Well, /pol/?
>>75634223
Literally #notanargument the tweet.
OUR GREATEST ENEMY IS NOT ISIS OR NUCLEAR WEAPONS, IT IS GLOBAL WARMING
DO YOU HEAR ME?!
>>75635008
No, but what are the negative consequences of fighting against climate change? Cleaner air? More sufficient energy? What's the downside, really?
>>75635150
shitty products
I can't be the only person on /pol/ who thinks looking after the environment is a big deal.
oil companies dont give a fuck, all politicians are invested in them and they wont be hindered.
>>75634223
Tell us a story, Uncle Donald!!
Do the ebilz Chinese get freedomed to death in the end?
>>75635150
more expensive products, higher poverty, less competition for already established corporations because they didn't need to adhere to all these regulations when they started, and now the bar is being raised, protecting the ones on top.
>>75635150
Increased transfer of wealth
Reduced rights and freedoms
Ice age
Increased cost of living
>>75635150
costs money
That 97% is as misleading as the .79 to $1 wage gap.
If we really wanted to lower our environmental impact, the best thing we could do is limit immigration and embrace our falling population.
>>75635150
Totalitarianism.
>>75635008
>DO YOU HEAR ME?!
Go back to bed obongo, dream of carbon credits and windmills
>>75635150
Destruction of industry.
>>75634223
Bandwagon fallacy.
Liberal scientists attack those who do not support their narrative.
Appeal to authority.
The majority of "the world's scientists" are not even ecologists.
16 posts in and still not a single argument refuting climate change!
>>75634223
Notice how it was always global warming but now its ''environmental crisis''
>>75634223
You mean 97% of the less than 33% that endorse recent global warming as man-made?
>>75634223
Ask that person why does he think about GMOs because theres 97% consensus among scientists that they are safe
>>75634223
>Westerfeld
>every time
>>75635429
It literally isn't
Only oil-funded scientists and Muslim """"""""academics""""""" deny climate change
One of my main issues with Trump, tbf
i can't believe you stupid faggots care about "stuff" more than the environment
COMPLETE NIGGERS!!
>>75635150
China, India & co. fucking over your industries since they don't have top follow the same standards as you do.
Lepen proposed a decent solution to this
>>75635820
you're pretty stupid then aren't ya buddy
>>75635644
>16 posts in and still not a single argument refuting climate change!
Maybe OP or some one else should actually present an argument that we can refute, instead of just arguing from authority.
>>75635150
Over regulation
Social conditioning the public to shut up and obey your government
The government needs to obey the people, not the other way around.
Here's one: Wall street billionaires try to make an excuse for deindustrialization and outsourcing with another environmental scare that never delivers
>>75635919
It isn't an argument from authority when the source is qualified.
Global warming was a myth that was named changed to climate change to sound more broad. Right?
>>75635150
A tanked economy and a too-powerful government.
>>75634223
It's also all those oil companies and the billionaires that own them that impede the progress of nuclear energy to preserve their hydrocarbon shekels
>>75635008
Okay Bernie.
Next you're going to tell me that white people can't be poor or something.
>>75634223
Why so much shit about 2050? Most of us will barely be there at 2040.
>>75636231
no you fucking idiot
Isn't the 97% of scientists figure completely contrived and arguably completely fabricated? I remember reading they fudged the numbers to the extreme, and that the statistic was from about 30 years ago.
And it's true that it's economic suicide to stifle your own industy when foreign countries won't do the same, not only from an environmental perspective or even an economic one, but from a national security.
Scott should go back to writing mediocre young adult fiction
>>75634223
Last I heard, the actual amount of climate change yay/nay was actually about equal, and the huge amount of scientist who said neutral or wait for more evidence was just lumped int yay because they didnÄt explicitly say nay.
>>75636267
So that's where the 97% comes from
Pretty slimy t.b.h.
>>75635307
Not fucking Bernie Sander.
I've heard more than once of climatologist PhDs being denied because a thesis didn't tow the line even on peripheral issues to the narrative.
>>75634223
Plot idea: 97% of big money business contrives to brainwash the public into believing GLOBAL WARMING!!! isn't real, but are exposed by a plucky band of every mainstream media outlet, political action group, major film studio, advertizing company, university and celebrity
All studies linking anthropogenic sources to climate change are theoretical. All studies are funded for profit. Studies are in perfect parallel with a routine rise in temperature, therefore a sort of "fear mongering event" is taking place.
These rises and dips have been happening for 4.5 billion years. CO2 does not cause temperature increase, increase in temperature causes a rise in CO2.
