Why are people still skeptical about climate change
Because you cannot fool all of the people all the time.
>>7716353
the politicians who are "skeptical" arent really skeptical. they have an audience/voter to cater to. those voters and their communities are the ones involved in and have jobs in oil, coal and natural gas; all the white trash hillbilly white folk who are retardicans. they have to take the opposing side to stay in power.
>>7716380
>Nobody important actually disagrees with me, they're just pretending to.
Pretty sure Cruz and others truly do not believe it.
To be honest I don't think it's as alarming an issue as it was talked about. Warming hasn't been occurring at the rate scientists were once predicting. Not even close to it.
>>7716353
"skeptical about climate change" is leftist rhetoric. The skepticism is that available alternatives to fossil fuel is actually better for the environment or AGW. Which all studies show it is not.
The myth of "green sustainable living" is a feel good cult, but not a practical solution to the fundamental problem that the earth is overpopulated and that we can't actually predict and influence nature like we want to pretend we can.
>>7716386
>"skeptical about climate change" is leftist rhetoric. The skepticism is that available alternatives to fossil fuel is actually better for the environment or AGW.
So why are there all these conservative politicians and people who say that AGW is a lie?
>>7716396
Because that's right wing rhetoric.
>>7716401
But they call themselves "skeptical about climate change", so how is that left wing rhetoric if right wingers are the ones saying it? Left wingers call them deniers. And you wrote as if conservatives weren't skeptical of AGW but of green tech, which is not true.
![bob-marley-article[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/dwbg23G.jpg "bob-marley-article[1].jpg")
>>7716376
>>7716396
To rustle your jimmies
>>7716404
>And you wrote as if conservatives weren't skeptical of AGW but of green tech
No. I was talking about normal people/centrists.
Haven't you ever watched a South Park episode. Both extremes are retarded and the truth is somewhere in the middle.
People who identify as "left" or "right" in general are superficial idiots who other idiots to tell them what to believe. That's why they also conflate debating with arguing and think one side needs to win all the time.
>>7716386
>The skepticism is that available alternatives to fossil fuel is actually better for the environment
Speak for yourself.
>>7716353
http://www.zerohedge.com/print/513973
>>7716436
It's the results from 8 years of study that my professor did at a national lab (not American). I contributed to the project myself actually.
What "green" technology do you think is has both a lower nett entropy generation and pollutant per watt, I'll see if the study covered it. In general most of that tech has neat, clean "outcome" like catalytic converters, but all you've done is shift the entropy and pollutant generation somewhere else like all the steam (also a thermal forcing gas just like CO2) you had to generate to process the ore, the highly acid/alkaline waste from the reactor byproducts (Platinum for example has to be processed through 8 different high temperature, low/high pH reactors to process) etc.
Hydrocarbons turn out to be relatively clean and efficient because in most processes no modern materials are required to generate energy and it's more efficient (lower entropy generating) than most non-GW gas producing processes.
Things have to move for society to fucking thrive in the way that it does. I would not spare all of the goddamn baby seals in the world, if it meant causing injury to one human being.
All of this funding that is going towards regulations and "research" into a fact that we already fucking know is funding that can go towards making fossil fuels irrelevant, which is the actual challenge that we face now as a species (behind population control in places where literacy and not being a retard isn't common yet). Yes, the planet is dying. It's been dying since it was fucking born; that is the nature of the universe.
>>7716439
>zerohedge.com
There's a lot of vested business interests and money to be made off a transition to a non-fossil fuels based economy, of course there's going to be a lot of political corruption involved. Since coal and fossil fuels are more cost efficient there's no reason to believe people would be voluntarily willing to pay more for cleaner energy... that's why there exists a positive rate of interest to begin with, people don't care as much about the future as they do today.
>>7716454
>(behind population control in places where literacy and not being a retard isn't common yet)
Looking at you. India, Africa and ME.
Fuck those shitholes desu.
