What's your political stance on climate change, Cred Forums? and does it differ from your view of the science?

...

Climate change is real
Manmade climate change is significant
It's impossible to stop it unless we start ww3, the economics and politics of it make things impossible to work

regardless of how this sounds to me like bait, here you go

svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/4419

Data mining is forbidden.
Sage and hide.
We are being slid because we have Hillary's docs.

literally the worst rebuttal ever

as a tertiary question, what are we doing about it?

>1970
Just wait on ten years. The polar ice caps will have melted and flood the earth
>1980
Just wait in ten years. The temperature is gonna be so cold that we'll have another ice age
>1990
Just wait in ten years. By then the earth will be so hot that the ice caps will flood the earth
>2000
Just wait in ten years by then climate change will have wiped out humanity
>2016
I'm sure ten years from now they'll be some dire consequences

We're gonna need it in the coming centuries seeing how we're due an ice age.

m8001, we're talking geographic timescales here. By the time we start actually noticing the difference it's already a dire consequence

> twist: we've been seeing the consequences since the seventies

ty burgerbro

Its real

BUT

The majority of it is from a cyclical pattern of the earth, not humans

I fly around for a living. I fly above all of humanity. Looking down all day has made me think "there's no fucking way these ants on the ground could be changing ALL of this"

After all, there was an ice age not long ago....the ice sheets are still shrinking from that IMO

why? Even if we produced them you wouldn't read them

Fuck these threads. Even if climate change is real it does not matter
>I'm a Christian so I'll go to heaven when the earth dies
>I'm an atheist nothing matters
sage

Wrong. That is the domain of the deniers. I would read them very heartily, please produce them.

> tfw seen this argument before and know how it goes

It's real, but idgaf. That's future people's problem when blacks are 50% of the population and whites barely exist if that. Fuck them.

you do realise there is 7.5 billion of these 'ants'. Enough ants can hollow a mountain range, to use your metaphor

Its odd that there was only a change starting in the 1980's despite the fact the industrial revolution started nearly 200 years before.

disprove it then

Human made CO2 makes up less than 1% of any in the atmosphere, carbon is just a meme for "smart-people." Most of Earth's climate change is due to Milankovich cycles, not carbon.

That said, minimizing atmospheric pollution is still a good thing.

If you cared so much you would seek them out and defend your position with evidence. Nuff said. Don't try to dick measure with me, I don't care, I can actually think for myself thanks

space.com/2942-sun-activity-increased-century-study-confirms.html
washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/09/19/scientists-published-climate-research-under-fake-names-then-they-were-caught/

although I am curious how much of an effect CO2 actually produces.

That humans have a massive impact on the terrain and climate is a no brainer.

What is not science is what, if anything should be done about it. The proposals aren't aren't based on actual research, or ignore the externalities.

A simple example. If Industry X polutes and causes environmental problems, passing expensive regulations to shut them down is possibly a negative for the environment if they move to china, pollute even more because of laxer regulation, plus the pollution of the cargo barge for transit, because it's going into the same atmosphere.

I'll play the double's advocate then.
There is a positive feedback loop between the temperature of the air and the maximum possible concentration of the main greenhouse gas, which is water vapor. Even when you add a tiny bit of CO2, it raises the temperature slightly through its own greenouse effect, and this increased temperature leads to more water vapor which leads to increased temperature etc etc, until the new equilibrium is reached. This way the tiny effect the CO2 has on its own is amplified greatly to give use the +2 degress overall. It's gonna be +10 soon.

Isnt the global warming self reinforcing by setting of methane from sediments under the sea which will increase tempereature which will in turn set free even more methane?

Political tool to bring in more gov't control through fear

I oppose candidates who want to pass a carbon tax or up the fuel tax.

The power industry in the USA is very sloppy and if they wanted to clean up emissions it is my opinion they should start there and let auto emissions be improved by setting MPG standards and better technology.

