Global warming thread - again

literally who gives a shit

the models suck, but the earth has warmed. The greenhouse theory is also convincing. What do you think is the cause for the increase in temperature?

how can you predict something with as many factors as climate?

...

The models being wrong does nothing to affect the fact that co2 is a ghg. This is demonstrated in the lab easily. There is evidence that it occurs in the atmosphere too (IR 'missing' from satellite data)

>the models suck
Then why do you believe their predictions? Blind faith?

>the earth has warmed
No one is disputing climate change.

>The greenhouse theory is also convincing
Yet the models have yet to meet with reality.

>What do you think is the cause for the increase in temperature?
It's not up to me to create your model for you.

Plenty of research + decent computers.

You could also look at previous data and extrapolate from there.

Anyone else waiting for imported cheap shit from China?

Good start here.

royalsociety.org/topics-policy/energy-environment-climate/

Of course the Royal Society could have just been paid to destroy their reputation. As were NASA.

>the models being wrong does nothing to affect my belief in the model
okay

>Then why do you believe their predictions?

I don't.

Reminder that (((western shekelism))) and (((globalism))) are the reason why heavily polluting industrial plants exist in the third world outside of western environmental oversight.

You know exactly (((who))) to blame for climate change.

...

>man made climate change is real
>none of my models are anywhere near predictive yet I still believe

Yes. The atmosphere is complicated. If I could prove to you that IR is being trapped in the atmosphere would you be happy?

>implying climate change is something to care about
give me one good reason except, except the jews, why anyone should care about it

burtrutan.com/downloads/EngrCritiqueCAGW-v4o3.pdf

pro global warming people have bill nye

people that realize global warming is a fucking scam of enormous proportions have burt rutan

and freeman dyson

and dr. moore (founder of greenpeace)

and thousands of other real scientists not interested in gubmint handouts in the form of grants to support a giant scam for banks and the looting of western wealth

...

they say when we reach a certain point trapped methane will create a positive feedback and there will be massive heating after that

>decent computers.

yes. As in some of teh most powerful in the world.

phys.org/news/2016-01-powerful-climate-modeling.html

That's how complex this is. So writing of the entire theory cause most models have been wrong is a bad idea.

this

Been waiting about two weeks for a cheap chineseium hydraulic motor.

okay

>The atmosphere is complicated
>There is only one thing going on in the atmosphere
I'll be happy when you can actually produce a model that can predict something. All you've done up to this point is say "my models are wrong but I still have faith".

The earth began to warm over 10,000 years ago, before the end of the last ice age, which is why the ice from the ice age melted. The ice from the ice age melted because the earth got warmer year, after year, after year for a very, very long time. It continues to warm today. What do you think is the cause for the increase in temperature?

Why aren't Venus and the early stages of the Earth viewed as an acceptable model in which more CO2 meant more warming. Wouldn't the next step be to equate that to coal and other polutants?

>consider they were wrong
Nigger they invented it to make money
They knew they were lying out their ass from day one
Errybody google climategate if you ever want to btfo some ignorant cunt's deluded believes of climate change

Ocean acidification debunking sources?

...

The environment in general, Jamal.
We have passed the tipping point 5 times a year for the last 20 years and we still haven't actually passed the tipping point yet. Alarmists need to shut the fuck up.

They are just exploiting fear to attempt to grab political power.

Not sure if bait, or just don't understand the laws of physics.

nobody even knows how much methane is trapped in places such as the siberian permafrosts, theyre all estimates

...

the nuclear and the asteriod shit was legitimate

...

global climate is always complex

still, the increase up to 2004 is concerning

One of the defining traits of a chaotic system is 'sensitive dependence to initial conditions'. This means that even very small changes in the state of the system can quickly and radically change the way that the system develops over time. Edward Lorenz's landmark 1963 paper demonstrated this behavior in a simulation of fluid turbulence, and ended hopes for long-term weather forecasting.

Climate is not weather, but it is still a chaotic system as confirmed by the IPPC ( Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) themselves.

"The climate system is particularly challenging since it is known that components in the system are inherently chaotic; there are feedbacks that could potentially switch sign, and there are central processes that affect the system in a complicated, non-linear manner. These complex, chaotic, non-linear dynamics are an inherent aspect of the climate system."

Given the fact that so many variables are absent and that many components of the system are still misunderstood, claiming any certainty is rediculous.

...

>The environment in general, Jamal.
what of it should make anyone take climate change seriously?
climate is not constant and will never be constant, there will always be fluctuation in temperature and atmospheric composition

interesting

All real threats. We're actually pretty lucky.

this chart is not statistically significant in time frame

its a piss in the ocean

we should be pumping out more CO2 into the atmosphere

CO2 is not a pollutant, its plant food.

If we had more CO2 in the atmosphere we could have more plants with less water usage.

Except that in ye-olde climate gate the part nobody talked about was the fact that following the "Reconstruction procedures" for the modern temperature record came up with values much lower than what the temperatures actually were.

Meaning that the method used is prone to under-estimate global temperatures.

so for the years that no temperature records are available it could quite possibly be warmer.

Fucking faggots.

Only if you believe the fraud

Tell me how plants can swap CO2 for H2O.

Both are limiting factors for a plant's growth.

well its more to it than just 6CO2 + 6H2O + energy --> C6H12O6 + O2
that'll be the general formula during the day, but at night-time the formula is more or less reversed because plants need energy as well, but the resulting O2 "production" is generally higher than its consumption, but not by a large amount

deadly disease

with all the travel around the world and big cities interconnections it would spread rapidly

I see your Dyson and raise you a NASA. And an NAS. And the Royal Society.

you're an idiot who believes propaganda

the population is not an issue
DDTs harmfulness was greatly over exaggerated to be exploited by quackjob environmentalists and its ban led to millions of deaths from malaria
nuclear war was real but also exploited
global cooling was the AGW hoax of the 70s thats been forgotten
hole in the Ozone layer was blamed on pollution throughout the 80s/90s when its been known for a long time that the hole is both natural and seasonal , it comes and goes, not from CFC pollution
nuke winter- same as war, except its overstated and theres no good evidence to support a theory that nuclear war would cause a 'winter'
asteroid- low percent chance yet massively exploited for money in media, entertainment, etc

GLOBAL WARMING SCAM SCIENTISTS ARE 100% WRONG IN PREDICTION

100%

And they are modern day priests

You cant make this shit up

Industrial scale greenhouses pump in CO2 at concentrations several times higher than atmospheric concentrations.

Using the same amount of water and fertilizer, plants grow much faster and bigger when CO2 concentrations are increased.

Glacial/interracial cycles are liekly a result of Milankovitch cycles. We've had about all the warming we can get through these cycles at present. And we still warm.

...

Its not like NASA, an entity that depends on government cheese would be biased in anysort of way right?!?!

...

...

>the population is not an issue

and it keeps going up

if "overconsumpetion" is an issue, then very high population is an issue

That graph is retarded. It's the increase in co2, a human factor, that is increasing the greenhouse effect, thus temperature.

remainder that scientists lose their funding if they deny global warming.

meaning only scientists that agree with global warming keep updating their researches. look up on global warming deniers and their independent work

yeah but from 250 parts per million to 400 parts per million
the amounts are really small

It's not just NASA though is it? It's the vast majority of scientists and the other side all have links to bodies proven to have an interest in downplaying AGW.