>>7716376
>Tons of evidence
>anti-climate change scientists caught being lobbied
>were the "fools".
how related are climate change and overpopulation concerns?
>>7716461
Underdevelopment = high birth rates.
The second you start to economically develop beyond a semi-fedual backwaters birth rates will start to drop to almost no growth.
>>7716431
I don't see how that justifies disagreement with the fact that people, and even influential politicians, are skeptical of climate change.
>>7716464
>tons
No there isn't. At least not that humans are objectively causing the climate to change. All the evidence says is that there is a climactic shift occurring, which is hardly surprising given that we're on the trailing end of an Ice Age. Left-wing extremists simply engage in a great deal of cherry picking to promote their views.
>anti-climate change scientists caught being lobbied
>it's okay when we do it
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html
>>7716431
>Both extremes are retarded and the truth is somewhere in the middle.
>the truth is somewhere in the middle.
This idea that given two extremes the truth is somewhere in the middle of them, has been seen the death of all rational discourse.
I'm sceptical about climate change because scepticism is the basis of the scientific method.
What I am not is denialistic. It's happening and we did it.
Because it cost money to change energy sources and find old energy workers new jobs. It also harms the revenues of established capital owners.
>>7716478
OP said "people", not politicians. I don't know how I can possibly defend against your assertion that I said what you want your misconstrued confirmation bias understanding of my post to say.
I'm going to get some work done instead. I suggest you take your political "arguing" back to >>>/pol/. Cheers.
>>7716492
I left out *usually. The extremes are the loudest is the point. A boisterous minority of idiots will always seem more numerous than the rational majority.
Can you guys prove we are the cause?
>>7716605
muh sunspots
>all these delusional keks believing oil company lobby propaganda
What if were to make a better world for nothing gais?
>>7716353
Scared.
"I'm going to wake up every morning, and everything will always be the same. It has to be."
The underlying thought is, "we've made everything so great. Why does it also have to be terrible?!" Because life is dualistic. Get over it.
There are very few adults on this planet. Just make sure after you ask "why" long enough, you just accept that most people are net stupid. It makes life much easier than incessantly trying to model out the workings of their broken psychology, and figure out what made and makes them. The answers, though non-descript, are obvious to you already.
Human species deserves what it gets. Things that don't work shouldn't get to keep going.
>>7716501
>OP said "people", not politicians
And I said people, including politicians, dumbass. Again, nothing you've said has responded to what you replied to.
Because industries with infinite money have everything to lose if civilization decides to abandon their archaic product. So they spend a portion of that infinite money on muddying the waters.
>>7716457
>implying a level playing field
There is an incredible amount of obvious and hidden subsidy to fossil fuels.
>>7716605
I dont understand how the physics of carbon alone don't prove that we can have a negative affect on the environment, if youd like to prove me wrong please do I'm open minded
>>7716453
Can you give a link to the study?
>>7716485
Is that the email think that resulted in nothing because what they said was being taken out of context?
>>7716353
Because in the 80s and 90s, they were telling us the world would be fucked by now.
Based on what's actually happened since then, it seems that they drastically overestimated the positive feedbacks, and we can actually increase the Earth atmosphere's CO2 percentage about sixteen times before we cause as much warming as they predicted would happen by now.
They just keep making excuses about how the warming is "hiding" and trying to blame individual weather events on CO2 emissions.
>>7716921
Well that was the worst case scenario, as advised by the limited modelling power available at the time. Just because the worst-case didn't eventuate doesn't invalidate the reality of physics: namely that CO2 is transparent to solar radiation and opaque to some infra-red wavelengths.
Nor does it invalidate the observation data.
>>7716353
because religions don't care about evidence
>>7717370
This.
Denial tracks pretty closely with religiousness. It's just the same shit as always.
>inb4 defensive fedora memes
A message tunneling through the façade of the paid consensus.
