine. it starts to make sense. they hire the scientists who give them what they want to hear and they cut off the funding of people who challenge them, people like Bill Gray: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_M._Gray#Climate_change

The reason to not trust AGW is because we do not have separation of government and science. Government is actively distorting the market for truth by funnelling billions into an outcome that they want to hear. Once they stop doing this, we may have some idea of what's going on.

Thorium breeder reactors can consume the zirconium fuel rods containing the transuranic waste from PWR. LFTR and breeder reactors just need to be constructed.

>Many climate scientists state that they are put under enormous pressure to distort or hide any scientific results which suggest that human activity is to blame for global warming. A survey of climate scientists which was reported to the US House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in 2007 noted that "Nearly half of all respondents perceived or personally experienced pressure to eliminate the words 'climate change', 'global warming' or other similar terms from a variety of communications".

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy#Political_pressure_on_scientists

I never said "a nuclear accident is an atomic bomb" so why are you being such an autist? Calm down because i triggered you. Meltdowns are still possible even if you have the finest engineers on earth and the waste is still a problem. We're not going to store that shit in the mountain where there is a high chance of leaks. Stop thinking only about energy volume and think about the other aspects of the discussion, waste, danger, individual energy independence, renew-ability etc etc.

Obama has spent jack shit, congress does. You don't event understand how the government works.

>I keep posting facts. You keep acting hurt and linking to tabloids.

You're a shill, it's pretty obvious, you don't read the articles posted and want everything distilled to a fucking meme.

No. The entire solar system is getting hotter. This is according to NASA
space.news/2015-10-06-entire-solar-system-is-heating-up-scientists-blame-solar-warming.html

>>Solar power is not efficient
>>Thinks oil is better
>Electric motors are 90%+ efficient
>Solar panels are ~40% and rising
Dumbest comment yet.
You think electricity is a natural phenomenon like sunlight.
>just make the motor and it spins!1!

No, user. Electricity is generated by fossil fuel today.
Build nukes and dams, and you fix most of that.
But your motors are still full of toxic products, mined with toxic products, and manufactured with fossil fuel power start to finish.

Quoting percent efficiencies is cute, but you messed up on the initial setup.

You dont know how the government works if you think the President has no hand in where the money is spent. This isnt 1790. The President has more powers than most kings ever had

>a US government report concludes that AGW is super important and that not even the US government itself isn't taking AGW seriously enough

do you see how this works?

>that turned evaporated all the water and made a thick atmosphere?
It didn't turn evaporate water. There's massive amounts of sulphur and other things you don't know or care about, champ.

>or here is something that may be helpful for you
For the third time, explain these:
I'll bet you ignore them again.
You ignore everything you don't like. Yes, I'll bet you are VERY educated, user. Lol.

If the entire solar system is warming, why aren't Martian ice caps shrinking?

CHECKMATE

Yes they are. I am not completely arguing for it, but surely if we have instances where we need more energy at a certain time, we could use the less efficient power plants to maximize output. And what about baseloads?

>Obama has spent jack shit, congress does.
Ah, the good old days.
I wish I could ignore the news like you do. That must be so peaceful, knowing there are no more pressing problems than this.

>muh meltdowns
Keep repeating it. It's still not a concern.
>renewability
By the time we exhaust our supply of nuclear fuel, we'll be exploring the cosmos and harvesting it from asteroids or dead.
>individual energy independence
The USA will have independence. Hell, it's a source of political power over other countries, so it's a good thing.
>waste leaks
Do you really think people just throw barrels of the stuff off mountainsides? No, people take care of the waste.

No they arent, youre mistaken. Something like 1% of our current electricity is solar and that's almost exclusively personal rooftop panels.

There is always a certain amount of power being drawn from the grid. Refrigerators, street lights, traffic lights etc. You will never provide baseload power with solar panels since the sun only shines 12 hours a day

That's bercause prevention is cheaper then cure. We're gonna need to both though.

Solar panels aren't intrinsically bad. Just like everything the chinks do they do it in the cheapest nastiest way available. They wanna kill their own people I've no fucking issue with it. Too fucking many of them anyway.

>Exxon Mobil is also notorious for skewing scientific evidence through their private funding of scientific organizations. In 2002, Exxon Mobil contributed $10,000 to The Independent Institute and then $10,000 more in 2003. In 2003, The Independent Institute release a study that reported the evidence for imminent global warming found during the Clinton administration was based on now-dated satellite findings and wrote off the evidence and findings as a product of "bad science."[288]

$10,000? Wow. That is serious business and a highly important and unethical overreach for an oil company to make.

