Climate Change and Renewable Energy

Recently watched Leo Dicaprio's climate change documentary in my environmental science class and it really made me think. What's the deal climate change Sup Forums?Is it hyberbole or are climate-change denying republicans paid-off morons? What should be done on a political, societal, and technological level to approach this issue? Are wind, solar, and Elon Musk's batteries the answers?

Other urls found in this thread:

theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/08/global-greening-has-slowed-rise-of-co2-in-the-atmosphere-study-finds
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara_Sea
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salton_Sea
theguardian.com/film/2016/aug/31/leonardo-dicaprio-wolf-of-wall-street-rainforest-charity-malaysia
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Yes, it is hyperbole. Climate change is certainly real, and humans are certainly having an impact. However the mainstream view is fear mongering.

You can tell it's propaganda because they never tell you about 'global greening'; a demonstrable affect where increased CO2 concentrations lead to accelerated plant growth and expanded vegetation around the globe observed by satellites.

The response should be geo-engineering primarily. We shape the environment by shaping the ecosystems (think of our response to the Dust Bowl- a historical example of man made climate change and how to deal with it).

Solar and wind have a part to play, but if they were serious they would use our advanced nuclear technology. We still are using reactors from the 60's. Nuclear technology has advanced just as much as medicine or computer technology has, but we aren't using it. Would you use a 60's era computer? No. So we need to start using advanced (much safer) nuclear reactors. The gas and coal lobbies are responsible for keeping it from coming.

It's an update version of Al Gore. Fuck that guy, he said that in 2014 all the northern ice cap will melt.

Good response, thanks.

What kind of geo-engineering projects are you referring to or where could I research that?

>You can tell it's propaganda because they never tell you about 'global greening'

What's the purpose of the propaganda using electric cars and solar energy ?

They're scams.

On a ridiculous scale.

I think they should work on getting rid of phosphates, phosphites, sulfates, etc. etc. rather than focusing so hard on CO2. Like they pick the easiest fucking thing to get rid of and tax the hell out of companies on it meanwhile they'll do nothing about actual pollutants.

Deny climate change? Anyone who does is an idiot.
Does it matter? Anyone who thinks so is either an idiot, or has a significant investment in coastal property and/or farmland.

I fully support climate change, as I want to see Manhattan go underwater. So, I think we should do nothing at all to prevent it.

>Is it hyberbole or are climate-change denying republicans paid-off morons?
largely yes, and general edgelords who feel the pathalogical need to deny climate change cuz libs believe in it.

>We're still in an ice age.
>We only have ~100 years of truly accurate global temperature records

We probably should go green, but only so that our water and air aren't toxic. The Earth goes has temperature cycles. It happens. Might suck for us, but we're not "ruining the planet." If the planet and life on it can get through the Permian–Triassic extinction event, then I wouldn't be too worried about it. What I do worry about is the fucking air I breath and the water that I drink.

More plants have been growing due to higher CO2 levels in the air and warming temperatures that cut the CO2 emitted by plants via respiration. The effects led the proportion of annual carbon emissions remaining in the air to fall from about 50% to 40% in the last decade.

However, this greening is only offsetting a small amount of the billions of tonnes of CO2 emitted from fossil fuel burning and other human activities and will not halt dangerous global warming. “Unfortunately, this increase is nowhere near enough to stop climate change,” said Dr Trevor Keenan, at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in the US, who led the new work.


theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/08/global-greening-has-slowed-rise-of-co2-in-the-atmosphere-study-finds

THIS

just fuck the planet and move to another one.

Earth is beta, it has 7 billion users, next planet we learn from this start to breed less.

>What kind of geo-engineering projects are you referring to or where could I research that?

It's difficult for me to cite you specifics, because as far as I'm aware there isn't too much media coverage. A historical example of a project was terraforming the Sahara desert. It was scrapped for WW1, but it's something entirely possible and very large scale. For a lot of the US it's much smaller in scale, but still very nice. Planting thousands of additional trees in a midwestern area will affect the climate, how moisture and soil are maintained, etc.