The USA has also had tax breaks for businesses and homes who decide to put in "Green" things like highly insulated windows, solar panels, etc. I support this as a way to increase demand until the market can lower costs.

I am not opposed to drilling and exploration as I would rather have a well in Alaska or Canada pumping oil for the US market rather than the middle east.

>vote Republican
>climate change is ignored

>vote Democrat
>Islam is ignored

I'll need to delve into this further, but my initial reaction is that if the sun has been beaming down significantly more energy than in the past, that coupled with pollutant-based climate effects makes for even worse scenarios. We can't have an effect on the energy output of the sun, but we can counteract its effects here on earth by not pouring so much carbon into the atmosphere

...

that's one of the feedback loops as I understand it, yes. And it's already happening and accelerating

Nature is an equilibrium. Puny humans always thinking they're so important and can actually change the planet.

Possible, but if the system were that unstable we'd be fucked anyway, so no need to destroy the economy in the meantime.

Weird that huge nuclear furnace that's so bright it will blind you and can sunburn an Irish man to death may have an effect on the temperature of the earth

So how would we be supposed to stop it?

Why not invest in some science, in some gas or whatnot that would repair the ozone?

aaaand that second link literally reinforces my stance and not yours. Bad choice of link.

How about halfway.
A carbon tax for certain cars.
Tax breaks for others.

Climate change will mostly effect niggers, slimes, spics, and bad Asian.
But it's too late to fix the change we have started.
We have to vote right-wing, not for white people but for all people.
The geocentric, creationist, sandniggers must be kept out so Humanity can become stronger.
We can't let Race Traitors, and I mean human race traitors not white race traitors, bring in these savages to destroy Humanity's future.
We'll never explore the Universe if sandnigs believe the Earth doesn't rotate and take over the West.
But then again, we have the Chinese who I hope exterminate the sandnigs.

>german wants to invest in gas
Gott mitt uns hans

Yes, the truth is, there are too many people on this planet right now.

I say we get rid of the Niggers, Arabs, Kikes obviously, and some Asians. And gypsies. And all bydlos and gopniks.

And dont forget pic related and all of their kind.

look, regardless mate I stick with my first response. We can't change the temperature of the sun, but we can change what happens when that heat gets to earth. If anything you're putting forward more of an argument to act now to reduce global warming on account of the massive effect the sun has on our climate and the increase in energy it has been releasing

A change from 0.036% co2 to 0.041% is a pretty small amount. That's roughly 50 parts per million increase

see the second link of and Well, if the second link is true, than that debunks the conceptual claim that CO2 by itself produced the 1.5 degree Fahrenheit every century. And such that even if we massively increased CO2 production, it wouldn't have as much as an effect as we thought it did.

Did you just read the headlines?

a pretty small amount of 1, but a fucking huge amount of 1 trillion

Old habits you know...

Zyklon B helps us with the kike problem but we need some new gas for the ozone problem, alles klar?

I find the notion that humans can affect earth on such scale a laughable concept

We couldn't even destroy ourselves, at best, we can make civilization disappear.

There's no denying that we affect climate change, but out effects on the world are minimal compared to natural climate change product of gradual changes in earth's orbit and the whims of the sun.

There's currently two theories, both proposing a trigonometrical function that goes from heat and cold peaks and a considerable possibility that at least one is real

There's a major climate change everyone 20k or 30k years (enough to cause ice ages and end civilization as we know it) which is though to be caused by large scale orbit changes and some magnetic mumbo jumbo I don't understand.

The other, is that there's minuscule climate changes every 300 years or so that provoke minor inconveniences but are noticeable. (ie: little ace age)

Our effect on the climate is laughable compared to the first theory. Compared to the second it's still minimal, but it could become noticeable.

who said a never ending explosion could be so damn beautiful

I've worked in the horticulture industry for the last 20 years and have an in depth understanding of co2 and its use in green houses etc. The amount of change I've seen is very minor, about 50 ppm on average. Some days it swings up and down 10-20 ppm. Methane is a much much stronger greenhouse gas. An interesting fact is when we exhale we will exhale over 5000 ppm of co2. When the constant monitoring co2 meters came out I played with it a lot. When your inside of your house, on your couch your breath will drive the co2 ppm up to 800-1000ppm in the room your in quite quickly. Plants just start to respond to enhanced co2 at around 600 ppm and as you increase up from there say 800-1000 you will see growth increases.