Who cares. I'll be dead before it starts killing humanity.

wrong again retard

CO2 levels follow temperature

Go away, ExxonMobil.

...

Global warming is real and it's being caused both by the natural warming of the Earth and by human activity.

However, the effects of global warming will barely be noticeable until around 2100, the most start of significant change by 2300 and the end of global warming in 12300

Nothing to worry about. Anyway, life will evolve around us.

it won't tho

>vast majority

says who?

you cited NASA and the Royal Society

both of which are government pets

You can't find any legit scientists that will vouch for AGW because its foundation has so many enormous holes that any legit scientist immediately sees

so we get pop-scientists like black science man, trumped up lies "the 97%", politicians and their ass lickers like people on reddit and liberal cum rags like the NYTimes and the Guardian saying its true, and celebrities

WOW

YOU SURE ARE SMART

co2 lags temperature in that more co2 is released from the oceans when it is hotter. But the co2 in the atmosphere ism increasingly from human sources as you can tell by looking at for specific isotopes.

read this.

Additionally, if temp ALWAYS drives co2, then why were co2 levels lower in the similar temperature of the medieval warm period?

Yep. Windmills and solar panels are like their versions of prayers and offering to forestall the apocalypse.

>that last bit

>only scientists that agree with me are legit

kill yourself. Seriously, kill yourself.

This is a good meme.

Which is why their studies are peer reviewed and most budgets and studies are conducted through independent organizations.

Planet isn't going anywhere until the sun goes nova, shitdick

We, on the other hand, have a simple choice.

Either we go extinct with good feelings about our bike paths and green spaces like a bunch of filthy tribals.

-or-

We push industry to it's maximum, take all the resources we can from the planet and expand into off world colonies, thereby saving the entirety of humanity until the heat death of the universe.

I'd say the choice is pretty simple

What methods are used to record temperatures and CO2 levels from thousands of years ago? And how is the accuracy of those methods verified?

Cheers, sounds about right that CO2 is the more relevant limiting factor due to the abundance of water. I`ll look up sources in my own time.

air bubble can be extracted from ice samples. This air contains co2.

what is this supposed to represent

the scale is too short to see what my previous chart shows: that CO2 levels rise about 500-800 years after temp increases

CO2 does not drive global temperature

its far too insignificant part of the atmosphere

CO2 is 3.5% of total green house gases

green house gasses are 2% of the total atmosphere

man made global CO2 emissions to the atmosphere are 0.001%

This guy gets it. Not even necessarily expanding into space it could even be possible to reverse the effects of climate change through technological advancement on Earth

Wow i guess correlation does = causation after all.

But that is literally what warmists do. Thete is zero concrete, un tampered with data that shows warming.

Warmists just blindly believe.

>the scale is too short to see what my previous chart shows: that CO2 levels rise about 500-800 years after temp increases

address

>green house gasses are 2% of the total atmosphere

Yes and as they are the only ones the exhibit the greenhouse effect. Put as much oxygen up there as you like, it won't trap IR heat. greenhouse gases do.

What would you determine the perfect temperature?

cause the criticial conditions first, see if there are usable remedies later

why the fuck is this even a "debate". why the fuck is there an "other side", OP?

most science says the earth is warming, and has potential to cause global devestation.

the only question is: should we try to do anything about it?

and here's the even bigger fucking question that i can never get a straight answer to: who REALLY benefits by spreading a lie that the earth is warming?

WHO THE FUCK IS BENEFITING SO MUCH FROM THIS LIE THAT THEY WOULD CREATE A LIE SO BIG IT SPANS THE FUCKING GLOBE? WHAT IS THE DIRECT FUCKING EXACT BENEFIT SO FUCKING HUGE FROM THIS LIE, THAT SOMEONE WOULD SPEND EVERY RESOURCE THEY COULD TO UPHOLD IT?

i seriously don't fucking care one way or the other about the issue, i'll be dead before it has any real impact, i'm just wondering WHY THE FUCK ITS EVEN A DEBATE WHEN IT'S JUST SCIENCE?

inb4
"dude it's china they obviously can make money from it or something"

How do you verify the age of the ice?

>damn I am wrong

>time to drum up some other pseudo science

>b-but g-guys its uh...its ocean shit!! yeah! theres like acid in the ocean that does shit that you haven't thought of because we just pulled it out of our ass and you can't refute it because we literally just made it up

>co2 lags temperature in that more co2 is released from the oceans when it is hotter. But the co2 in the atmosphere ism increasingly from human sources as you can tell by looking at for specific isotopes.

heres some random piece of shit from the internet, read it, its proof, really

holy fuck you are dumb

I was simply pointing out that it isn't a one way system. Yes, temp can drive co2 levels. But co2 can also drive temperature.

Le inaccurate models face

Hilarious how some people actually believe this shit

>
WHO THE FUCK IS BENEFITING SO MUCH FROM THIS LIE THAT THEY WOULD CREATE A LIE SO BIG IT SPANS THE FUCKING GLOBE? WHAT IS THE DIRECT FUCKING EXACT BENEFIT SO FUCKING HUGE FROM THIS LIE, THAT SOMEONE WOULD SPEND EVERY RESOURCE THEY COULD TO UPHOLD IT?
>don't question anything goy
what even is a carbon tax

thank you for stating that greenhouse gases are the gasses that cause a greenhouse effect

wow

you sure are a brilliant mind, I better take your word for it that global warming is a catastrophic event and we should all support it even though its about as sturdy of a theory as a port-o-potty in a F5 tornado

I quite like the unpredictable banter of climate change and I look forward to rising sea levels because we will no longer have to take our boat to the ocean to use it and can instead sail to the local chippy.

layers upon layers can show global changes that correlate with samples from other parts of the world, i think alongside samples from very old trees and such. just my assumption from vague memory

climate is always changing

>WHO THE FUCK IS BENEFITING SO MUCH FROM THIS LIE THAT THEY WOULD CREATE A LIE SO BIG IT SPANS THE FUCKING GLOBE?

look up al gore and other politicians that spoke about global warming.
especially when they say "green energy" and the jobs it will create.
first of, green energy won't create tons of jobs. because its highly efficient.
secondly people have been talking about green energy for years. but the world is not ready to make the conversation. and quite frankly its too expensive.

Kinda like trees.

what the fuck is a carbon tax and explain to me how it is worth billions of dollars

>random article from the internet
>royal society/National academy of sciecnes

Good joke user.

Do you dispute what it says? Do you think isotopes are kinda like dinosaur bones?

investors.com/politics/editorials/al-gore-runs-global-warming-racket/

meteorologists can't even predict the local weather with any real accuracy. what makes you think they can accurately model it on a global scale?

Do you know what the greenhouse effect is?

>can

How about we get some definite answers? Can't be too difficult in this day and age.

"GREEN ENERGY" IS YOUR FUCKING ANSWER? ITS A LIE TO PUSH A NEW INDUSTRY?

ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME? THE OIL INDUSTRY ISN'T LUCRATIVE ENOUGH?? ARE YOU READING WHAT YOU'RE TYPING?

>A carbon tax is a fee intended to make users of fossil fuels pay for climate damage their fuel use imposes by releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and also to motivate switches to cleaner energy
it's basically a tax on the economy
"green" energy would be extremely expensive to implement

>you have brain cancer, you have 6 months to live
>sorry sir but using your brain will only make it worse I'm going to have to ask you to stop using it

>but maybe i can use it to help think of a cure

>no sir please use this birds brain instead. You'll die anyway but at least you can't blame yourself

More greenhouse gas, more heat trapped. Pretty simple desu. The amount of increase in temperature is the hard bit as other factors are at play.

no, but every democrat ever used global warming as an agenda.
and guess what? they done absolutely nothing about it.

>The scientific community cannot be trusted to provide honest numbers.

what the fuck am i even reading

Ok. co2 increases temperature via the greenhouse effect.

radiation from the sun hits earth and some is re-emitted as infra-red. greenhouse gases interact with infra-red, absorbing and re-emitting it again. This causes warming.

Dude. It was just some miscaculations and a global pause for 15 years, simple mistake. Now it's actually legit and we will all be under water in a few years just like Al Gore the brilliant scientist told us.

no but it's a way for governments to tax more

i agree, but i don;t think it's JUST a political prop. and have you heard ANYTHING about global warming this election? literally nothing, so this argument doesn't really hold weight

yes the but involvment for co2 on the greenhouse effect is small

yeah man, better make sure we don't push to build more renewable energy like solar. the sun is only going to be around for another couple billion, and we got like, what, at least another 100 years on fossil fuels bro

This is what i was getting at.

You don't know, you say something vague about "layers" and post a picture of some blurry water and arrows. This is the extent of scientific knowledge of people who believe in climate change. I don't necessarily believe it or not but all i have ever seen are vague articles that use analogies and simple line graphs as proof. And i know for a fact that there is an industry of people with climate science degrees who require government grants to survive and must justify their existence. Because of this it's very easy to see why people would need to lie about it.

pushing at what cost? if we need to cut down 70% of the electricity consumption and pay triple the price, is it still worth it?

Donald Trump MASK OFF

youtu.be/xlGztzYObRM

Depends what you consider small. Industrial activity has led to an increase in atmospheric co2 of 40% in 100 or so years. Every doubling of atmospheric co2 over pre industrial levels (280ppm) will result in a direct forcing of 1.4C. The big issue come from the potential for feedback. Feedback can be positive or negative. Negative would be more clouds cause clouds reflect more of the sun energy before it gets down closer to the surface. Positive feedback results in more warming. This occurs from things like methane release (from oceans and permafrost) and an increase in the atmospheric concentration of water vapour (note, clouds and water vapour affect the system differently). Water vapour is a function of temperature. You could pump up all the water vapour you like and it would condense (form clouds) and rain down ehen the atmospheric concentration got too high. However a hotter atmosphere allows more water vapour to be held as water vapour, without going to clouds.

>study climate science
>graduate
>no industry needs climate scientists to profit
>lobby government with false data
>receive funding for "research"
>create industry from this
>suddenly theres
profit from it
>no one questions it because you're technically scientists

pfff what? hilary said green energy and global warming almost every speech

We just increased the gas prices in Norway in the name of "global warming", we've increased taxes on roads, driving during rush hours, el-cars are getting an insane amounts of benefits. The list goes on, so a hell of a lot people are benefiting.

nordic countries are actually pretty based but they can't save the planet alone. And they really should stop trying, only killing themselves while they're at it.

Ever wonder why "green" energy is so heavily subsidized?

It's because it actually doesn't fucking work in an efficient manner. If it did work with any sort of cost efficiency, energy companies would be going to war with each other over the rights to be sole producers of solar cells and wind farms.

Currently, it's a money pit governments throw taxpayer dollars into in order to fund all their criminal friends in the "green" energy sector. An added bonus is it makes for good press which translates into votes for politicians who support such ventures from the mouth breathing drool cups in the public who are so bored with life they just have to "save" something.

If they want to cut carbon emissions so badly they can start by shutting their dumb fucking mouths.

Ahhhh. So it wasn't a question in good faith, but a crafty GOTCHA.

> I don't necessarily believe it or not

Sure thing lad.

Nuclear is a great return and the total 'carbon footprint' is second only to wind in terms of lifetime co2/mwh

It's also political suicide not to mention nuclear waste management. Storing something safely for thousands of years is a pretty daunting task

as long as they can't "defuse" the waste it's not a complete solution.

There was work on fast breeder reactors in the past, but it has all been halted.

True. Now going back to here and That is the answer to your question. Ice builds up in ice inland places as a result of snow.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core#Dating_cores

I heard that the deadliest effect of Co2 emissions is the effect it will have on the deep sea. Co2 warms up sea, making transporting oxygen to ocean floor impossible, killing life on the ocean floor, causing microbes that create and live of hydrogen sulfide to flourish.
>google.se/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=hydrogen sulfide ocean floor microbe
Hightened levels of hydrogen sulfide is extremely toxic and is said to eliminate most life on earth.
I dont know about the other swe tryhard fit-in, but when I was a kid here in Sweden, I loved going out picking blueberries in the woods, because they were absolutely filled with them wherever you walked. some 5-7 years later they don't grow anywhere were I live in the outskirts of stockholm. If Co2 emissions were responsible in any way it would be a shame. It might have nothing do with it too though.

I'm not a leftist in any way, but clean energy (nuclear power) needs to start being a right policy if we want to sell ourselves as pragmatic.

Are Jap MOX reactors not pretty good at dealing with waste? Or at least some of the more harmful products of certain other reactions? Not ideal but suitable short term. Longer term, hopefully Thorium/Fusion.

Meant to link:
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_sulfide
>Short-term, high-level exposure can induce immediate collapse, with loss of breathing and a high probability of death.

The problem as i see it is that in the end you're going to have to keep the elements stored for millions of years in some cases. This is obviously not feasible but we still go about it as though it is.

Appeal to authority fallacy.

models have predicted temperatures and sea levels rising.

They are also pretty accurate, despite what blogs say.

skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm

Nuclear waste is an issue but managemnt of it requires a big underground bunker and some time. Probably easier than dealing with massive relocations of people and food/water shortages.

>Are Jap MOX reactors not pretty good at dealing with waste?

There is still plenty of waste

web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/pdf/nuclearpower-ch4-9.pdf

Colonies on other planets are not the way to go. Planets are meant to be abused for resources. Spacenomads in huge ships is how we should deal with it. Our solarsystem being our test ground.

fallacy fallacy

What's the problem with appealing to authority on scientific issues? If you'd offered some refutation of the key points then there'd be something for me to answer. Besides, when the expertise is genuine it's not really fallacy. Simply deferring to the experts.

>What's the problem with appealing to authority on scientific issues? If you'd offered some refutation of the key points then there'd be something for me to answer.
I don't have to prove a negative. That's on you. From what I've seen so far it's just you saying "yeah well some scientists say it's true so it is!"