>What's the purpose of the propaganda using electric cars and solar energy ?

Shekels. They aren't bad ideas overall to be perfectly honest, but forcing them is all about shekels.

>finally gets his oscar
>starts acting pretentious, political, and preachy

shut the fuck up and go back to being generic boyish characters in mildly entertaining movies, dicaprio

First, it will continue to slow as vegetation continues to grow. It's a proportional response, plants continue to grow faster up to many multiples of atmospheric CO2.

I also wasn't really referring to how it was slowing climate change, more that it's a positive result of climate change that is never mentioned because they want people to think climate change is solely negative. When you tell them their crops will grow faster and give bigger yields, they may just embrace higher CO2 concentrations.

Higher temps also lead to longer growing seasons, nor are temperatures spiraling out of control. All the predictions showed much higher rates of warming than actually have occurred.

I think we just need to look at this as a cost benefit analysis.

>Assuming Climate Change is man made
-Develop sustainable energy practices
-become free from the Oil Jew
-Petro-dollar stops causing wars
-less industrial shit polluting our air and water

>Assuming climate change is not man-made
-be slaves to the oil jew forever

take your pick.

they are terrible ideas buddy. batteries hurt the environment more than gas

What about potential droughts in the developing world which will inevitably lead to large scale (((refugee crises)))?

Leo is beginning to look more and more like Orson Welles.

>Recently watched Leo Dicaprio's climate change documentary in my environmental science class and it really made me think. What's the deal climate change Sup Forums?Is it hyberbole or are climate-change denying republicans paid-off morons? What should be done on a political, societal, and technological level to approach this issue? Are wind, solar, and Elon Musk's batteries the answers?

Man-made climate change is real but not nearly as big of a deal as liberals claim. Yes a few species will go extinct and a few coastal areas will get flooded and the weather will get a bit more nasty in certain places, but it's not going to be the end of the world.

Yes, Elon Musk will save us. I preordered a Model 3. Solar roofs and self driving electric cars are the future and white as fuck.

>(((refugee crises)))
BUILD A WALL

LEO IS A HYPOCRITE WITH HIS JETS!

Let's review:

Climate change has always been ongoing since the formation of our planet. It never stops, things go in cycles and then change direction. Think warm, then Ice Age, then thawing, etc.

Now, put that into perspective when leftists insist that it's all man-made. Seems to me that the planet warmed the fuck up big-time after being frozen over way back when, but somehow, libtards would convince you this can't happen without our interference being the cause so their solution is to tax, regulate, and destroy valid energy sources in some shitty misguided way to push failed "clean energy" sources that supply much less at a much greater cost and still have their own problems.

Are we POSSIBLY impacting global temperatures? Maybe. But, in the 1970s, these same libtards were saying that we were on the verge of the next Ice Age, only to change gears a decade or so later and claim we're frying the planet.

If the obvious hoaxery from people like Al Gore who got filthy rich on pushing the global warming nonsense weren't so visible, I could see people still falling for it, but it's clear that most of what is being said is made-up nonsense based on flawed models and projections that suit an agenda of new energy sources and taxing old ones eve more.

We shouldn't fuck the planet up, but trust me, it's more resilient than the liberal dipshits give it credit for. When their wind and solar shit can actually give equal energy output at a similar cost to current sources, then awesome, let's go with those, but until they can be as good as what we have, they should remain secondary at best.

If it's such a threat, why does Leo take weekly cross-country private jet trips?
If it's such a threat why would the NOAA alter it's data to fit computer models?
If it's such a threat, why lie about "muh 97% of scientists" meme?
Why all the strong arming and vitriol?

It depends on who you talk to, and in what context.

The climate changes. That's a proven fact, over the lifetime of our mud ball, the climate has changed. We know some of the reasons, and know about ice ages and warming periods.

The problem is that an issue that should be studied, has become an industry. Profiteering is what we're getting, not a reasonable discourse - and no solid plans to prepare for what might be coming.

