Hey /lit/. what are some good books challenging that climate change is caused by humans, or anything along the lines of that?
step one: www.google.com
step two: click the box
step three: type "climate change denial books"
step four: castrate self
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Kuhn is a good place to start when attempting to survey any scientific discipline. After that, as long as you have accurate data and evidence you should be able to produce independent evaluations of scientific theories, especially if they're apt to always be wrong.
>15 years and stagnant global temperatures unlike what every climate model predicted
>but climate scientists still receive huge public funding
>the discipline seems just as corrupt as economics
le epic Jurassic Park man book
>>8014672
it's not caused by humans, the idea is that we're accelerating it. So we should switch entirely to nuclear for large-scale power generation and incinerate our garbage with plasma arc gassification so it doesn't decompose and release more methane into the atmosphere.
>the problem is that hippies, anarcho-feminist faggots and the cunts who fund them actively collude to prevent us from achieving a carbon-neutral society by coming up with new wedge issues like race, gender and socioeconomic class.
>>8014759
Politico-legal-media complex!
I liked that book when I was younger, but I like being contrarian.
>>8015343
>i am not challenging climate change. it's always changing.
Kill yourself, moron.
>>8016329
For stating a fact?
>>8014672
>>8014672
No one is really denying climate change. It's the real effect of it. Does it matter? Is it EcoFacism? I'd say yes. Do eco scientists really care about the environment or the money they get? Some people are coming out (Bill Nye) and saying that it should be illegal to deny global warming.
Try reading The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels
>>8016351
>Some people are coming out (Bill Nye) and saying that it should be illegal to deny global warming.
They are being the modern day equivalent to "Burn the witches!".
any book that seeks to "challenge" AGW is going to be more concerned with ideology than actual data (this probably goes for the flip side as well - books that warn of catastrophic AGW as a means to affirm their political beliefs). There is an abundance of peer-reviewed studies on the topic, and that is where you should begin.
OP look up NASAs massive pages of academic research on it if you are interested.
>people are still dumping money into massive sea-side mansions
Even if the theory that it warming is accelerated is bullshit, would you really put 80% of your net worth into a high risk purchase like that? The fact that New Orleans still has a real estate market astounds me.
>>8016351
>No one is really denying climate change.
Not denying climate change dogma is literally anti-science. (As in, a direct violation of the scientific method.)
>>8016886
>Even if the theory that it warming is accelerated is bullshit, would you really put 80% of your net worth into a high risk purchase like that? The fact that New Orleans still has a real estate market astounds me.
How old are you? 16?
There were scaremongering stories about 'seaside property in 15 years' 30 years ago.
Guess what? All these properties are still unaffected now just as they were 30 years ago.
Maybe the people making investment decisions are a tad smarter and more experienced than your teenage dumbass self.
>>8014914
This!
Plus hydropower and geothermal, where conditions are right.
>>8014709
The decline of a civilization, captured succinctly in a single book cover
>It's a Pseuds Who Didn't Take Any Hard Science in Undergrad Past Gen Ed Think Their Half-baked Ideas Stand Up to Research Because They Fell for the Think for Yourself Meme and Read a Philosophy of Science Book Once episode
That's probably the only mode of thought that's worse than full blown scientism