>Besides, when the expertise is genuine it's not really fallacy. Simply deferring to the experts.
Simply deferring to the experts is exactly what I'm talking about. Fallacy. No proofs.

ideally we would want neither of those

as it is, there are plenty of plants in operation and many more planned for construction

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_stations

If we do not prolong the lives of the weak and diseased, natural selection will take care of itself. The Medico Industry is a medium of slavery and un-health.

>tfw abundant free infinite energy
>tfw we've known about it for years ~ Tesla
>tfw the government suppressed the truth
>tfw energy slaves pay for free light

how will it ever recover?

protip: it wont. Just run a bunch of air conditioners and cool the earth back down to satisfy these climate change faggots.

Well actually you do have to prove yourself. The world KNOWS that co2 is a ghg and that the greenhouse effect is real. What isn't known is how much warming this will lead to. So sure, if you want to debate that then roll on. That you're scientifically ignorant of well established science is not reason for everyone else to even bother trying to explain this to contrarian shitheads.

>What isn't known is how much warming this will lead to.
I guess I don't even know what you're arguing then. What's your actual point then? What are you trying to achieve?

The idea that there is still debate on the science allows inaction. And most of the skepticism is dishonest. And I'm bored.

What sort of action do you want me to take?

>m'ericans
>biggest polllutors in the world
>allso the biggest deniers
Wow what a surprise
youtube.com/watch?v=O4Q8Nm4ksVU

Personally? None. I think the focus has to be global. First move all power generation away from coal and gas to nuclear and renewable.
Then focus on making industry much cleaner, particularly in the developing world. I also think large investment in measures to store co2 while we transition and even measure to reduce the sun actually getting to earth will be nesecary to buy us time as things are cleaned up. Ideally we develop good tech for taking co2 from the air, giving us total control over the levels. There is a case for having it consistently above 280ppm as this could help alleviate the effects of the next glacial cycle. If we focus on power first then ideally we ca do it without taking any hit to our standard of living. Unfortunately, and I know Cred Forums will hate this, I think we need global coordination and funding to do anything worthwhile.

There was an interesting pasta some dude from Portugal posted once. Let me see if I saved it.

solar panels need to be replaced, they don't last forever

no one cares about your 'global hoaxing',
its all a bunch of lies
enjoy paying your 'tax' credits

Co2 is also acidifying our oceans. Look up bleached coral. I don't believe in global warming, but I do believe we need to take better care of our planet

All right, they're heavily about Trump's tweets about climate change but just look past all those references at the logic in the posts themselves. We can argue over Trump another time I just haven't stripped out the Trump parts into to make this purely about climate change yet. Anyway like 4 posts:

Nice of you to bring that up.

That gives me the chance to post to take the fangs out of one of Trump's most controversial points.

Here it goes, a series of posts I prepared about that (and other) Trump statements about global warming.

It will be long by twitter standards and even by Cred Forums standards but you guys are intelligent and can handle a longish read every now and then.

What Trump says:

> the concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive

What some articles and his detractors says Trump said:

> Trump has called climate change a hoax, claiming that China created the myth in order to surpass the U.S. economically.

Saying the ***concept of*** (emphasis 1) ***global warming*** (emphasis 2) is a tool to benefits the Chinese in detriment of the U.S. Is not calling "climate change" a hoax.

This started as a short text that nobody probably will read and became a full blown essay about the subject. I apologise for that and I'll post anyway, it is a small dose red pill and may help people to understand better the objections a part of the right leaning individuals and organisations have with regards to the whole climate change debate.

The summary is: THE CLIMATE CHANGE DEBATE WAS COOPTED BY THE LEFT AND BY THE GLOBALISTS IN ORDER TO IMPLEMENT WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION ON A GLOBAL SCALE, BENEFITING CHINA AND HURTING THE U.S., EUROPE AND OTHER DEVELOPED COUNTRIES.

This post will be divided in parts so, before resorting to the leftists and globalists tactic to dismiss my point without analysing the whole reasoning try to read it.

(continues)

The crux of the discussion is the "anthropogenic" (man made) cause of climate change. Some clarifications:

> climate is not weather. Weather is local and have a short cycle, climate is global and have a long cycle
> there are plenty of studies and a clear explanation linking certain gases to the greenhouse effect and a potential global climate change

Now, and here are the points of debate:

> 1. is the planet going to a process of climate change?
> 2. if so, is it natural and part of a natural cycle or is it man made?
> 3. also, if so is it detrimental or beneficial?
> 4. assuming it is predominantly man made, is it possible to reverse it?
> 5. also, if so, at what cost?

Point 1 is more or less uncontroversial. People that don't understand the whole problem and argue on "gut feeling" tend to argue against this point to base their objection to what I'll argue about later. That's is a mistake because data points to the reality of climate change and arguing against it is pointless.

Point 2 is arguable but, just like point 1 there is a very good collection of data that points that man made greenhouse emission is a powerful contributor to the current global climate change pattern.

Point 3: this is the point ideology takes over science. "Scientific consensus" (an oxymoron, science should never be an appeal to authority, it should always stand on its own merits) not only states categorically that climate change is predominantly man made but also for years it predicts its catastrophic consequences on short and long term unless it is reversed.

That brings us to point 4: assuming all the previous points to be as the "scientific consensus" says, is it reversible? If so, how and (point 5) at what cost?

Here comes the big problem, the one brought up (as succinctly as a 140 characters can fit) by Trump and by many in the "climate change skeptic” camp (something today so vilified by the media and by the left it is compared to flat earth proponents):

*** the main solution proposed by the left is to force (through government regulation) the reduction of emission of greenhouse gases by the industry. ***

They propose two main ways to achieve that:

> 1. To put a hard limit in the amount of greenhouses can be emitted, with hefty punishment for non compliance

> 2. To create the concept of "carbon credits", where the amount of greenhouse gases one can emit is allocated by the government, and companies that emit less than its share can sell its surplus to entities that want to emit more than its share.

This causes an obvious problem: there is no incentive to apply these measures at a national level, companies would simply move to other countries without the restrictions.

To solve that for many years countries (spearheaded by the left) meet trying to agree on a common framework to reduce emissions globally and at the same time. These talks (look up Kyoto protocol) happened on *** the Bill Clinton administration *** and the agreed upon measures are very damaging for U.S. industry, to the direct benefit of China.

> The Protocol is based on the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities: it puts the obligation to reduce current emissions on developed countries on the basis that they are historically responsible for the current levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol

In short: developed countries (US, Canada, Europe, Australia) must reduce emissions while underdeveloped countries (like China, India, Brazil) gets a pass.

(continues)

It is clearly detrimental to the U.S. (and to Europe) and it clearly benefits China even if the later economy (and consequently industrial output and emissions) will reach and maybe surpass the former in the next decades.

Even conceding all the 4 points enumerated above (it's happening, it's man made, it's detrimental and it can be reversed) the solution proposed by the left and so detrimental to the national interests of the U.S. that no national politician in its right mind would consider supporting and implementing.