>>7716353
The climate scientists are biased. You know who reviews grants and papers? Scientists do. They get flown to DC and review the grants of other scientists. This field is only relevant because of the doomsday scenario narrative. Anyone who publishes data that disagrees with what everyone else publishes will not get funded and may not even get published depending on who is reviewing their work. The few exceptions are large organizations with high credibility like NASA and NOAA which have shown mixed data.
Given these facts, the results appear inconclusive.
>>7717478
>results appear inconclusive
yeah right
https://www.nasa.gov/press/2015/january/nasa-determines-2014-warmest-year-in-modern-record
I'm skeptical about climate change because the world's super power is the only country that's not crutching its economy to polute less.
It smells of an intelligence operation,the USA is known for using groups like greenpeace to undermine the industrial efforts of other countries,man made climate change consensus could be another fabrication.
When the USA goes through the same compromises as the rest of the world then I will believe.
>>7716353
I am skeptical because it implies we are able to predict the weather.
That being said, I know what the environment looks like around a coal power station. And that is evidence that does not depend on guesses of what is happening.
I would love it if Lockheed Martin could produce a fusion reactor that could be retrofitted into any thermal power station. Until we can replace the current tech with a viable alternative we either:
1) live with climate change if it happens.
2) radically adjust our lifestyles so we can use the current alternatives.
Doing carbon accounting and bullshit like it is not going to solve the problem.
>>7716609
>What if we crutch our national industry while the USA laughs and laughs in a pile of money guys
Retard.
>>7717498
Yes, the climate is changing. Whether his is a consequence of mankind's actions or a naturally occurring phenomenon is the crux of the issue.
Seriously, did you walk into the debate just this morning?
>>7717526
>naturally occurring phenomenon
such as?
>>7716353
Imagine putting your name on this picture and publishing it for the world to see.
>>7716464
>full denial
it's ok. Climatology sounds like a religion to me.
What people don't understand is that we have one planet like Earth to study and it's just this one. If there was another Earth like planet nearby that we could study there would be a lot more clarity and understanding. So yes, while in the past we believed and were informed that it's global warming that was dangerous to our Earth, we have to realise that predicting future climate conditions are EXTREMELY DIFFICULT.
We can't even predict weather with 100% certainty for a month in advance.
What we CAN and do however is to study PREVIOUS climate changes (ice in Antarctica, isotopes are a wonderful thing). And our technology has improved immensely since the 1960's. Leaps and bounds ahead.
And even though our planet's workings are very complex and it might be impossible to predict the micro and macro changes in the planet's atmosphere and ecosystems, we CAN study and predict, based on continuously revised models set upon previous climate changes, the future trends.
Moreover, it has always been climate change. Warming is just one effect. Global warming actually leads to increase in water vapour in the Earth's atmosphere and that causes extremes in weather. Carbon dioxide comes later although it also has its own effects.
Even though the Earth has had ice ages in the past and was due for another mini ice age, it was set back by our activities causing noxious gases and increased amounts of water vapour in the atmosphere. That cycle was ruined by our activities. Forests and oceans act as natural carbon sinks. But with massive deforestation and oceanic pollution they don't operate as well as before.
The problem remains with the general public. We look at one thing and think "that's the final thing alright" and when some new study comes along, or some flaw in the previous study is highlighted, we think "alright, they're just making it up, there's a conspiracy".
No, no TL;DR.
>>7717558
Also, there's literally nothing wrong with:
-being energy efficient,
-reducing GHG emissions to reduce pollution (which only benefits us, no harm),
-using solar energy to offset peak and shoulder loads
-designing energy and water efficient buildings, it only serves to reduce cost and improve indoor environment quality
- relying less on fossil fuels wherever necessary as they're a finite source
- stopping deforestation and oceanic pollution
>>7717538
A naturally occurring phenomenon. As in singular. That would be the result of complex interactions between a multitude of different factors which don't necessarily produce an overall trend that could be depicted as a linearly progressing graph. Some of the major factors would probably include changes in solar energy output, ocean currents, tectonic activity and the orbit of the Earth.