If you know anything about the academic world, the #1 rule is "publish or die". You get more money from grants, if you pick the popular topics. Global warming has has billions funneled into it, and the academic world has gotten fat and happy on the money - and they have to publish *something*, so they get more. A report saying "Well, there's some things we need to study, but we're not facing a global disaster like the movies and media portray it." A published paper like that will get you escorted off campus, and you get to try and survive in the real world, where results matter.

Then, the politicians grabbed hold of the idea to scare the shit out of people to get legislation passed that benefits them and their corporate banker buddies. If we're facing losing our criop lands and major cities, carbon fucking credits do NOTHING to address the problem, since they're the ones who say the disaster is inevitable and we're past the point of no return, the world is ending, blah blah blah - but lets create a new tier of taxation to suck up more bribes so 3rd world countries can belch pollution out to make our iPhones. And then, we'll create exchanges for the carbon credits, so we can trade them and make MORE money - but we won't invite those annoying plebs out there. (Obama, Clinton Foundation and Al Gore were heavily invested in the carbon exchanges).

And the media went along with their liberal talking points, as trained.

Continued. So, we have The Science Guy and Neil telling us climate change is *fact*. Well, yeah. But is it from us, or the sun? They ignore that, and wag their fingers at us.

But, if it's true, what are they doing to prepare for the drastic changes they say are coming? If the croplands will cease to be productive, have they identified where the new ones will be, and have a plan to switch to those new lands? What plans are in place to relocate NYC, since it's under threat? What are we doing to protect species, who will be wiped out in this coming armageddon?

Hell, we can't even keep focusing on electric cars, once gas prices drop back down.

But now, "climate change" is nearly a religion, they even have labels for apostates, like "denier", which is cute, and terrifying at the same time.

For all of the crying and Chicken Littleing going over the subject, you'd think we, as a planet, would be doing more to prepare, more than just inventing new taxes and things to trade, for profit. It's hard to take someone seriously, when all of the energy seems to be focused on creating a One World Government through regulations and taxes, and not on feeding, clothing, and housing people when the seas rise.

Makes you go "hmmmmm".

Don't ever forget fucking Goldman Sachs Jew.

Quotas are their new bet. I know climate change is real. But don't EVER sell to these Jews if you don't want another global economic crisis.

Conclusion:

Does climate change?

Yes.

Are we doing it?

I'm sure we have a part to play. And less pollution is always a good idea, and studying our world is always worth it.

But is an armageddon coming? I have my doubts. Serious doubts. They've been predicting the effects of this warming (the data of which is somewhat suspect and under dispute), and....well, they never seem to show up. The polar bears are still alive. Ice is forming and melting, pre usual, at the polar caps. NYC is not under water.

So what to do? Keep cleanig up our planet. Shitting your own nest is never a good idea. But it's time to stop the drama and Chicken Littleing, continue studying the world, and get rid of these globalists who are trying to scare the shit out of people to get their agenda's pushed through. DiCaprio is a fine actor, I enjoy his movies, but he has globalists so far up his ass, he's nothing but a puppet at this point. Watch his movie? Why? It's propaganda.

20 years ago it was """"""global Warming"""""" now it's """""""climate change"""""""""

same bullshit, different name. I'm sure in another 20 years they'll come up with a new innovated name for it to fool a whole new generation of people.

Remember the hullabaloo over the hole in the ozone? You may not, most of you guys are probably too young. Hysteria over the ozone layer got to the point they wanted to ban spaceflight, because it "poked holes in the ozone" (which, besides hysterical, was completely devoidof any actual science.)

Now, we did cut back on CFLs and such, which is good - we got a little crazy with "better living through chemistry" from the 50's through to the 80's. But they INSISTED the damage was permanent, we were all going to die from skin cancer, the fish in the oceans would all die, yada yada yada.

Today? The hole healed itself...and they're not quite sure how.

Just remember that. They THINK man made pollution is the driving force in climate change. They disregard the sun cycles lately which show a trend hotter.