So, why does the left tries to push it with all their influence (monetary, political and mediatic)?

The answer, my friends, is because the whole proposal is an attempt to implement wealth redistribution, at a global level, from the richer countries to the poorer ones.

By allocating carbon credits not In the proportion of current industrial output but based on the fact that "on the basis that they [the developed countries] are historically responsible for the current levels of greenhouse gases" the left creates the perfect mechanism to force richer countries, if they want to keep at their current levels of productivity, to buy these "carbon credits" from poorer countries.

WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION. At a global level. From the developed countries and productive countries to the underdeveloped ones.

With China counting as underdeveloped.

Trump 140 characters can explain his objection to it at length, even these 7000 or so cannot fully. But, and that’s where people underestimate him, he have closed deals in most countries in the world and is certainly well versed in the art of spotting a bad deal.

I hope it helped you guys to understand well how the proposed remedy to "global warming" is a ploy to benefit China and other underdeveloped countries in detriment to the interest of the United States and other developed and productive ones.

tl;dr:

Even if one concede the main points of the globalist left that climate change is man made, detrimental and reversible the left is using it to implement socialism at a global level.

It is the old trick:

> You deny global warming? You are no better than flat earth proponents
> OK, you accept it? Then the only solution is our solution
> It involves making US and Europe paying poor countries in order to keep industrial production
> Wait, that's wealth redistribution? Pure coincidence!

>increase in average global temperature

>guys it isn't cold in winter anymore

Yes it is, in 2013 and 2014 North America had record cold winters, not to mention a warming of the AVERAGE GLOBAL TENPERATURE. has fuck all to do with your winters being mild or harsh in England recently

>the earth has been colder and warmer at separate times with no human involvement

We are but a flash in the eye compared to geologic time scales. I find this obsession about what we are doing to the earth to be the highest form of hubris.

We could nuke ourselves out of exsistence and turn the earth into a radioactive wasteland for 10,000 years and it would be nothing to the planet

Global warming is real. A significant minority of the effect is anthropogenic.

That said, all large (read: effective) organizations intended to combat global warming have been completely occupied by socialists and globalists. The harm they will do to you, should they be able to gain the influence they seek, will be every bit as bad as any projected climate change. They disguise this by falsifying data (which is why the projections 10, 15, and 20 years ago described a "best case scenario" for today that is far worse than the reality - go and check if you don't believe me).

Use the metric. "will the Happening hinder or stop our expansion into a spacefaring power". Climate change very well may, given that it will require us to divert our resources to fighting the effects. Globalism and socialism absolutely will, as they divert resources to feeding, housing, and policing literally billions of googles on the backs of civilized nations because "we have to solve the problems here on Earth before we go to space" and "the most important thing is to feed and house an infinite number of multiplying googles"

This post is not rated sufficiently highly.

It's almost exclusively where I purchase most of my stuff. Why should I have to pay top dollar when I know I can get it for cheap in China?

>We could nuke ourselves out of exsistence and turn the earth into a radioactive wasteland for 10,000 years and it would be nothing to the planet

Since "the planet" is a large, mostly molten, mass of rock and iron, and therefore nothing means anything to it, you are correct.

>You deny global warming? You are no better than flat earth proponents

who even created the flat earth theory? i'm starting to think it's just more controlled opposition shit

"hey guys, stop burning fossil fuels, it's bad for the planet"
>because prohibition worked so well
>heck even tree-hugging terrorists in fucking germany doesn't agree to nuclear
>mandatory global investment in solar/ wind/ geothermal/ brine/ human-hamster energy would cause developing nations to chimp out unless developed nations pay (hint: they won't)

No, global coordination never accomplished anything without one country doing it for the other entirely for free.
Focus on making non-green tech obsolete, instead of wasting time trying to convince potentially warring nations to lower their economic output.

the sun is going through a cooling phase, and we could be looking at another Maunder Minimum.

it's all about the cycles

this.
and he got dubs
>44

Well you ain't going to get argument form me over Trump. I think he is wrong about climate change, but still better than Hillary 'Imma war Iran then Russia' Clinton.

That aside, assuming it is real then yes, it comes down to what to do about it. And as I said in my post above, I do believe that the only solution is global. No point in us doing anything if China and India's emissions grow so much as to offset any effort on our part. For this to work, I think the US needs to take the lead (Europe is already doing pretty well on this even if we're fucked in every other way). Once the US has shown proper commitment the world will be in a position to apply carrot and stick to India China and the ME. So a combination of hard limit (I used to think 450ppm, now I don't think 500 is unavoidable) enforced by sanctions and tariffs while offering incentive to speed up the move to nuclear ahead of schedule. Some carbon trading may be OK but it is not a solution. It would however likely bring back some of the money the west will have to invest. Consider Europe goes carbon neutral on power generation in 2035, we could sell some of our allowance to China and India while they develop. Course it would have to be in such a way that they weren't being exploited as this would encouraged them to tell us to fuck off.

As to your underlying concern (global government), I share some of tehse concerns. We are not ready, and maybe never will be, for full global federal governance. I think some aspects of the UN interference should be rolled back while other powers, particularly on global threats (disease would probably come up here too) were extended, WITH a global mandate to act for a certain length of time to a specific goal.

Concern over global warming isn't about killing the earth but how changes in the earth will hurt us.

>That said, all large (read: effective) organizations intended to combat global warming have been completely occupied by socialists and globalists

Could this be perhaps because the right has just gone head in sand on the issue?

You also speak of getting of earth. Think of the resources that will be wasted rehousing over a billion ME and Africans in Europe, and the long term costs to those societies.

I think flat earthers are pro-sciecne and running a cunning ruse. Have you ever tried to argue with or debunk flat earth? They have an answer for everything. I think thinking about how to debunk what you know instinctively to be true is an exercise in critical thinking.

I base all this on one video I saw where the Flat Earth Society turned up to a Christopher Monkton speech to heckle him.

Okay let's go over a few things
>can we stop it

No probably not at this point without trying to force the whole world to not grow their economies and push billions of people back decades in terms of quality of life

>how bad are the consequences really

For the advanced countries, manageable, sea level rising a few meters over a century, possible desertification in some areas but offset by making other parts of he northern land masses in Canada and Russia livable

>yeah but what about the refugees from poor countries

What about them? Those countries aren't going to do shit to help the situation anyway as it would destroy any and all progress made over the last 50 years, that is a social issue in the west, we would have to not let them in.

So in short it is litterally user issue and just a way for lefties to try and push socialist/globalist policies

You missed the doomsday 2012 hype. Millennium fear could be added to your list. Same goes for various religious end of days preaching as the rapture and stuff.
There has never been a debate. It started with Thatcher shilling global cooling in orer to acquire support for nuclear energy. When the observations pointed to a warming instead, they adjusted their "science" and hence we received global warming. Even that is already modified to cliamte change to better fit current weather patterns. Add in events like climategate and climate "scientists" being caught red-handed with tampering with data, you end up with a research program that only exists in computer models and deos not follow the empirical method of science, but the methodological approach of the social sciences where adjustments, modifications, corrections, tweaking and what not are applied until the results conform to the a priori hypotheses.

