...
Redpill me on climate change
James Miller
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
siberiantimes.com
time.com
en.wikipedia.org
archive.4plebs.org
youtube.com
twitter.com
Andrew Peterson
Look it up yourself faggot.
Nathan Murphy
It's happening
Samuel Reyes
its happening in all the solar system
Angel Flores
We had an iceage not too long ago geologically speaking. We've been warming ever since. A few jews figured out that they could redistribute wealth via carbon shekels if they got a few hundred scientists to cry about the sky falling and rig their media spout buzz words and refuse to give anyone else a voice.
Caleb Allen
Every article on the first page of google preaches the earth will literally flood and burn in flames of doom if we don't pass glorious carbon tax. One "science for skeptics" website tries to "debunk climate myths" but is extremely misleading with half truths used to lawyer their ways out
Cooper Cruz
I actually have an undergraduate degree in Earth Sciences so can sum it up quite well.
>The earth is definitely warming
>Human GHG emissions are probably playing a role.
>The role they play is most likely pretty insignificant in my opinion.
>The 97% consensus figure is totally false. The majority of relevant scientists (much less than 97%, however) do publicly hold the view that human GHG emissions are the key causative factor, but the majority of scientists are also funded by institutions with a clear agenda. Make of that what you will.
/thread.
Carson Walker
>but the majority of scientists are also funded by institutions with a clear agenda.
What agenda would that be? Meanwhile, every single study that sets out to dismiss AGW is funded by an energy company, i.e. someone with a vested interest in the status quo.
William Parker
Population control
Pollution reduction
Climate Change is nothing but a symptom
/thread
Connor Turner
What about all the increase in extreme weather claims?
I've deduced a warmer planet would make the world more humid and thus make rains and hurricanes more common but they also claim there is an increase in drought and wildfire directly related to global warming
Jeremiah Walker
Was hot as shit here over summer so I doubt climate change really exists but why do people insist on talking about rising sea levels and how they're going to destroy the planet when the solution is simple. To combat rising sea levels all you have to do is erect a large wall around every country that stems from the ocean floor and towers about a mile above the surface.
Done, sorted. Land masses will no longer be at risk from flooding as the sea level inside the wall will stay the same.
Jace Jenkins
>here
Confirmed for living in the southeast
Summer was miserable everywhere else
Jaxon Allen
People who freak the fuck out that the sea levels are rising are the biggest scum of this earth. Even the biggest alarmists are upfront that they're literally rising at a rate of about 1mm per year. It's like if people started developing scenarios and political policies to try to prevent continental shifts from happening
Joseph Davis
The agenda is "grants". The source of revenue for the warmists is the government, or universities which are funded by the government (See: student loans). He who takes Caesar's coin plays Caesar's tune. If the science is settled...why are so many climate scientists needed? What benefit do they provide society? Who voluntarily pays for their services? Remember, EVERYTHING the government touches, it corrupts. Its goal is ALWAYS more unearned money and power for the government.
Adam Hall
When i was a kid all the scients kept saying that we were headed for another ice age and each winter was getting worse and worse...
>not falling for that shit again
Brody Lee
It happens
Lincoln Wilson
the climate has barely changed and nobody knows why, even if they claim otherwise
Hunter James
redditors you can't /thread yourself ! xd
Nathaniel Sanchez
>What about all the increase in extreme weather claims?
They're not founded in reality. We've actually had a drought of strong hurricanes for a fucking decade.
But, given the nature of today's connected (((global media))), they're able to get cameras on the ground the moment something bad happens anywhere and trumpet their fear mongering to the entire world.
Luke Ward
Any real solution to fix it would require nothing less than a strict and severe reduction of energy use. There is no magic bullet of energy. There is no technological solution.
The only solution is a 90% reduction in energy usage in first world countries.
Nobody is ever going to do that.
So for all intents and purposes, it doesn't matter. Oil is finite too but nobody has any plans for when it runs out.
Nobody lives as though the world will continue to exist after they're dead.
