>>89713150

When dealing with linear climate change, sure. This is abrupt climate change. Short-term events that change the dynamics of the weather system. Exponential shit.

>millions of people die every year as a result of pollution regardless of climate change
>13,000 each year in America alone
>canacuck is fine with this

this is the right solution

I feel you OP. Im pretty socially conservative, but when it comes to environmental politics, conservashits are fucking delusional. Next to Cred Forums, /out/ would have to be my second favorite board.
I love the environment and it pains me that the retards on this board blatantly disregard fact/evidence that doesn't fit their agenda.
Fuck Cred Forums sometimes.

>oil companies lobby the scientists to disprove climate change because turning to green energy would hurt the dollar and their business

OR

Soros and Illuminati jew reptilians lobby scientist to have a reason to raise carbon taxes.

Which is it?

Wern't we in the middle of a large Ice age when some huge series of flares from the sun disrputed it, bringing us into the temperate climate we live in today? Im not sure if thats what stopped the ice age, but the point being we as humans live in a time frame of unusual weather activity anyway. So it will change, it is inevitable. If we fuck up and die, 400k years from now the earth will fix itself.

I'm against discussing climate change because one of the fundamental concepts of science is that any idea should be relentlessly criticized and subject to constant criticism from every angle, that's how you prove something is true. Yet people will call for the imprisonment or the complete disregard for any criticism or skepticism on the topic. Prominent figures will tell you to completely disregard anyone who is skeptical of it.

If your "science" tells you to complete ignore anyone who doesn't believe it, it's not really science.

Couple this with the fact that it has turned into in a industry in which governments manipulate for massive profits or trade leverage, and you now have a political motive, not a scientific one. Taxes and trade bans generating or denying billions of dollars.

Then take into account that studying climate change is not a capitalist industry, it is an industry which needs government funding. To be a climate scientist you are literally receiving your pay from the same government the uses your results to generate taxes.

So at the end what you have is a field funded by the government, where the government uses the finding as justification for new taxes, in which people call witch-hunts and absolutely refuse to face any skepticism or criticism on the finding. Climate change "science" is probably the least scientific and biggest conflict of interest field you could name

Yeah, man. There's a lot of adopted biases on Cred Forums nowadays.

Because it's anti-climactic

There's no proof in that link, you tard.

P.S. How's your heating bill this year?

>Soros and Illuminati jew reptilians lobby scientist to have a reason to raise carbon taxes.

you mean

>the literal government in power who receives the taxes

But a government would never do anything dishonest to receive more taxes right?

Not every single scientist on the planet is government funded. There's independent researchers who are part of University organisations who receive funding through patronage. Some of them are part of monitoring groups who track weather pattern data. It's not a hugely regulated science.

Not everyone is a government stooge, man.

>polar warming and associated gravity waves
>gravity waves
Seriously? Top kek, who the fuck writes this shit?

No one argues that the climate doesn't change, but the argument is whether or not its manmade.

Besides, it really does not matter.
>Climatology is an extremely new science and a rather weak science at that.
>Most people pushing manmade climate change narratives are involved in climate change benefiting businesses
>Projections have been all over the board, and often in counter to other climatologists
>The technology to "counter" climate change is extremely expensive and niche' which would only apply in small amounts to already affluent countries.
>There is no way the developing world would willing demolish their own industry to stop climate change.
>There is no real benefit for the first world to do so as they can roll with the punches of anything to happen comparably.

There is no climate discussion.

If you aren't on the political side of funding alternative energy products and anti-carbon emission legislation then you are labeled a climate change (((denier)))

Even IF you believe in climate change - even IF you believe in man-made climate change - if you try to argue that fossil fuels are the greatest technology for human well being and that limiting their use will result in global suffering and death - you will be labeled a climate change denier and blacklisted.

That's an irrelevant argument, if you consider what's at stake for those living on the planet. That's just another bait topic to keep everyone distracted.

>Not everyone is a government stooge, man.
Climate science is. It's literally who funds them. There aren't many climate scientists working on donations lel.