(meanwhile the DoE's annual budget is fucking THIRTY FUCKING BILLION)

From my point of view, I have no idea why anybody cares about this shit. In 10 years technology will likely be so advanced that any (unproven) consequences that may come from this can be easily dealt with. It's a fucking non-issue, even if it happens, which it probably won't.

global warming already had it's email leaks scandal. they were conspiring to fake data/results. soon after, the whole "movement" changes tack and renames itself "climate change", a name which can never be wrong, as it is literally just weather, and weather always changes. now, anytime there is a weather-related tragedy, the goons yell "climate change", and pseudointellectual NPR listeners nod smugly.

I have no idea what that is and its nothing from NASA. I'm not sure what side they're on but they sound a bit too conspiracy theory related for me. If there are actual studies or better yet, spectrum analysis of atmosphere I will believe it.

Insults don't make for good arguments. Those charts about the temperatures change are right for the most part. Earth is hotter than it has been in a long time, but it used to be hotter millions and millions of years ago.

Better chart referenced here: upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5f/All_palaeotemps.svg/1760px-All_palaeotemps.svg.png

However Royer et al. specified that CO2 was a leading cause in the climate in those eras: geosociety.org/gsatoday/archive/14/3/pdf/i1052-5173-14-3-4.pdf

>Have you noticed how they never back up the claim of warmening?

user. the last 14 months have set consecutive hottest on record records. That is to say last June was the hottest yet globally, until 2016 June. 9/10 of the hottest years on record have occurred since 1998. 2015 is hottest (or third hottest dependent on source) with 2016 set to be even hotter. How much more evidence of warming do you need?

These warming threads suck.

No matter how much I post that it's a scam, with points to discuss like
and
and
it's ignored by the Warmists.
They've been taught well.

Some of the less lazy photoshop stuff like
But notice that there's almost NEVER a source listed, and if it is, you can directly trace a money or political tie. It doesn't matter to warmists, because they don't have curiousity. They're just waiting to be told what to do.

Last pic. From a CLIMATOLOGIST. Not a newsman. Not a politician. So to warmists, it's junk.

When co2 levels were where they are now, or higher then entire world was drastically different in about every conceivable way. What do you think your graph proves?

co2 in the atmosphere is increasing though. Yes, it does leave the atmosphere. But it's not like water vapour that will do it withing days. co2 floats around for years,long enough to result in accumulation.

>temperature records set in the 2nd strongest El Nino year ever
Color me surprised

I only had time to argue the temperature but CO2 is a leading cause. It may not be the only thing, but we might as well switch to something better for the long run (space and shit) now instead of oil and coal. I'd argue over the glaciers and other stuff but I have to go since I have plans.

Have you heard of plants? They eat it. Ffs people this 3rs grade science

>Meltdown.
>Thorium plants.

Choose one. Thorium: Insanely plentiful. Cannot be weaponized. Can't "melt down" in the current sense people fear. Creates almost zero waste, and it stays around a fraction as well and is a fraction as dangerous as current elemental isotopes.

Solar will be the NEXT future. Its the one that comes after a golden century or so of nuclear power which would usher in an era equivalent to people in the 21st century inventing fucking warp drive.

If we were intelligent, anyway. I'm sure we'll fuck it all up.

My favorite argument:

"It may not be happening, but we might as well throw billions of humans into energy poverty and set us back 100 years of technological advances just in case!"

*fraction as long

I mean yeah.. the earth has been far warmer in the past than it is right now... but humans and literally everything we eat have only been around in our current or very similar climate. why the fuck would we want to heat everything up just because "earth wuz hot before" The argument has never been about "we'll kill all life on earth" and imo it's also never been about "we'll kill off our own species" but there's no way humans can exist in a large population anywhere close to what we've had recently in a climate much different than what we have had for the last few thousand years. We definitely have the technology to keep our climate steady indefinitely, but if we fail to use it now, it's very likely our population will drop below 1 billion or maybe even 500 million and then we'll be unable to ever advance our civilization to anything resembling modern times again. Say goodbye to being technological space-faring gods, say good-bye to anyone ever having a quality of life considered above modern poverty.

Sea ice isn't the big issue here. Though I'm sure you already know this.

actually, it's methane that's a leading cause

CO2 is actually a plant fertilizer, and the earth has been getting greener since levels have gone up. this makes it harder for globalist goons to control people by using food as a weapon.

>CO2 is insignificant.

co2 is a proven GHG. It is easy to demonstrate.

>But you can't regulate that to remove oil and coal interests, can you?

h2o largely self regulates, though a warmer atmosphere does hold more of it.

Now compare these to the 70s.

Of course CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The argument is whether it is even significant, since it makes up a fraction of a percent of all the green house gases