Red-pill me on global warming.
It seems that every country, besides America, believe in it.
So what is the truth?
>>80916604
China and India believe in it?
>>80916604
The truth is that if you suffer every made-up regulation, and China does whatever it wants (which is the only thing China does), then you suffered for nothing, and meanwhile China pulled ahead of you.
>>80916765
They do, they just don't give a shit
>>80916604
It's possible climate change is happening, but the idea of anthropogenic (human-based) global warming is horse shit.
It's another made up fairy tale like white privilege so people can try to shame those more successful into a cucked state of impotence.
The only countries that really believe in it are cuck countries that just want to see America get as shitty as they are.
>>80916604
Total fucking bullshit from the horses mouth
A remark from Maurice Strong, who organized the first U.N. Earth Climate Summit (1992) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil revealed the real goal: “We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrialized civilization to collapse.”
Former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO), addressing the same Rio Climate Summit audience, agreed: “We have 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.” (Wirth now heads the U.N. Foundation which lobbies for hundreds of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to help underdeveloped countries fight climate change.)
Also speaking at the Rio conference, Deputy Assistant of State Richard Benedick said: “A global warming treaty [Kyoto] must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced] greenhouse effect.”
In 1988, a former Canadian Minister of the Environment told editors and reporters of the Calgary Herald: “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
In 1996, former Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev emphasized the importance of using climate alarmism to advance socialist Marxist objectives: “The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order.”
Speaking at the 2000 U.N. Conference on Climate Change in the Hague, former President Jacques Chirac of France said: “For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance, one that should find a place within the World Environmental Organization which France and the European Union would like to see established.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/02/05/in-their-own-words-climate-alarmists-debunk-their-science/#1a566c5076fb
If there is global warming, we have to find out the root cause.
Is it actually the increase in CO2 emission? Or just a unrelated correlation?
If yes:
How much percentage can we reasonably negate? Even the US does not contribute that much.
When reducing CO2 output, prices will go down for the world, so other people will just release the CO2.
Even if you think CO2 is the cause and you try to reduce output:
CO2 is helping plants grow.
A warmer climate helps agriculture around the world and makes deserts green again.
To think climate change is bad is just stupid. It always changes and we humans adapt.
Cheap energy is far more important to create wealth to develop new sources of energy in the end.
The truth is:
It does not matter.
It is just something for states to grab more power, to create a threat we can only collectively tackle and need a big state and a big tax for many government workers for it.
>>80917002
That's a bit like saying "I saw someone else litter so it's ok for me to litter" - you have to be an idiot to believe it and a total cunt to act on it.
>>80916604
Ok so far in the thread no one seems to have any real education on it so I'll give you my 2 cents. My meme degree is in Environmental Biology while Climate Change wasn't a big interest for me, I devoted a lot of hours studying the subject.
Global Warming is a real thing, and there is no debate among actual contributing scientists as to whether it exists or not. The debate is how drastically it will impact us as well as how soon.
>CO2. Carbon dioxide is the leading cause, and it has been shown that temperatures have a direct correlation to CO2 present in the atmosphere, and it seems to have changed largely since the industrial revolution. Now when we are talking about atmospheric CO2 concentrations, we are talking about a change from 350 parts per million to 400 parts per million, and when we are talking about associated temperature change we're talking about global change in average temperature of a degree or so.
>"But anon, that sounds like we're really blowing this thing out of proportion!"
Yeah, until you look at historic global flooding events, the minor ice age, etc. The problem climate scientists are concerned about is a potential domino effect. A degree or two of difference means the permaice on the poles melting, and they drive the ocean currents. So youre talking about the ocean thermal currents which regulate temperature on the Earth possibly going through a reversal. It takes a chapter in a book to explain how this works, so I'm not going to do it here, my memory is hazy, but its not ONE book that says this is a possibility, its a scary real problem. Even if it doesn't cause an ice age, it will complete disrupt the global economy because we will have drastic weather change, and the entire shipping industry will be affected or even ruined by a drastic change in ocean currents. Furthermore, if the sea rises a few feet we will lose entire cities to the sea. This is almost inevitable.
I don't know what you want me to talk about first..
Emission reduction measures are imposed on white, first world nations to slow down industry and growth while India and China are allowed to do as they please and grow much faster than the West.
It's an anti-white Jewish con.
>>80925868
Did you know that they used to plant wine in Britain?
Bad times.
>>80925868
>>80925868
The hole in the ozone from CFC's is actually improving. I think CFCs were globally banned or at least heavily restricted.
I think as far as alternate energies, there is no one solution. Solar is only viable in some areas, same with wind, and neither do a good job of making energy 'on demand' which is an issue since peak usage doesn't line up with wind current and we can't store energy efficiently. Nuclear in my opion is the best energy source, but again, geographically limited. Should not be built near coasts, fault lines, active volcanoes, etc.
Opinions vary WIDELY on what scientists think the result will be. I've read more theories than I want to write about. I personally don't think we're ever going to get a grips on being environmental at this stage of humanity. I could write endlessly on that topic. Your electric cars are actually worse for the environment than your 2000 honda civic. people have oppertunities to make meaningful change but its not socially acceptable to do so and capitalism doesn't favor being eco friendly
>>80916604
It's true. All of it.
>>80917002
pretty sure China agreed to take part in the latest 'global climate proposal' I cant remember what it was and we were the ones who refused so the deal didnt go through. It was basically all the modern nations agreed to a bunch of rules and we rturned everyone down. I'm not gonna bother looking for a source coz I'm comfy drinking a beer and I don't like the topic.
>>80926502
The situation with CO2 and CFCs is not even comparable.
We depend highly on cheap energy, but for compressors and hair sprays there were easy alternatives.
What do you expect to eat without the trucks driving goods around, the ships and airplanes.
Every little gram of food is highly dependent on cheap diesel for tractors.
There is nothing yet to replace it.
>>80927173
I never said they were comparable, they are two different issues but they were both contributing to global warming. There was literally a massive hole in the Earth's ozone layer due to CFC use and it was growing. Now it has actually (recently) started reducing in size. We weren't sure if it would because the molecules are supposed to be fairly stable for a very long time.
>>80916604
It's real, exists, and is man-made but will probably not lead to extinction in the near term. It is a very long-term threat.
>>80926502
Mostly right.
>>80921714
lmao
>>80927161
You're pretty sure that China, whose government's survival depends on continuing economic growth, volunteered to damage its economic growth and so threaten its government. What are you really sure about?
There is LITERALLY ISIS on the streets and cities and TERRORIST MUSLIMS who want to KILL you and all fuck ups care about is global warming baka
I hope Trump gets elected so he can smash the greeny enviromentalist elite