Wyatt Jackson
The alarmism that we see is mostly the useful idiots and cucks latching onto something. But climate change is indeed happening, and it's mostly our fault.
Carbon tax is Jew-tier bullshit, though.
Xavier Wilson
Also this. Humans are a plague.
Carter Phillips
From what i can make out the temperature is slowly rising and our carbon/methane/whatever outputs are contributing to this. Apart from this it seems like conjecture based on 'models' (think economic models), especially where the future is concerned. This is what I've been told by someone who is fully on the Climate Change side of things, but rational about the subject.
Obviously I'm not a scientist so I just have to believe these people to some degree..
Jonathan Morales
What I find best about carbon tax:
>OPEC says they love carbon tax because it runs coal out of business and increases petrol demand
>lobby politicians to pass carbon taxes
>politicians mobilize their scientists and what not
>climate change websites try to simultaneously discredit nuclear energy so that people will be forced to buy OPEC petrol
Henry Smith
/Thread
Justin Gomez
>If the science is settled...why are so many climate scientists needed?
You make it sound like all the climate scientists should be dismissed like a genie to their bottle until their services are needed once more. Science is not a destination
Jaxon Perry
Are 99% of all scientists jews?
I always thought whites drove innovation
Christian Sanchez
>the minority of scientists are also funded by institutions with a clear agenda. Make of that what you will.
Fixed that for you
Nathan Peterson
It was initially called global warming because scientists said the earth was warming due to man. Then it started to get cooler, so they changed the name to climate change. The climate is always changing but it is not our workings. Climate change is a way for government to take more money off businesses and increase regulations.
Jaxon Diaz
>Redpill me on climate change
Sure. All you have to do is read. Follow these in order, if you would. Yes, you'll have to watch a short video and read, it's not going to be too bad.
1.) youtube.com
3.) time.com
Liam Perez
How much energy per year would it take to change the temperature?
The earth is an open system. It should not be difficult to estimate.
We do use 20 terawatts per year. That's a lot of waste heat.
Samuel Wright
But, science should provide some benefits. Climate science does not.
Isaac Gutierrez
90% of science is worthless.
Jeremiah Taylor
The white ones do. Jew science is all circlejerk that accomplishes nothing.
Einstein tried to shut down nuclear research and tried to discredit the whole of quantum mechanics which has given us the thermal power chips that are going unutilized because jews can make more money and gobble up more real estate on getting the government to push wind turbines and photovoltaics.
Oliver Gomez
You can watch this video to top it all off, also.
Jack Evans
1) it's real
2) humans are a major contributing factor
3) the Koch Brothers and friends spend a fuckton of money shilling all the climate change denial info
4) India and Chinese emissions are a problem, but they are never going to do anything if the US doesn't lead the way
5) it will effect you in your lifetime unless you're as old as the majority of the people pushing the denial agenda (e.g. right wing pundits in their 60s)
6) Plenty of the deniers know they're spewing bullshit, but would rather live rich and comfy before they die
7) There is an abundant amount of research available on the subject, which has been peer reviewed by a large body of researchers and while there are still open questions, it would be disingenuous to imply that this is the same as saying people disagree that it's a problem
7) seriously investigate where the funding comes from for people denying it, also do it for people promoting the pro-human caused climate change, because they aren't infallible either
but
7a) it is seriously a false equivalency to suggest that the handful of people looking to be carpet bagging profiteers on the pro side of the argument discredit all of the other voices, where the anti side is almost all profiteering and shilling
8) Yes, some of the data/models has been wrong, is currently wrong, and will be wrong in the future
9) this shouldn't be a left or right wing political issue, but because our economy is so heavily reliant on the burning of carbon sinks to function, it has become one
10) seriously, just do some research on the subject, don't listen to me or Sup Forums, avoid people who try and use smoking gun "gotcha" arguments to disprove every claim on one side by falsifying a single point of the opposing view
William Gonzalez
It'll probably sort itself out in the long term. I read that energy demand in OECD countries peaked in 2007 and is unlikely to go back to those levels.