I've seen this before. First it was the ice age. Then it was the ozone hole. Now it's climate change.

Us silly monkies running around this dirt ball, we never change.

The incalculable amount of variables which factor into climate are impossible for us to comprehend much less measure, disseminate and discern each influence with every other corresponding variable affected. It is closer to chaos than picking out a handful of environmental flags and stating such a blanket explanation as fact.

Even the simplest of processes become near chaotic when examined in ever increasingly smaller scale much less planetary. Improvements in data collection with disregard to localized environmental and topographic variables (changed or underreported), coupled with the sheer amount of data collected for comparison antiquates previous data in scope and methodology.

Climatology is political party, which explains the wildly unreasonable reaction to qualified dissension in peer review, refusal of data sharing and dismissal of the need for reproduction when errors and falsifications are present. If it had remained in the scientific realm, it would still be called Meteorology. That every climatologist concurs, what they were taught and are now teaching is fact, means nothing. Experimenter bias can be attributed to much more than a salary in the prestige of fronting humanity saving research in our dire final hour, receiving awards and accolades and earning a prominent place in the regulatory behemoth established to counter the contrived results before they show no fruition. It might just focus data gathering at predetermined locations of concentrated production of the conformational data required.

The embedded politics are on display when all importance is placed on halting progress and limiting freedoms instead of countering the perceived effects through their own means of collection, disposal, or production of whatever they imagine will balance things out.

If man's influence on climate change was correctly represented as a hypothesis, it would not currently be the basis for the regulatory systems being devised, causing apoplectic opposition to the devastating economic ramifications and repression of civil liberties. Then research with the removal of politics being of foremost prominence in the exclusion of experimental bias would ensure the integrity of the studies and true consensus can be found.

we banned CFCs and therefore gradually removed the pollutant from the ozone cycle

regardless of how you feel about climate change, pushing for nuclear and renewable energy is good business and politics.

fossil fuels won't be around forever, and waiting until you're literally out of them to stand transitioning over is retarded. furthermore, the amount of destructive environmental incidents with renewables and nuclear is much lower than those produced by fossil fuel-related activities, which results in less manhours and money lost each time it happens.

further distancing ourselves from oil also makes us less dependent on the assholes in the middle east

Thanks for reposting what I already posted. Did you have an actual point to make?

>if the planet and life can get through the Permian extinction, then I wouldn't be too worried about it, life can get through this
you should be worried about whether or not humanity will be joining life in general in making through it

>i don't understand economics
>i don't understand rate of return

The main reasons to switch to electric cars are threefold:

- reduce global warming
- reduce pollution
- fossil fuels running out

Whatever your view on global warming, reducing pollution is generally a Good Thing and fossil fuels are finite - developing alternatives is a vital step. Now that the technology is where it needs to be and is becoming more economically viable by the year, now is the time for auto manufacturers to invest and get their R&D on.

If you believe in man made climate change you are an absolute moron. Climate change is happening goy, but it is not man made. There is nothing you can do to stop it or mitigate it.

> further distancing ourselves from oil also makes us less dependent on the assholes in the middle east

Also this.

Or you know we could take a more practical approach and actually go through with one of the pipelines we are supposed to be building.

We can live now Mars so we can live on Earth even if turns into radioactive desert without atmosphere and liquid water. It is even better this way. This is called progress and freedom from water jew.

How bad was global cooling hysteria in the 60s-80s? I hear about some form of it but the general sentiment at the time is hard to discern from biased recollections.

Stop making another climate shit thread every 5 minutes

> The incalculable amount of variables which factor into climate are impossible for us to comprehend much less measure, disseminate and discern each influence with every other corresponding variable affected.

Modelling chaotic systems such as climate will actually become much more viable as quantum computing and AI advance.

The irony is, we have more potential energy locked up in our own lands, locked away and untouchable, thans the Middle East does.