The truth of the matter is that the global climate is a far more complex system than we would like it to be. We don't know enough variables to reliably measure causality between climate change and the factors that we think influence it. There's also the fact that humans are attuned to thinking in smaller timescales than these kind of changes occur. Some of the changes in climate we're seeing now may very well be the delayed effects of events that took place long before human civilization started and that we don't have the means to entirely quantify.
>>7717546
Fucking finally. China's getting laxer in their population control policies though, because muh dependency ratio.
>>7716353
Was the "jobs" label on his hard hat really fucking necessary? For that matter, is the "coal" label? I mean really, if you're going to be this much of a hack you might as well just leave the whole page blank and write
>REGULATIONS GET IN THE WAY OF JOBS
in 72pt comic sans underneath it.
Fucking draw a recognisable coal mine and stick a mountain of paperwork in front of it instead of a rock. Tadaa.
>>7716353
Because of capitalism
>>7717561
>nothing wrong with..
Of course not, and it's being done globally, more or less. But this has nothing to do with the alleged cause of global warming. Pollution is man made, climate cycles are not. The trick of the politicos is to confuse the issues for their own gain: Pay your Carbon Indulgence or Stop Breathing!
>>7717562
Good god. You know nothing of complex analysis.
You have read so many fancy words and concluded their potential correlation. But it shows nothing about a logical equivalency.
Sure, the cause that you exist today could be because 100 million years ago some microbe wanted to ravage and kill a potential primate who was about to rape you distant-mother in law. But he couldnt that day. So the Alpha primate got his go instead impregnated her.
But what you dont know is that tomorrow your potential future wife gets murdered, because that primate who got sick, remember him? He got to rape a low lever delta-female. Giving birth to a degenerated lineage of children who eventually got his hands on justice again.
Now I'd say because the potential for the problem lies so far back into the future. And their are so many complex variables in play here. We have no need for the police. Its all preordained. So buckle up! The cause and effect system will. Take his heed. And ram. A pole up your bum.
>>7717664
Loosen up on the crank, friend. It's bad for your health.
>>7717673
Oh thanks for the cynicism. Sincerely yours.
>>7717517
>Better fuck up the planet because if we don't somebody else does
>Willing to fuck up a planet for some jew shekels
You're the real retard buddy.
>Why are people still skeptical about climate change
Money, the answer is as simple as that. You need it to live, you need it to die, you need it to raise a nation, you need it to fight armies, you need it to trade, you need it to develop, you need it for everything.
Economics decides most of your local, national and international policies today. It gives little fucks about the personal cogs (people) who make it run or the environment that sustains it unless there is immediate and apparent harm to the system itself by way of a cascading failure.
This how climate change is "real" concerning places like China but is "not real" concerning the planet itself. Despite the two being clearly interconnected, nations don't make money from the planet (figuratively here) but from other nations. China is a nation, an economic engine and said engine is going to be compromised by unfit changes in air constitution and water supply (things caused by humans). Thus it must be address soon because the next generation of cogs that make up the engine will be unable to keep it running.
>>7717565
>muh overpopulation
atleast they won't have to fill their countries with niggers from africa to keep up the population
>>7716789
Assuming what he says is true why would he post his name on 4chan?
>implying green energy doesn't create jobs
>implying people give a fuck about coal miners
Because there was never a theory and all the predictions failed
>>7717889
Gosh I don't know. "Scientists" are so forthright and honest about it. And it has nothing to do with money.
Former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO), then representing the Clinton-Gore administration as U.S undersecretary of state for global issues, 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, 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.”
IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer, speaking in November 2010, advised that: “…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth…”
>>7718879
You're literally copy pasting it from /pol/.
Sun spots are decreasing creating colder winters. Perhaps something to do with it.
Probably because of insulation; it isn't immediately recognizable.