There have been points in Earths history where the temperature has been far greater in warmth than today or any projected future temperature in the next century.
>>75634223
Was the end of the Ice Age also "climate change"? How can we prove that it's human beings causing rising temperatures and not just natural climate shift?
>>75634223
If Science was a democracy, theory of relativity would never have been accepted.
>>75637562
Shit tier sources. It strikes me as the same thing the tobacco industry did back in the 60's. Hire scientists to study tobaccos effects for you, pay them to find said results and statistics and you prove 97% agree tobacco has little to no negitive effects
>>75634223
the worlds scientist would include people who work in companies who develop new technologies .the entire green tech shit relies on a rapid shift to new technologies. the rate of adoption would normally be driven by how efficient the new way of doing things is
but with green tech its about "muh environment". in some cases the global warming shit is fake as fuck and every scientist knows it. "muh carbon foot print" means nothing carbon is condensed into c14 and thats to dense to say in the atmosphere and it rains down.radio carbon dating relies on it and it has been happening reliably for a long long long time.
so it cant build up a super thick layer and drive up the temp of the planet. o3 is replenishable naturally and biodiversity isnt essential to the survival of humans
You people really are nuts. Climate change is going to literally kill us all. Trump is painfully wrong, although I trust him to come around once he is made aware that it really is an issue.
The net effect is hotter summers, colder winters, more severe storms, more severe droughts, sea level rise, and ice shelf loss. ALL of which are being demonstrated in spades.
I'm still skeptical about how much we can actually do to stop it. But denying that regardless of the cause, the climate is changing, is about as good as sitting there with your fingers in your ears and screaming.
I also don't give a fuck if it's a natural occurrence. The climate changes every few thousand years by itself, who cares? WE FUCKING CARE. Civilization has only existed for a few thousand years. The planet will survive but we sure as shit won't after any significant shift.
There has to be a way to deal with it WITHOUT the heavy economic costs that are generally brought up.
>>75634223
97% of "scientist" who's livelihood depends on agreeing with man made climate change agree climate change is real
97% of scientologists believe in Xenu
>>75637775
>all studies are funded for profit
You've clearly never done scientific research
>Increase in temperature causes a rise in CO2
Historically CO2 increases have lagged temp changes, but it's funny how since we've started digging up and burning fossil fuels the opposite is true. Really makes you think huh
>>75638359
so you are implying that since it is a natural occurrence we must unnaturally change the climate ourselves. That is a serious contradiction mate. Even tho bait, execute one self famylamy.
>>75638640
>so you are implying that since it is a natural occurrence we must unnaturally change the climate ourselves
That's exactly what I'm implying.
If it goes ahead and changes on us, naturally or otherwise, modern civilization is fucked. One way or another it has to be stopped.
>>75638545
Yes, all studies are funded for some form of a profit or another, you mongo.
Historically CO2 has risen slightly after a rise in temperature. The same thing is happening today.
>>75638640
>scientists are only paid if their peer reviewed paper proves something that differs to muh feels
When will this meme die
>>75638794
You are correct on some level. How about trying to adapt vs trying to change.
>>75635008
Global warming is what created ISIS, nigger.
>>75639236
Okay leaf, you have my attention, explain.
>>75638486
97% of x ideology who want to be on top of the good chain agree that they are superior
>thinking only as far as to confirm my own world view
wew
>>75639162
I never said only one side is paid.
>>75639236
>>75639311
kek, there was an actual article that made this claim some time ago
>>75639425
If by "some article" you mean "very common knowledge among all semi-educated people" then yes.
>>75639105
Wrong on both points.
My published Master's thesis on preferential flow pathways in soil made nobody money, but it still got funded by the university and personal donors who are in no position to use the information gained from it for their own monetary gain.
It's not happening today. CO2 has risen much faster than temperature since industrialisation. Temperature historically lead CO2 because as ocean temperatures rose due closer orbital paths to the sun etc, oceans released CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. In other words, increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming. This positive feedback cycle continues today but we are also artificially adding CO2 to the atmosphere at a huge rate, which increases the positive feedback cycle
>>75639493
fuck off shill
>>75635367
>less competition for already established corporations
So what?
Why does everything need to be locked in a constant competitive death spiral?
Is there any point where we can say we've (((progressed))) enough for a while, and now we're going to take a step back and live our lives and rebuild our communities and not be a bunch of rootless, soulless cosmopolitans chasing the next dollar?
>>75634223
>Other companies that need Big Oil to be obsolete offer you funding if you just tow the line
Dearie me.
>>75639625
>profit has to equal money
Firstly, the University deinitely had something to gain from your supposed reaearch. They are banking on a student possibly discovering a treatment for cancer. Good publicity.