I agree in principle, though. My relative works for the Fed designing nuke reactors, and he's said for years, they have reactor designs that are thousands of times safer than anything built already - and have built test reactors to prove it - but the politics prevent them from being built.

An older design they have used liquid sodium to cool it. They created a meltdown on purpose, turned off the pumps...and no meltdown.

It's 2016. It's time to get rid of the internal combustion engine. Musk proved you can make a car that's 100% compatible with people needs and requirements, that is 100% electric - the next hurdle is the price, and getting more charging stations, and working towards breakthroughs in battery technology to make them smaller, more efficient, and safer.

LED tech is already making a difference. 10 years ago, my energy bills were twice to three times what they are now, because of all the CRTS, energy innefficent computers, tvs, light bulbs, etc.

Less dependancy on the energy grid should be a prioritiy - but again, as usual, politics and profit are fighting to keep us attached to them.

Look at what they did to alternate fuels. I was ready to buy an older Mercedes with a deisel engine, and had a few sources of used veg oil lined up, and CA went and made it so difficult to store and transport it, it's pointless. That's insanity. It's suicide by government.

>invest in stocks
>make law forcing to buy your product literally under barrel of the gun

there's a ton of oil locked up in the continental US but nobody wants to go for it because of the risk of spillage. When a rig or pipeline in the mideast leaks no-one cares, but when it does and American farmland and water mains get poisoned, people get upset.

It wasn't as bad as it is now, because we didn't have the internet, but it was everywhere - movies, TV, talk shows, news, books, magazines. I remember Time Magazine had articles about it constantly.

>Is it hyberbole
Yes
>or are climate-change denying republicans paid-off morons?
Also yes.

Let me ask you this, OP

Who are you going to trust

97% of Scientists with PhD in climate science

or a reality TV show of "The Apprentice"?

choose carefully

Climate change is a hoax. I'm glad we finally have a leader in the west who comes out and says it.

t. your ass

You get it.

There's been a massive bamboozle being pulled on teh entire planet, lead by familiar names - Gore, Clinton, UN, etc. It's all wrapped up in their globalist plans, and they've all been setting up to profit from in ways you can't even comprehend. Repubs, too, a lot of them have a LOT of skin in the game with the carbon exchanges.

I choose Chinese billionaires.

>Shekels
How is pouring shitloads on money into innovative technology that nobody can afford about shekels? The money's in fossil fuels and conventional technology, renewables are risky investments with basically no return

Oh, look. Someone is doing damage control.

Who signs your paycheck? The Democrat Party, or George Soros?

> I agree in principle, though. My relative works for the Fed designing nuke reactors, and he's said for years, they have reactor designs that are thousands of times safer than anything built already - and have built test reactors to prove it - but the politics prevent them from being built.
> An older design they have used liquid sodium to cool it. They created a meltdown on purpose, turned off the pumps...and no meltdown.

A friend of mine is working in nuclear as well. He was relating exactly this, and it was fascinating - the tech is called Molten Salt Reactors, in case anyone's interested. It's self-regulating, low pressure and meltdown is essentially impossible.

>Are wind, solar, and Elon Musk's batteries the answers?

No.

Nuclear is.

its bs

the earth heats and cools in cycles over the ages

water is a greenhouse gas user, and nuclear is non-renewable because we only have so much uranium in the world

Not to mention the waste management costs and the enormous risk that comes about every time a project goes belly up

No law will be required. The price of fossil fuels will increase to the point where we use an alternative or tear each other apart over something that's going to run out anyway.

Not sure why this is difficult to understand. Yes, there will be those who aim to profit from the process, but that'll happen either way.

I wonder if your friend knows my relative. There aren't that many people working on that stuff.

I talked to him a couple years ago, I said, "what is it you actually do?" and he got a couple sentences out before he completely lost me. He has two Ph.Ds - one in atomic engineering, and one in nucklear physics. I couldn't even understand the titles of his thesis'. He's a brilliant guy.