>No probably not at this point without trying to force the whole world to not grow their economies and push billions of people back decades in terms of quality of life

I disagree. But it takes commitment and global coordination.

>we would have to not let them in.

I assure you this will not happen. The UN are already planning for a billion 'climate refugees'

The US could perhaps physically stop them. Europe not so much.

>you have no choice but to accept globalist corporatism and social redistribution to save the world from le climate change

Thank you for proving my point.

They are using the fear of a "humanity altering event". To push policies nobody but the global elite want.

Sorry but I'm not willing to compromise my people's quality of life to save 10,000 polonesyians on Navuru and other random islands

>lel the models are wrong :DDD

Stupid motherfuckers, we can't even accurately model gravity due to unknown factors in quantum mechanics and dark matter and relativity. We get close and can fiddle with the numbers to make things work, but there is no accurate model of any of the fundamental forces of nature. Yet, I don't see anyone saying that gravity is a myth invented by researchers to steal government grant money.

1. Is God real?
2. If so should man worship God?
3. Is God malevolent or benevolent?
4. Assuming man is born into sin, should he repent?
5. Also, how big of a tithe should he pay?

AGW is a new age religion not a theory. Climate priests, deniers and the faithful. It's more a battle over who controls and who gets the remaining fossil fuels before a rather large depopulation of humans from earth with critical levels of depletion of that energy. Energy is life, religions like AGW and global economics are inventions of man to control that life.

>Some carbon trading may be OK but it is not a solution. It would however likely bring back some of the money the west will have to invest. Consider Europe goes carbon neutral on power generation in 2035, we could sell some of our allowance to China and India while they develop. Course it would have to be in such a way that they weren't being exploited as this would encouraged them to tell us to fuck off.
But do t you see? This was addresses in those series of posts. It's wealth redistribution on a global scale. It's giving poor undeveloped nations the ability not to do anything, speed up and increase production, and just buy more carbon tickets, increase production, pollute more, earn more money, etc etc forever all the while production in Europe and the US will hit the ground and we'll send all our factories to the slave labor countries like we already do, but at a faster level. Unemployment will skyrocket while Goldberg Shekelstein increases his profits while he keeps firing more people, moving his factories to China, and just selling his carbon tickets to China because he doesn't need them anymore. Talk about corporate welfare on the tax payer's dime.

/thread

>MUH COMMUNISM

You ask for a solution, I offer you one. Your solution is just to let billions die. I assure you, and suspect you know this yourself, that this won't be how it plays out.

Anyhoo, there wouldn't be any drop in quality of life. The first part of my solution was to build up power first. Loads of power. More nuclear than we need, and everywhere. Where's the drop in quality of life? Unless you're talking about your shiny trinkets from China and a new iPhone every month. Funfact. Given Apple don't pay tax or employ americans then your fucking trinkets are doing and have done the past two decades more to redistribute to China or India than anything I've proposed. The US citizenship are now firmly in the consumerist stage. If your elite are happy to ship out all the jobs (they are) then everything you consume is redistribution from the rich west to the poor east.

Nice dubs global warning sir.
Human carcass reverses global warming?
Will poo deposits in Indian ocean have negative feedback?
Answer all questions please

Just because neoliberals are using global warming as a way to accelerate their agenda doesn't mean that it isn't happening. The "solutions" to global warming are lies, not global warming itself.

Again, I'd endorse carrot and stick for developing countries. First we need to take a stronger lead on the issue instead of debating whether or not it is real.

>Talk about corporate welfare on the tax payer's dime.

Let's. Let's talk about how Exxon and co have been funding propaganda against AGW since the 70s while enjoying record profits. Now when the fruits of their (and our) consumption are coming home to roost, who do you think pays for it? While Exxon and co sit on tens of billions in tax havens.

No my answer is to adapt to the changes as they come because the process of trying to reverse it is likely impossible

Also

>voluntary purchase vs involuntary taxation

>>can we stop it
>No probably not at this point without trying to force the whole world to not grow their economies and push billions of people back decades in terms of quality of life

Sure we can -- there are all sorts of ego-engineering approaches that could be tried, and quickly "turned off" if there were unforeseen problems. The best choice might be to inject relatively small amounts of Sulfur Dioxide into the stratosphere, which would have an effect similar to a large volcanic eruption, in terms of cooling, without all the ash and other crap that volcanoes spout into the air. If things start to get too cold, or it just doesn't work becasue of reasons, or frogs start growing extra heads, turn off the pump and it degrades in a year or two, and we're bak to where we are now.

Guess who opposes any and all approaches that do not include wrecking the economy and returning to a third-world standard of living? No, no, not the Jews -- the leftists. To them, while they may well be worried about warming, much more important is the opportunity to degrade the quality of life in the West, and fuck over those who are doing well. Never let a good crisis go to waste.

I'll work with this for a second. Take the direct radiative forcing to be accurate and the only factor. Every doubling of co2 above 280ppm gives us a global average temperature increase of 1.4C (note, average. The warming is not evenly spread). Is there a point where you'd say enough is enough? How would you decide when?

summer was cold as fuck here, one of the coldest I have seen in my life.
whoever is behind the climate warming bullshit is trying to rob someone.

If global warming is real why did I not even need to even use a fan once during summer this year?

Checkmate.

So you have no issue with your country being sold out to China because the people are doing it willingly? Do you think this even occurred to most people for most of their purchases the past 20 years?

>nuke winter- same as war, except its overstated and theres no good evidence to support a theory that nuclear war would cause a 'winter'
Lots of good evidence when you consider the effect of burning almost ever human city. It's highly similar to a massive volcano. Only the burnt plastics stay airborne longer than dust.

Right. That's was also addressed in those posts. The solutions proposed to tackle this don't seem to have any good endings that accomplish what they want (everyone uses less fossil fuels)

>Again, I'd endorse carrot and stick for developing countries. First we need to take a stronger lead on the issue instead of debating whether or not it is real.
But what will that do? We neuter our means of production and say "l-look Ming Chao, w-we did it! Your turn!" then the chinaman looks at you and says "No"

>Let's. Let's talk about how Exxon and co have been funding propaganda against AGW since the 70s while enjoying record profits. Now when the fruits of their (and our) consumption are coming home to roost, who do you think pays for it? While Exxon and co sit on tens of billions in tax havens.
Hey I'm not here to defend oil tycoons. Two wrongs don't make a right though is what I'm saying.

How am I going to drive my car using wind turbines, solar panels, and nuclear energy? There are all sorts of variables a lot of people don't think about when they advocate moving away from gasoline and coal and stuff.

>Nuclear waste is an issue but managemnt of it requires a big underground bunker and some time.
Or a reactor that will breed the 'spent' fuel into new fuel. A tech that has been in place and working from the mid 70s.

Ah, I guess I misread.

And, yeah, the only real solutions are things that no one is going to like. You, nor anyone else, can have a car if we really addressed carbon emissions realistically. Shipping companies would have to remove their engines and switch to sails, most (if not all) of the planes in the world would need to be grounded, meat consumption would need to be banned entirely, every brick-and-mortar store would need to be closed in favor of local bartering, and worse. There are no high-tech solutions to a high-tech problem, and no one wants to admit it.