Secondly, personal donors are friends and family so they do not count. Do you have something to gain from giving a birthday present to your brother?
>being close to sun caused CO2 to release from ocean
Yes. Being close to the sun rose the temperature and in turn caused a rise in CO2. Thanks for proving my point.
The amount of CO2 the ocean releases yearly exponentially trumps any number of CO2 released by humans.
>>75635820
The 97% figure is false. The study in question was among 79 self-reported climate scientists who self-published the majority of their work.
77 out of 79 is not the entirety of the scientific community, Anon.
>GUYS THE CLIMATE IS GOING TO FUCK US OVER LOOK AT OUR PREDICTIONS
>Okay it's X year you said these predictions would come true and all your data was proven untrue
>UHHH WE FORGOT TO CARRY A ONE HERE'S THE NEW DATA WE'RE SO TOTALLY FUCKED OH MY GOD WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING
>Yet again it's X year, and your predictions have not come true again. In fact, the observed temperature changes are way off from what you even predicted
>OKAY YEAH BUT WE HAVE NEW DATA THAT SHOWS WE WERE RIGHT.
>Oh? Well then let's see it.
>NO.
>>75634223
>>75635008
>>75635429
>>75635563
>>75635644
In the long run it does not matter. Who the FUCK would ever want to give Muzzies and Russia more money?
Energy independence needs to be pursued. No matter what narrative is or isn't right.
Hell, if I were in a relevant field I'd jump on the bandwagon just to get Europe off Russia's gas dick.
FUCK Fossil fuel. Most monopoly-friendly resource in the world.
>>75639493
Yeah sure, next you'll try and say that it's also the reason Mexicans are immigrating to the US. There is no such thing as a climate migrant, it's bullshit. They immigrant almost purely on economic gains they'll get as well s to get out of their shitty backwater country. Isis was created by the US to destabilize the middle east, not because of the fucking sun you stupid leaf. Since when is any part of your side of the globe "warm" anyway. Also it's called climate change now, in case the shills forgot to tell you that.
>>75640545
So are you implying that there is something wrong with studies funded for profit (ie knowledge gain, university prowess)? Does that somehow discredit their findings?
FYI none of the donors that funded my research were friends or family, I met with them to discuss my project and they donated to it. They were purely interested in funding studies that were likely to result in meaningful knowledge gain.
>thanks for proving my point
Your point was that pre-industrialisation warming happened naturally (hardly a groundbreaking observation). I agreed then noted how the historical trend of CO2 levels following temperature is no longer occuring since we are adding CO2 to the atmosphere at a larger rate than it would otherwise occur. We're at 400 ppm CO2 which is a historical high. Given that you agree that CO2 released from the oceans caused historical temp rises do you also agree that anthropogenic CO2 will also cause the temperature to rise?
![maxresdefault[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/Z69zSqF.jpg "maxresdefault[1].jpg")
>>75636231
ahahahahaha.
>"It came from x institute, this study proves x, >my sources are solid because they come from a source I don't disagree with.
>>75641005
More like the most usable resource in the world, what do you ride your bike to school everyday? I agree on energy independence though which is why we should immediately start drilling the shit out of Alaska and start making our own oil.
>>75635150
>what are the negative consequences of fighting against a made-up problem that doesn't exist designed to funnel shekels from the public and corporation into the pockets of the elite jews?
Hmm, good question. Really makes me think.
>>75634223
but its not 97% of the world's scientists, its about 3% of climatologists
>>75635389
>Ice age
and this is bad how?
>>75643298
>Ice age happens again
>White people are better resistant to cold
>Niggers die and white people survive
Sounds pretty comfy desu
>>75634223
where does he get that 97% from
>>75637429
>Anyway, what is even more fascinating is the two questions asked in the survey. Here they are:
>1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
>2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
>The 97% in this survey answered the questions "risen" and "yes".
>Do you see the irony here? If you have been following along with this series, you should be able to say how I would have answered the two questions. I would certainly have said "risen" to 1. The answer to question 2 is a bit hard because "significant" is not defined, but in a complex system with literally thousands of variables, I would have said one of those variables was a significant contributor at anything over about 10%. Since I estimated man's effect on past warming around 40-50%, I would have answered "yes" to #2! In fact, most every prominent science-based skeptic I can think of would likely have answered the same.
Very in depth climate skeptic analysis at coyoteblog.com
>>75643970
See >>75636267
Im not sure what that survey is but pic related here: >>75636267 is where the 97% comes from. Not a survey of 77 scientists