He said that they were really close to getting the Clinton Administration to signing off on the Molten Salt, but they went with "Friends of Bill" instead. His opinion that cooling reactors with water is hopelessly outdated, and all the reactors online now need to be upgraded/repurposed with the safer technologies they've invented.

>Sup Forums actually believes global warming was made by Soros
Holy shit you people really are retarded. Is there anything that wasn't made by the jews at this point according to you idiots?

>Terraform the Sahara

Could actually be done now, desu

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara_Sea

Would convert most of the inner Sahara and north Africa into an analogue of California around the coasts.

The US also did it once by accident - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salton_Sea

Nuclear has killed fewer people than coal and uranium is the sort of thing we can mine from space. Hydrocarbons aren't.

actually the ozone cycle is pretty simple
there is a layer of oxygen molecules in the upper atmosphere that is constantly being being broken down by ultraviolet radiation into its compontent parts (oxygen atoms) then these single oxygen atoms from bonds with oxygen molecules to form ozone (molecule containing 3 oxygen atoms), ozone is unstable and the third oxygen atom in the molecul breaks off releasing energy.

the eintire process is just a massive UV blocker and alot of the reason as to why this plant can sustain life.

now why CFCs come in is they they're very stable particles and if released may find themselves in the upper atmosphere in the ozone cloud, and when they break down under UV radiation the component parts form strong bonds with all the available oxygen radicals
and massively fucking the effectiveness of the ozone layer to filter UV light.

all the western countries agreed this was a problem and products made from CFC's are no longer available, the ozone hole still exists to this day because it takes time for the CFCs still up there to decay.


someone with a better understanding of the science please come and shit all over this answer, because its been so long that i've covered this I have absolutely no confidence in my answer

>Nuclear has killed fewer people than coal
okay? I thought we were talking about nuclear vs solar and wind

I've got a hard-on for flooding Lake Eyre in Australia with seawater

...

...

>water is a greenhouse gas
unlike CO2 or methane, water leaves the atmosphere extremely quickly

Yeah, my friend believes similar. There was a feasibility study in the UK earlier this year. It's quite exciting. I think modern nuclear is the way forward, until some revolutionary happens with solar.

The sorts of rare-earth minerals we need for solar make it less feasible long term than nuclear.

Wind and hydro are ok

Was the Moon landing also fake and all part of Soros plan? Fucking retard.

I bet Hitler was a falseflagging scheme of the jews.

>Leo Dicaprio's climate change documentary
Lost me right there bud
Is he the same guy who filmed a movie in Alberta and said he seen global warming first hand referring to the warm wind, not knowing what a fucking Chinook is?

solar energy isn't the problem. lithium ion batteries are the problem. They could make badass hype-efficient solar panels to power the globe, but we'd all be fucked in the end because Li is actually really goddamn rare and the only reason we haven't yet noticed its' scarcity is because we've never tried mining it like coal (yet)

There's also a large area that's below sea-level and near to the Med in Egypt that could be flooded with a canal shorter than the Suez

>hydro
G E O T H E R M A L

>No law will be required. The price of fossil fuels will increase to the point where we use an alternative or tear each other apart over something that's going to run out anyway.
Then switch will happen natural way. Then why the fuck push for such laws, taxes and subsidies now? Oh wait because if it happens natural way competition could take your profits. If the profitability of industry is set by laws those who control laws could funnel profits in the choosen (by God of course, kekeke) pockets.

Leo Dicaprio is a crook:
Leonardo DiCaprio urged to repay donations to Malaysian rainforest fund

theguardian.com/film/2016/aug/31/leonardo-dicaprio-wolf-of-wall-street-rainforest-charity-malaysia

I am working on solar cell solutions and I can tell you this: Solar cell studies are not going to be a major replacement for our energy crisis for the next 20-30 years.
We do not have high-efficiency solar cell that would justify the cost yet, and most research on solar cell today you can see is on modification and improvement of the current material, aiming at increasing just a few percentages, than researching on a new platform that could bring a big change overall.