You didn't even address the other issues either. The main problem is "THIS IS TRUE AND IF YOU DON'T THINK IT'S TRUE THEN YOU'RE DISQUALIFIED FROM TALKING ABOUT IT" which is the most ant science philosophy you could possibly have

Don't forget:
>Third world countries creating significantly more pollution than first world countries, yet getting a free pass on it

Delete your account

because it doesn't fucking matter.
Assuming anthropogenic climate change is real, nothing short of nuking China and India into the stone age will stop it because they couldn't give less of a shit about "carbon footprints" when they're desperately trying to drag themselves up to superpower status, and I very much doubt you have the stones for that.

In short, it doesn't matter if global warming is real or not because we can't stop it and all we can do is, best case hope the clathrate gun isn't real, and worst case it goes off after we're dead.

What is an irrelevant argument?

When you move your proxy to a Country that won't be underwater in 10 years.

>If you aren't on the political side of funding alternative energy products and anti-carbon emission legislation then you are labeled a climate change (((denier)))

this

Another example of Cred Forums double standards. They love to use census data to back up their claims on dindus, but once scientific findings are funded by the government, it can be completely disregarded.
And no one says you're 'disqualified' from talking about anything if you don't agree with results. However, if you just choose to blatantly disregard a study without any backing to your claim, then you might as well be disqualified from having an 'opinion' on the matter. Shit, big articles in journals like science always receive hundreds of letters/formal refutes to big studies like this, no one criticizes them because they do it right.
Just don't go about saying i just don't believe it and not have anything else to say.

No one ever said it wouldn't change
The cause how ever is a totally different one

>85% black
I sure hope it does go down with Australia.

>human behaviour date is the same as objective scientific observation

There aren't allowed to be studies that disprove the claim. Any data that shows up against manmade science is black listed and immediately disqualified. They literally openly state that anyone who doesn't agree is not to be listened to

You keep referring to 'them', could you please clarify as to who you are referring to? And as far as I know, no study is blacklisted because it doesn't support a certain agenda. I'll retract my statement once you give me an example.
Another thing about these climate change studies is that they are so extensive and in depth and have so much data, that it is difficult to regurgitate to the general public and explain it in a way that makes sense to the average citizen. So say a study does come out, refuting a previously mentioned large scale study. The data from the newer study is small I'm comparison and cannot compare or is unable to statistically refute the previous study.
If you want to refute 'biased' climate change studies, you have to come up with the same tests and yield different results.

I find it funny that people are still talking about it as if it matters whether climate change is real. The best thing for the nation coincides with what you want, anyways.

Stop arguing about whether it's real. Just start pushing the solutions outlined here:

You suggest that the situation is black and white, and that making slow progress towards reducing even a small amount of anthropogenic greenhouse emissions will accomplish nothing. This is like saying making the first step on the moon will have had nothing to do with making the first step on Mars.
Climate change is slow, at least in comparison to one person's lifespan, but to suggest that a small step towards the right direction is meaningless is just dumb.

Climate change is only ever used as a big boogeyman to scare people into accepting all the other inane shit that the left pushes. The left will never do anything about it though because they are fucking inept. If the right recognized it and wanted to talk about serious solutions, the left would derail discussion by calling it racist and demanded bathrooms for trannies while we all die.

Your only hope is to vote Trump so that we can get back to the point where any serious issue can even be addressed in a serious manner again.

Believe me when I say I whole heartedly agree with diversifying energy usage where applicable, as you outlined. However, when you have a group of people that blatantly denies fact because a change in their lifestyle is too inconvenient for them, you come to a grinding halt in which a solutions to a problem are never enacted.
The diversifying energy issue isn't a problem brought up by the 'greens' as you mention. It's from deniers who vote into power people who share the same ideas as they. It's also from large energy companies who find it unprofitable to begin diversifying energy.

I don't think that it true out of necessity. Yeah, the upper echelons are that way, but there are plenty of people who buy into it and just want to reverse it.

Takefor example. I provided a solution that would take money out of the hands of tyrants while pushing us towards green energy, but the guy completely ignores me to fight with other people who debate whether it is real or not.