>>7716353
>Why are people so skeptical
Why are people so gullible?
That's the rational question.
Every meaningful prediction of AGW has failed.
>>7718879 And the data has been tampered.
Gosh why would someone be skeptical?
>>7718887
Sun spots are colder than the surface. If they were to create the cooling effect on earth, would they not be increasing in number?
>>7718888
Record high temperatures still having occurred in various parts of the earth over the past two years. I'd say it's warming, but idk why.
>>7718893
http://www.thedailysheeple.com/nasa-admits-that-winters-are-going-to-get-colder-much-colder_112014
Haven't really noticed it though it isn't quite winter yet.
>>7718895
Those are mostly the result of data tampering >>7718888
and the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect. The only reliable data is the satellite data. And that data shows no warming for nearly 20 years.
Also, keep in mind that there are 1000s of temperature stations. Basic probability says that records will be set. Besides, there's a double standard:
Record warmth: Climate change is proven!
Record cold: Just weather
>>7718895
Water vapour, methane and carbon. Although because of the high temperatures, there are more weather extremes. That's because the heat is absorbed by the water vapour in the atmosphere, and that energy has to be released somehow. The end results are more storms, cyclones and weather extremes.
Hence why you get incredibly cold winters even in places not known for their cold weather.
>debating
>debate
denial is not "debate"
>>7718913
>Record warmth: Climate change is proven!
>Record cold: Just weather
But that's wrong, poltard.
See
>>7718915
But there aren't more weather extremes.
>>7718915
I'm in Florida and it's hot af. We've experienced quite a few record highs.
>>7718915
Hurricanes are getting weaker on average, or about the same at best.
>>7718930
This past year
>>7718921
Spreading memes about an unfalsifiable pseudo-science is not debate.
>>7718932
There was a category 6 which hit the western coast of Mexico, wasn't there?
>>7718923
See what? Pseudo-Sci-tard.
>>7718938
>I'm talking globally, not just the usa.
Scientific Citation (with data) needed.
>>7718939
No. That was ridiculous guesstimates. The actual measured values were much lower.
if climate change is not real then why does Exxon need to hire paid shills to spread climate change denial?
>> 7718932
>The eye of Hurricane Patricia made landfall on Oct. 23 at 6:15 p.m. CDT near Cuixmala in Jalisco state of southwest Mexico. Maximum sustained winds at landfall were estimated at 165 mph, still firmly within the Category 5 range on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale.
>An automated weather observation site in Cuixmala reported a 185-mph wind with a gust of 211 mph at the time of landfall, but NOAA cautioned that these measurements have not been evaluated for quality or calibration.
>Unprecedented Among Pacific Hurricanes
>Hurricane Patricia became the strongest Pacific hurricane on record
http://www.weather.com/storms/hurricane/news/hurricane-patricia-mexico-coast
>>7717517
this is going to happen either way...
unless you're a buttmad saudi fag and then, I'm so sorry you live in a feudal society in 2015.
>>7718947
Not guesstimates.
>>7718954
Scientific citation, with specific numbers, needed.
>>7717558
>The problem remains with the general public. We look at one thing and think "that's the final thing alright" and when some new study comes along, or some flaw in the previous study is highlighted, we think "alright, they're just making it up, there's a conspiracy".
Yeah man no one understands the scientific method is all we have to make the best decisions we can at any time. Right-wingers take advantage of how ignorant most people are, latch on to 'lies', catch people making predictions that weren't 100% accurate, and never even have to claim they won't make mistakes. Because they're strong, and they lead. Those are useless traits.
>>7718938
Damn, mate.
Croikey motha!
>>7718938
aussie's hottest year on record
canada has been hot
california desertification speeding up
mugabe desertification speeding up
I mean people cry about error rates in the average global surface temperature but the energy being stored is going up, and always been since the CFC bullshit.