Life in a carbon neutral world would be extremely difficult, and we know this because the only sustainable country in the world is fucking Cuba (and possible North Korea, though we don't have enough data to be sure). No one wants to live like that, including the people that acknowledge global warming as a threat.

OP here, new ID.

>But what will that do? We neuter our means of production and say "l-look Ming Chao, w-we did it! Your turn!" then the chinaman looks at you and says "No"

This is where the global agreements come in. We will do X and assist with funding and tech on teh promise that China and India will do Y.

>How am I going to drive my car using wind turbines, solar panels, and nuclear energy? There are all sorts of variables a lot of people don't think about when they advocate moving away from gasoline and coal and stuff.

Transport is quite far behind power generation in terms of human activity that produces co2. It will likely have to be cleaned up, but it's heading that way anyway (more efficient engines, electric no longer being homo [Tesla is good for 200mph]). So allowing even 30 years of natural development of engines and personal transport will likely fix much of the issue. If we come up with good carbon capture and storage then driving will possibly not be affected at all.

If we spent money and effort today replacing every coal and gas plant with nuclear, starting with the dirtiest ones, then moved on to industry we wouldn't need that much capture and storage tech to allow meat and private vehicles to continue. Obviously each step would be considered in terms of impact vs effectiveness.

(New ID as well)
>This is where the global agreements come in. We will do X and assist with funding and tech on teh promise that China and India will do Y.
But again, we're paying them to comply. This isn't a solution, but a band aid. The moment we reach the dreams and no longer to pay them to comply, they're going to be pretty asspained that their allowance just dried up.

>but it's heading that way anyway (more efficient engines, electric no longer being homo
Well we're going to have to get those new green ways to produce electricity in place soon because otherwise that's all carbon produced electricity, getting us nowhere.

How do you expect to do this anyway? Solar is pretty shit. Gotta replace the panels every decade or whatever. Only works in the day when it isn't cloudy.

Wind only works when it's windy, but not too much wind.

You'd have to juggle your sources of electricity every day depending on weather. Sometimes not avoiding fossil fuel electricity.

so they should get to it instead of kicking the can. Prove the long lived fission products can be recycled in practice and it will make headlines.

>The moment we reach the dreams and no longer to pay them to comply, they're going to be pretty asspained that their allowance just dried up.

They'll get assistance in rapid development. Their infrastructures will be much better when the project is complete than they are now. The exact from the assistance takes would have to be decided among all interested parties but it's more than just money they're after. Both India and Chian are net importers of food. China desperately wants some of what Monsanto has. They're regularly busted trying to steal seeds. Not saying we should reward bad behaviour but there is still leverage the west has. But ideally this wouldn't be about taking from one and giving to another, but doing something mutually beneficial.

>How do you expect to do this anyway?

Nuclear as a backbone, decentralied solar and wind encouraged where viable.

(New ID yet again. Lunch break, back at work now)
That sounds like a lot of tax dollars being spent in foreign countries, user. My tax dollars.

I'm onboard for nuclear. I just think the free market should spur on the development of better energies, not government subsidies. Like 98% of all subsidies get exploited and government is always inefficient bullshit. Always wasting money on everything.

I could use some global warming and climate change.

Winter is coming it's already fall.

>That sounds like a lot of tax dollars being spent in foreign countries, user. My tax dollars.

It depends. What do you think your future is worth? An user above said essentially that this won't affect most of the developed world so we shouldn't give a fuck. I disagree.I think it will affect us all and set back development hundreds of years. I think prevention is cheaper than cure or adaption.

As to the free market, why do you think nuclear has been largely a state investment up til now? It is expensive and hard to maintain. The amount a plant costs is huge for individuals or even corporations. Hell the new British ones are being funded by the Chinese and French states. I think nuclear is too big an investment for private/free market solution as long as there is cheap, readily available coal and oil.

OMG THE FUCKING EXPERTS SAY IT IT MUST BE FUCKING TRUUUUE!

Give me links to names of pro-global warming scientists, and their credentials.

Give me links to the massive database they've compiled with all the HARD DATA. NOT DATA INPUT INTO A COMPUTER MODEL. HARD. FUCKING. DATA.
>oh wait there is no database.
>why isn't there a database?
And for fucks sake, you slimey globalist scum, why can't you come up with a solution that doesn't require the USA give her sovereignty over to you fucking eurocucks?

>you are a faggot

>And for fucks sake, you slimey globalist scum, why can't you come up with a solution that doesn't require the USA give her sovereignty over to you fucking eurocucks?

would you agree that if it is a real issue it requires a global solution?

Well again, we've already established that we don't know how much is human made and if switching off of fossil fuels will even help very much. So I don't know how much my future is worth. That's what I'm saying.

The free market is almost always better than government assistance. But I was mainly referring to making shit like solar and wind better, not having private corps take over nuclear. Not that I'd be against that either.

And you brought up another point. We're going to burn up all the gas and coal we can, regardless if we magically develop an alternative. It's fairly cheap and provides a fair amount of energy. I have no doubt we will burn the same amount of gas and oil whether we implement your plan or not. It's just so cheap.

Now you could talk about passing regulations saying we can't, but whether it takes 30 years to burn through all our oil and gas, or 300 or 3000. We are still going to burn it. I'd bet $5 on it.

Then you have to consider the Chinese don't have souls.

Prevention? There is no disease you faggot. What percentage of our atmosphere is carbon that wouldn't be there if not for mankind?

oh wait, but the experts put some supposed data into computer models, and those models spit out GLOBAL FUCKING WARMING so it will be cheaper to give your country to us right now, than be fucked in the face by GLOBAL FUCKING WARMING.

Bullshit. You can take my country from my cold dead hands.

no, faggot. The only issues I care about have USA solutions. Like psychotic self-hate ideologies, religions that pose as science. We gotta shame you faggots out of the fucking dark ages, and we can't do that unless our country is 10,000X more productive than yours.

No. It's an obvious fucking scam you goddam kike asshole. No one cares anymore. You had your chance to build carbon exchanges and you lost it, faggot. Try again next generation of goy.

>tfw you won't be alive duringthe age of aquarius

Also, what's the to debate whether the climate is changing or not?

>HAARP

look it up

We don't know for sure how much recent warming is down to human factors but surely playing it safe makes sense?

If we can burn that oil and coal in a more controlled manor ie. without causing accumulation in the atmosphere and oceans then I've absolutely no issue with it.

Oh blessed Lord, why must we endure these people?

We're gonna burn that coal on a larger scale than ever has occured on this planet before, we're going to suck all that oil up from the crust and burn it, until it runs out. We're going to blanket this earth with humanity, soon the only animals which live will be our livestock, or our pets, or our entertainment. In a few thousand years, mankind will have dominated nature to the point where we just do not need it anymore.

>cry harder

>Bullshit. You can take my country from my cold dead hands.

(((they))) have already done so m8. 20tn and counting...

>local solution to global issue

good answer lad.