>lets raise taxes and further burden white people while niggers and gooks keep ruining everything at a pace 100x worse than the industrial revolution

Oh, finally, a response.

You're wrong. I've outlined a way where electricity becomes extraordinarily cheap, so cheap, in fact, that most people would have no issue with that.

And it isn't people who want small government who are against Nuclear power.

Nice strawmanning faggot

I just responded. Sorry, I'm on my phone so my responseschedule are slow

I think it is more productive to adapt to a gradually changing climate than to try and slow it down because our ability to impact it will not be successful when we can't regulate China or the rest of the developing world.

We already take steps to reduce pollution for reasons besides climate change anyway.

>gravity waves
seems legit

Its simple why. We're far beyond the point of being able to actually stop global warming, we can't reverse it and it is entirely possible that we're just speeding up a natural process.

Who fucking cares, it just means we'll all die quicker.

i read somewhere that even if the entire world but china and india would switch back to medieval technology, just the two nations would pump out enough shit to make our efforts irrelevant.

assuming this is true, why bother? we cant talk china/russia/india into doing jack

In the long run, yes, it proves to be cheaper, but it's about instant gratification and initial investment. This strays people away from developing/investing new forms of energy. Not to mention gas, coal, fossil fuels are all making such good money in the energy business, the auto inustry, transportation of goods, lubrications, etc, why would any energy companies invest in different forms of energy that are only limited to providing power to buildings?

>No one argues that the climate doesn't change, but the argument is whether or not its manmade.

Used to be the argument was the climate isn't changing, the planet is just too big for that to happen. Looking forward to 10 years time when we get:

>No one argues that the climate change isn't man made, but the argument is whether or not anything can be done to change it.

Deniers and denier lobbyists should be put on a list. When the crops start failing and worldwide famine hits their family lines should be ended.

Synthetic oil is actually better as far as lubrication, and continues to get better as more research is done. The only reason the worse things stick around is because its cheaper. But if you increased production of synthetics over natural, then the cost would equalize.

It's like saying people would complain about lead being banned in guns when tungsten was already offered as an alternative, but was cheaper.

To an extent, I agree with you. I still believe investing in alternate forms of energy will bring about innovative technologies. Oil, at one point, was only used as a lubricant until the combustion engine was invented and completely overhauled the transportation game. If some sort of innovative technology can come.out of investing in new energy, I say it's well worth it and has the potential to even change the way a nation develops.
I admit, though, that's all just wishful thinking.

>Carbon dioxide is one of the greenhouse gases. It consists of one carbon atom with an oxygen atom bonded to each side. When its atoms are bonded tightly together, the carbon dioxide molecule can absorb infrared radiation and the molecule starts to vibrate. Eventually, the vibrating molecule will emit the radiation again, and it will likely be absorbed by yet another greenhouse gas molecule. This absorption-emission-absorption cycle serves to keep the heat near the surface, effectively insulating the surface from the cold of space.

I honestly hope it just gets worse

to the point that we now need to invest billions into space

My family has a lot of money in space related companies. I do not give a flying fuck about the environment.

Enviornment gets worse, more people consider space, family earns more money, better chance of living in space due to money in space-related companies, win win win win.

Manmade climate change is the science fear mongering equivalent of catholic hell.

Both are unprovable, it just matters whether you believe it or not.

Pretty sure you have a higher chance of going to hell by being a garbage person than affecting the climate positively or negatively through fossil fuels or lack thereof.

For now, I'll concede to your logic. I'm too tired to think. It's almost 2 am and I need to get up early
Thanks for the thoughtful discussion

Bump

We should use memr magic to increase the temperature of Earth and help destroy it as quickly as possible.

Kind of like Ebola Chan, but for warming the planet and melting the ice caps to bring about the final Happening.

We can call her something like co2 Chan or Global Warming Chan.

With Kek we now have the power to level the entire planet and eliminate liberal degeneracy once and for all

fucking al gore
we wouldn't have this problem if that idiot didn't use global warming as a proxy to funnel all of that money into some african country

and now i can't believe in global warming because if i do i'm a filthy liberal
why is it impossible to be a conservative and believe in global warming?