>>7718956
I'd already pointed out the calibration. Can't find anything confirming whether it was calibrated though. Show me your links if you have them.
lol poltards are invading /sci/ for their tinfoil bullshit
Here you go love
http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/mindex.shtml
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201510
https://www.wmo.int/media/content/record-global-temperatures-and-high-impact-weather-and-climate-extremes
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data.shtml
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v5/n6/full/nclimate2617.html
>>7718962
Why is the cfc bullshit?
It comes down to bias and trust. Not everyone has the time, inclination, or capability to analyze all of the available reports and information, so they pick and choose who's word they trust.
In the first instance, I think distrust largely occurs for political reasons (I know my father became obsessed with the subject due to his hatred for Al Gore). From there it grows when deniers look at the fist line tactics used by advocates. When deniers ask "where's the evidence", the response from advocates is typically an ad populum argument that there is a "scientific consensus". People take this to have an implied message something along the lines of "how dare you question our authority". They feel persecuted, becoming more and more contrarian and argumentative.
>>7716431
>Both extremes are retarded and the truth is somewhere in the middle.
this is what "moderates"(aka closet liberals) actually believe
I'm right by default of enjoying the fence post in my ass!
>>7718845
>4chan is /b/
How to spot a redditor 101
>>7718951
>Hurricane Patricia
No. Typhoon Tip was the strongest on record. 190 mph winds. And no, estimated values don't count. Only actually measured values. Its not a coincidence that they say "estimated."
Here's Typhoon Tip: http://www.prh.noaa.gov/cphc/pages/FAQ/Tropical_Cyclone_Records.php
Now look at this picture of Puerto Vallarta after Hurricane Patricia. Category 5 storms cause complete destruction. Not a Category 5 storm.
>>7718986
oh wow i done fuck up i meant PFCs hahaha - they store a LOT of energy compared to other gases
>>7718981
>Oh you can't read, it's okay. I know there are poltards on he
That post had no reference. Sorry you Sci-tards can't write
>>7718964
>Calibration
No, the word is estimate. Give me actual measured values.
>>7719008
yeah because if there is evidence you find compelling then there's a need to take imperative action
if you don't find it compelling you likely believe in some stupid shit like we're ruining our economy by creating a new industry, one that doesn't rely on infrastructure already built, and holes mostly dug.
Everyone should be supportive of green energy alternatives especially if they cause more problems for our infrastructure and grid because energy is an industry required to pay for itself since we all rely on it - its a safe bet economically.
also when we can afford to give energy away for free then most production ( which will be robots ) will reduce in cost, or become free... I mean the only reason you don't support green energy is you are: a contrarian conspiracy fag with too much time ( there are plenty of well backed conspiracies like secret society bullshit, expat false-flag attacks, ISIS-turkey-america bullshit) on their hands, or you're stupid.
>>7718925
It's always really weird when you hear liberals talking about "more extreme weather" as if its a reality, rather than just a baseless prediction.
>>7718948
Because they actually care about their countries & the west, rather than the lunatic progressives/commies who view crippling environmental regulation as part of their war against western civilization?
>>7719022
Listen carefully anon. You started off well but you devolved into typical pol garbage.
You hassled everyone to explain their point of views and provide sources even though you were being obstinate about it. And that's fine, science is difficult.
Then you posted copy pasta from pol, followed by graphs that were proved to be tampered with by poltards just a month ago.
And when you finally received your sources that conflict and disprove your point of view (maybe not completely, but enough to re evaluate your stance on climate change) you resort to blatant strawman and generic anti climate change views typical of a shill. Ironically you didn't provide sources!
So if you are going to be so stubborn and puerile, that you just won't bother to understand different data, then I suggest you go back to pol and stay there. Ignorance is welcome there as long as it fits their circlejerk views.
>>7719022
>I mean the only reason you don't support green energy is you are: a contrarian conspiracy fag with too much time ( there are plenty of well backed conspiracies like secret society bullshit, expat false-flag attacks, ISIS-turkey-america bullshit) on their hands, or you're stupid.