Is there any problems gas cant solve?

win world war II

That it's apparently real and that environmentalists are suicidal and anti-human assholes for wanting to restrict the one thing that allows us to thrive in a naturally hostile environment

Atmospheric CO2 went from 250 ppm pre-industrial to over 400 ppm now. That's a 60% increase over a short period of time (geologically speaking).

Are these yours? The Signal publications were pretty good I heard and a lot of color footage I heard?

The scientists who cried wolf.

Whatver hitler probably went to argentina anyway

No its quiet funny actually a french user found this in his grandfathers attic next to anne frank of course though a guy at work said his brother has around 25k in nazi artifacts so i would love to check that out although he specifically has SS stuff

Whatever*

Quite*

Its past my bed time

its up about 120 ppm since the beginning of the industrial revolution

It isn't going to do much other than stimulate plant growth because the infrared scattering spectrum of CO2 saturates rapidly after the first 20 ppm

the only reason they can turn global warming into a disaster with actual physics is by assuming there will be a positive feed back from a real greenhouse gas (water vapor)

they have literally no clue how the global climate is actually going to respond to increased CO2

what if increased low level cloud formation overwhelmed the CO2 greenhouse boost and Temps stabilized mostly unchanged?

they are hack "scientists" trying to turn their magic pseudoscience models into absolute religious certainty and hand wave away the massive costs to human civilization that restricting energy would cause

Can you imagine when the initial industrial revolution happened and everything was coal fired how much pollution was around? On top of the co2 there was huge billowing clouds of black soot that covered everything, absorbing all the sunlight as well. There are a lot of other gasses that have huge effects in comparison to co2. These other gasses are probably the ones to get concerned about. There is so much focus on co2 that you don't hear about the rest. Take a look and consider some of the industries and such that produce these other gasses. Some per ton add up to hundreds of tons of co2

>Scientific "stance": Maybe
>Political Stance: Don't hyper-regulate and continuously tax citizens and business for "Maybe"

>What's your political stance on climate change, Cred Forums?

I think that governments use climate change as a pretense to gain more regulatory power and use their citizen's taxes to subsidize "green" corporations with good lobbyists or to mandate that bullshit products must be purchased (Al Gore's carbon offsets) or to give pay outs to corrupt third world governments they want to gain influence over. Likewise corporations use it as an advertising gimmick to sell idiots green products like the Prius that may do more environmental damage being manufactured than their more conventional alternatives would. If governments or corporations were serious about the problem then they would be focusing on deforestation, not shuffling money around, of course no one could make money off of saving forests.

TLDR: Its a scheme to get your shekels.

>and does it differ from your view of the science?

I think that climatology is a profoundly politicized and flawed field of science. The degree to which climate change is natural or caused by man is not proven and the accuracy of climatologists predictions regarding future climate change are highly questionable; but since the issue has become politicized the "scientists" just task themselves with selling the idea and the policies justified by it rather than conceding the limitations of their knowledge.

TLDR: Its real to some degree; but the climatologists have turned into political mouthpieces so their science can't be trusted.

Makes sense considering there's 7 billion large mammals breathing at the same time. Gotta make for a considerable amount of new CO2 being made.

It's interesting just how big the grip plants have on earth is. Almost all the breathable gas is oxygen, meaning the light eaters win the breathing race by a ridiculous margin. Our success as a species is starting to show a change in that margin, but it seems to only benefit plants

DELETE THIS

Interesting, I would love to take a look at his collection.

Gute Nacht.