Wind is a no god. It's cost/meaintenance is too high, and it's too undependable. Windmills break down constantly. They tried it in CA. My dad bought a windmill in the early 80's, for the tax break, when there was a big push on for wind power. The thing was down for repair more than up, and the electricity it generated barely dented the costs. The tax breaks were the only good thing to come from them, and he sold it for scrap a decade later.

Same for solar. Areas with enough reliable sun are few, far between, and too far away to be practical.

Reactors are expensive, and require a lot of maintenance, but they pay for themselves very quickly. Take a look sometime how much power we get from the plants still online, and then compare it to the existing wind/sun farms.

Wind and sun are good for personal use. On a national or even state grid level, not so much.

Musk is working on the solition, and I'm pretty sure he stole it from Heinlein, who had a thing called "shipstones" in houses, that ran everything, and were'nt connected to the grid. He didnt say what they were, but it's assumed it was some form of fusion. Musk is devleoping home battery packs, which can trickle charge from a combo of sun and wind, on a personal home level.

But, you're not driving heavy industry on wind/sun. You need heavy lifting for that, and nuclear reactors are the solution.

what kind of new platform could really make a big change?

Nice pents

Electric cars will never be viable because there is a bottleneck in acquiring lithium gor the batteries. It's just a fad that will pass over soon. We would run out of lithium in a single generation if it became affordable for everyone.

All fossil fuels can be cleaner, and most in the developed World are. The third World have pretty dire energy to an emissions relationship, China is bringing online a new Coal fueled power station every two weeks, they do not care about soot and n=hence the cities are full of smog and also from car pollution. I am a Driller working in oil and gas for 12 years, I have seen the UK, Norway and Africa, middle east, and the west if much better at keeping it clean. I do not believe that since the Industrial revolutuion we have had as much impact as one great volcanic eruption such a Krakatoa, and all the global eruptions and below sea gas events compaired to man made consumption, carbon taxation is just that another tax to make us pay. In the UK we pay a carbon tax of 250 pounds per vehicle unless a hybrid and is free, we pay 80 pounds for a international flight and 40 pounds for a domestic as tac, it traded on the global markets, it's a tax. Rice paddie sin Asia and cattle farms in Africa are bigger contributors in comparison. I like Dicapros films but celebrities stay the fuck out of politics and science!

*yawn*. That's all you got, CTR goon?

Go away, liberal. Go fap to your PETA posters.

>environmental science class

He asked what the purpose of the propaganda was, shitposter. Keep up.

I don't deny climate change, I deny we can do anything about it

user... There's no such thing as a truely renewable resource... 2nd law of thermodynamics you dumb double nigger...

N U C L E A R
U
C
L
E
A
R

Hollywood is lobbying against big oil.

Jews own a lot of Tesla stock.

Yeah, that's him. He's as smart as celebrities come

The thing is the science is flawed and corrupted as shit on both sides. Nobody here knows the truth. The "science" is too complicated and that is by design, if it were simple people would see through the narratives. On one hand we have Exxon/Koch Bros/big oil buying data to suit their needs on the other hand we have #climategate and Greenpeace using cherrypicked data to suit theirs. An honest person would tell you that they need to do a lot more research before coming to any conclusions. Unfortunately everyone here has to take sides. Is it real? Depends what your definition of is is.

There is no energy without instant, fossil or nuclear to be utilised with solar, wind and hydro

>Certainly
It's so ironic how denialists criticize atmospheric scientists for their "certainty" that anthropogenic activity is causing rapid climate changes, yet they maintain that they are certain that it is now without any credible, empirical data to back up their statements.

Leo is a retard who thinks Chinooks are climate change. Why do people treat him like some sort of authority?

Nuclear is the safest in general (After hydro)

Who says that future batteries will use lithium?

Battery tech desperately needs a major breakthrough. We've pushed the current tech about as far as it will go. It needs a discover on the order of the discovery of the transistor, to move forward. It will happen. People are researching it now. If I were 18, and had a bent for engineering and chemistry, I'd get into battery research, I think it's going to be huge in the coming decades.