At the end of the century the world will use much less energy per capita
Easton Morgan
Peak oil, then resource conflicts, then nuclear war, then agrarian pre-industrial society for centuries if not ever.
It'll take 650 million years for the earth to make more oil, and that's the only thing that got us this far.
Gavin Ross
Nah, peak oil ended up being a myth. Demand will peak long before available supply will peak.
They will develop better energy sources such as thorium based nuclear reactors. They aren't retarded enough to let scarcity get to the point of nuclear war anyway
Matthew Sanders
Ted Turner II started the cult the erected the GA guidestones...
Jaxson Brooks
CO2 has barely anything to do with it.
Liam Nguyen
>.why are so many climate scientists needed?
The Earth and climate are complicated, there are a lot of different subjects to study.
> What benefit do they provide society?
Since "climate scientists" is a rather vague term, let's be more specific, here is a sample list of the organizations which are on the pro side of the argument:
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Society of Agronomy
Soil Science Society of America
European Geosciences Union
American Meteorological Society
American Institute of Biological Sciences
World Health Organization
The Institution of Engineers Australia
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
This isn't a complete list, but the general point I would like to make is that this is a large, interdisciplinary subject. The specific task of these institutions are all varied, they serve a number of functions in society, so there is not a single answer to your question.
>Who voluntarily pays for their services?
Again, see the above point. However, in general, we fund scientific research through the state, because there is often not a sufficient market force to allocate resources if left to market means. However, the research is often available to the private sector, at no cost mind you, so the later benefit is that private industry is the one who reaps the profits off the back of the taxpayer funded research.
A lot of what you might consider "climate" research is useful in a variety of private industries, such as agriculture, but in general it's not always understood what the immediate economic benefit of studying something will be and that is generally not the correct way to evaluate if something is sensible to fund, otherwise we would stagnate on development of new ideas that don't have an immediate value to the market, yet might be useful to some future venture that emerges because of it.
Kayden Campbell
>Nah, peak oil ended up being a myth.
How did they prove that oil is both infinite and replenishes itself at a rate greater than we can use?
>They will develop better energy sources such as thorium based nuclear reactors.
No they won't because nuclear reactors are heat engines with impossible to break limitations on energy efficiency.
>They aren't retarded enough to let scarcity get to the point of nuclear war anyway
like they wouldn't saber rattle with russia over syria? The cooler heads have all retired and died.
David Martin
To add, the only way to address loss of resources is to take them from others. Eventually two countries will want the same resource location, and they'll fight it out.
Again, Syria is the beginning of the end. We have almost no chance of avoiding nuclear war anymore.
Aaron Fisher
>How did they prove that oil is both infinite and replenishes itself at a rate greater than we can use?
It's not that, there really is more oil than we are going to use at our demand level
>No they won't because nuclear reactors are heat engines with impossible to break limitations on energy efficiency.
Those reactors can yield plenty of energy regardless of their actual efficiency
>like they wouldn't saber rattle with russia over syria? The cooler heads have all retired and died.
>Again, Syria is the beginning of the end. We have almost no chance of avoiding nuclear war anymore.
That's crazy, no one wants to start a nuclear war and especially not over a shitty desert country
Nathaniel Lee
>They aren't retarded enough to let scarcity get to the point of nuclear war anyway
everything about human interactions on the international scale over the past few decades indicates otherwise to me
Leo Wood
>It's not that, there really is more oil than we are going to use at our demand level
Says who? OPEC? Reserve numbers are state secrets.
>Those reactors can yield plenty of energy regardless of their actual efficiency
Yes but improvements won't scale as long as you're using it to heat water. That bottleneck will always make it just 30% efficient.
>That's crazy, no one wants to start a nuclear war and especially not over a shitty desert country
It's about the resources. That's why we only take over or destroy countries with oil. Libya, Iraq, Syria, etc. North Korea is shitty too, but does anyone want to "Free" them? Shit no.
Syria is a resource war between two superpowers. It's only a matter of time before the defcon countdown.
Brody Lopez
>A perfect time to use the word "antediluvian" and they let it slip right through their fingers
For this reason alone, I cannot watch this.