Yes, let's not regulate industry and welcome in the wonderful world of corporations having no standards to uphold, allowing them to dump their waste wherever and however they want.

Jesus Libertarians are fucking retarded.

All the changes we make in the first world isn't going to offset the shit the over populated third world puts out on a daily basis.

>geographic timescales

Holy shit, it's GEOLOGIC not geographic.

Also, AGW is not really on the geological time scale. Natural climate change for the most part is, but AGW is occurring at a very rapid pace such that we can witness the effects first hand in our lifetimes, rather than over thousands to tens of thousands / hundreds of thousands of years like natural climate cycles.

Denying AGW is simply unscientific. You can debate the impacts that it will have on our planet and the "doom and gloom" scenarios, as well as the rate of ocean acidification / sea level rise in the future, as well as other climate forecasts, but you CANNOT debate whether humans are a cause of it, there is scientific data backing up these claims by tens of thousands of climate researchers worldwide.

I'm convinced that deniers for the most part have never studied geology, or earth sciences in their lives.

Why is it a political stance to begin with? who fucking cares

MUH ACIDIFICATION OF THE OCEAN

It's not even a political issue, there is a scientific consensus that climate change is real. Same thing with the earth being 4.5 billion years old.

>you CANNOT debate whether humans are a cause of it, there is scientific data backing up these claims by tens of thousands of climate researchers worldwide
Surely you can whips us up a brief tl;dr then?

its almost like there was a fucking mini ice age in the 1800s

climate change is real, but its been going on since earth has had a climate and humans have very little to do with it.

Thats ancap you knuckle dragger

>the massive costs to human civilization that restricting energy would cause
Those massive costs are the whole point to global warming

Ottmar Edenhoffer, high level UN-IPCC official: “We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy…Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization…One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”

Tim Wirth, U.S./UN functionary, former elected Democrat Senator: “We’ve got to ride the global-warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”

this

I'd like clean energy and more bike riders as much as the next liberal cuck, but until the fucking billion Poos and Chinks stop trying to play catch up with the first world, nothing the USA or western Europe does will change anything.

problem with your graph is you are starting at an arbitrary low point

Think about it this way. The Earth is still in an ice age right now, when there's ice on the Earth's poles, it's an ice age. Ice ages are cyclic in Earth history, you can study them in sedimentary rock records and cores going back millions / hundreds of millions of years.

The Earth is warming because its coming out of an ice age, but this warming is exacerbated by human activity. Think of it this way, humans are taking the Carbon that is sequestered outside of what I would call the natural "carbon cycle" on Earth, combusting it and creating CO2, Methane, NO2 and Ozone.

The Earth on its own can handle this excess carbon normally. Most of it goes into our oceans (which is one reason why there is a measurable increase in ocean acidification, CO2 gas in water is acidic). There, it eventually ends up in ocean sediments over time. But we keep emitting shit tons of it every single year into our atmosphere, stressing the natural systems in place. Couple this with massive deforestation globally and poor agricultural practices and you are decreasing the Earth's ability to naturally deal with the carbon, leading to rapid warming. The Earth given enough time is on a warming trend, the problem is humans have accelerated this trend incredibly rapidly such that the effects are readily measurable on a anthropogenic timescale.

Honestly I would go on but it's 2am here and I'm typing this on a fucking laptop.

It's not, the worst thing that has happened with discussion of global warming has been politicization. Fuck Al Gore mostly for doing this shit. It's a scientific concept, and there is plenty of room for skepticism, but the data and facts show that it's definitely something we should be concerned about.

Climate change is real. Just look at the ice sheets of Greenland. I am not for sure if it is caused by humans, though. I really want to read some scientific literature on man-made climate change. Would anyone direct me to an actual scientific study on this subject?

I didn't really need a proof that this excess CO2 is caused by humans, that one is pretty obvious. I thought you could sum up the scientific data by tens of thousands of researchers, which would undeniably link "AGW" to human activity.