...

m8 you've clearly no interest in or idea about the topic. So fuck off.

yeah it sure is faggot. When my country does well, you're country does well. When we make a shit load of money (more than you're little island could ever make) you're country makes a shit load of money. When you eurocucks have lots of money and x-boxes and fucking bloodsausage, or whatever it is you fucking people like, then you don't have time for BULLSHIT like global fucking warming. And I don't like being bothered by seeing it.

I mean, I see what you're saying, but I'd like more info before pouring billions possibly trillions into a move off of fossil fuels. I'm not saying you're wrong I'm saying we don't know.

And if burning it slower will stop accumulation like you said then maybe I'd be for that, but where does it all go? Wait for the plants to convert it back to oxygen?

Btw I like our discussion. It's calm and respectful which you don't see often here. While I disagree, at least you're laying your views on the table discussing it.

I mean
FUCK YOU FAGGOT SHALL

yeah know, I really do. I am very interested in your shill bullshit raping our earth. You fucking rape the earth with your lies. It disgusts me. THere are millions of fucking nignogs in africa who could have cheap energy, but you faggots refuse to sell them cheap powerplants. It sickens me.

tfw its October and its been 80+ degrees since January

In Cuckafornia i forgot to add

>the rivers will turn blood: revelations

maybe he only saw color

This topic is dead, these ideas are stale. These people are cucks. Good night, Lefties. Time for you to go to sleep. Rebrand. We're already getting ready for your next iteration. You should be too.

We're working to raise taxes for the goyim. :^)

>nobody looking at this

>I see what you're saying

Likewise. The only issue is that some people will refuse to accept it til feedback is in full swing, at which point it will be too late to avert it spiralling out of control, as most positive feedback is kinda self-perpetuating.

>And if burning it slower will stop accumulation like you said then maybe I'd be for that, but where does it all go?

NASA have said for a long time now that 450ppm is dangerous. Ideally we'd keep it below this but that seems unlikely even if we went all in right now (at least without crashing the economy) This again is why global coordiantion is needed. A global strategy for restricting the increase in concentration initially then shifting the focus to technological methods of reducing the concentration in a controlled manor.

>but where does it all go? Wait for the plants to convert it back to oxygen?

Pretty much. Trees store it. plants store it. Algae stores it. It is stored in certain rock formation. A process was recently discovered for pumping it into rock/mineral for storage.

>muh faux humanitarian concerns

Might have appeared more credible if you weren't saying 'fuck the rest of the world, I got mine' just a few posts up.

I've looked at HAARP before. HAARP can seed clouds right? Or does it need 'chemtrails' already up there to operate?

Geo-engineering is one of the older solutions proposed. Viable but may be with its own consequences (increased heavy metal particles). I wouldn't rule it out but the entire project would have to be demystified to a huge degree first.

Well I dunno man. I guess we've exhausted the discussion for now. I simply want more evidence of all of this before pouring all that money into that movement.

What if we do this then find out halfway through that "oh shit, actually we have proof our contribution is tiny and this is a waste of a few trillion dollars"?

Like you said sure we played it safe but " playing it safe" with public dollars will upset quite a few people. I just don't see it being done soon.

While I again see what you're saying. I'll have to politely disagree right now. That is, until we get more proof. I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong just that we don't know and shouldn't be hasty to jump in on this.

Plus another kind of spin that I just want to put on it. You mentioned Exxon and co pushing anti global warming propaganda but just as an add on to the that, the companies that seek to profit the most from this whole green energy shift are pushing pro global warming propaganda. Just wanted to bring it up because there are always greedy corps behind almost every political issue.

You bet your ass I'd push for this if I had stocks in a major solar or wind company. Do the opposite if I owned Exxon stock.

>You mentioned Exxon and co pushing anti global warming propaganda but just as an add on to the that, the companies that seek to profit the most from this whole green energy shift are pushing pro global warming propaganda.

Here I was referring specifically to a couple of things. Exxon did their own research in the 70s Came to the conclusion that AGW was real. Hid their research. Since then they've used 'lobbying' groups such as the heartland institute and heritage foundation to propagandise against what their own research confirmed. Not saying the other side wouldn't have done this. Just that it is all documented.

I had a reasonably in depth discussion on the topic on 8ch/marx/. board. The lefty I was debating was the one opposing the idea of global warming. Not so much the science but the whether or not we should do anything. Anyway, the whole thing got quite mathy and dug a little deeper into the science. Dunno if this will help you decide, but thread is here if you're interested.

/marx/res/3867.html

Tripfag is not me. Quite broad discussion but also goes a bit more in depth than we can manage here due to the speed of the board.

Anyway, been refreshing having a thread on here that wasn't just screaming.

Thanks I'll look at that thread at my leisure as I'm at work.

Yeah good to have an actual discussion for once. People say this board is a hugbox or that people accuse others of being a shill because they can't defend their stances, but I only do that when they don't want to have a discussion. A lot of these global warming threads start out the gate with bait. "Why are conservashits so fucking stupid?" And the like. Same with anto Trump threads like 95% of the time. "Trump BTFOOOOOO" and shit.

If you want to have a discussion then bring shit to discuss, don't make shitty bait threads without backing anything up. That's what really pisses me off with all the CTR shills meant to disrupt the board. This thread was a good example of actual discussion even if we don't see eye to eye. If either of us were shills it would ha e easily devolved in like 3 posts to YEAH OKAY FUCKING BRITBONG FAGGOT HAHA DUMB KEK THINKS CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL WHAT A DUMB FUCK.

Anyway, yeah. Good to actually have a discussion that isn't pure shitflinging.

Agree with your general sentiment regarding this board. Shills and b8rs gonna shill and b8 though I guess. Not much we can do. I still prefer this to over-moderation like you'd see some other places.

Veery true. It's why I like Cred Forums in the first place. Lebbit seems like an absolute shithole. I've been there twice and hated it every minute. I do use it when they post NFL football stream links. I don't know how to navigate that site but I have the board bookmarked so I don't have to learn.

Even if global warming isn't real, how can you possibly claim that our CO2 production is sustainable?

It's not completely related, I just seen your post and thought I should share it

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynmouth_Flood

And

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Cumulus

Why do coincidences like this pop up all the time?

This.

Global warming isn't real. The fearmongering of the left is absolutely hysterical nowadays.

If you believe in global warming, you probably also believe that Pepe is a hate symbol, and you fear him too.

we only have so many fossil fuels left

had never seen this one before but I wouldn't rule it out. The US has been 'cloud seeding' for over 50 years.

Advances in technology. Shale oil, etc.

We've also discovered about 5x the amount of worldwide oil that we thought we had in the 90's.

That's not to say that oil will last forever, just that it's the best possible energy source to drive civilization right now.

I'm sure global warming is real, humans are naturally self destructive. If we don't destroy ourselves through global warming, we'll find another way.

>Global warming is a conspiracy
>Optimizing engineering to use less and do more, reusing resources, and keeping down asia are all evil!
>Moving away from energy methods that leave no room for further improvement onto potentially nearly-free energy methods is evil!
>A motivator for rapid innovation and optimization across the board is evil!