Way to move goalposts and ruin your own argument.
Just be honest. THIS is what you wanted to rant about, not science.
Global warming is about as "harmful" for you as smoking. The climategate thing simply sealed the deal.
>>7717562
>lots of speculative bs, no details
Funny how all these mystical effects just happen to have the same total effect that CO2 and methane have.
Don't your wrists get sore from all that hand waving?
Oh great, the cancer is leaking off to other boards.
Can /pol/ just stop embarrassing themselves like this moron >>7719022
All it took is one post with solid links to make him turn into some conspiracy faggot.
>>7719049
>smoking
>not harmful
>putting harmful in quotation marks as if to cause doubt over harmful effects of smoking
>>7719081
Hey, smoking and secondhand smoke isn't that harmful. And even if it was, why don't people rally against everything else that they come across that's likely just as bad?
It's not like you see people trying to ban flame retardants or chemicals in food.
Why can't people also consider the fact that a large number of people can smoke regularly with almost zero health effects? People who grew up with smoking parents turned out fine. People whose moms smoked while pregnant turned out fine.
>>7719081
So, /pol/ got disproven again? I'm betting 10 bucks that /pol/tards are going to shit up this thread and ignore evidence, and/or start a thread elsewhere and conveniently forget this one.
>>7719097
I am not going to follow your goalpost moving.
Create your own thread on smoking.
And stop using gamergate analogy, we're adults here.
>>7716353
Probably because it is pushed foremost by socialists.
Recently, a climate summit was held where 195 countries came together to make an agreement. 55% would have to agree to have it come into force. One non-binding part is that the richest countries would contribute $100 billion/year to it, while a binding part would not have limits to what the richest countries would contribute.
Let's take a random country, say Nigeria. Nigeria has about 3/5ths the population of the United States, so all the US has to do is go over there and rebuild the electrical network with solar panels and windmills. Next they would have to do the same for dozens of other countries.
Australia is one of the most heavily taxed countries in the world. In order to make them feel like they were doing something to combat climate change, they introduced carbon taxes. What it really felt like was that they got a new tax that did no good, so they repealed it.
There are over seven billion people on this planet in 196 countries. China will continue to build the equivalent of England's electrical system every decade with coal-fired plants. Brazil and Madagascar will continue to cut down rain forests, and most of the world will be happy to accept your money, but will not change their corruption or human rights, and will actively work against you.
>>7719041
>strawman and view of 'x'
not sure what you mean
i'm these posts: >>7719022,>>7719000,>>7718962
that's all
>>7719045
sure sure, but I didn't take part in the other parts of the argument. That being said what goalposts? When you claim something you should identify it, and point out what was fallacious between the posts not just call out buzzwords like you're in Phil101.
>>7719061
>conspiracy faggot
All i said was that there's more evidence abounding of conspiracy in other areas than climate change. Who are you going to point the finger at, the solar panel producers?
Don't volcanoes put a bunch of shit into the atmosphere too?
>>7719097
> why don't people rally against it
This isn't the 50s when evidence was just arising the government has already placed massive checks and balances on smoking purchasing, lobby/advertising rights, and its been banned by law in many public areas.
And justifying anything based on 'the publics' opinion is specious - whats the basis for believing what everyone else believes? Look at the evidence not the 'metadata'.
>>7719123
http://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm
>>7719114
>slaves
>nigeria population
>3/5ths
>>7719123
Yes they do. Your question should be
"What is the effect of volcanic eruptions compared to emissions caused by humans?"
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php
>The most significant climate impacts from volcanic injections into the stratosphere come from the conversion of sulfur dioxide to sulfuric acid, which condenses rapidly in the stratosphere to form fine sulfate aerosols. The aerosols increase the reflection of radiation from the Sun back into space, cooling the Earth's lower atmosphere or troposphere. Several eruptions during the past century have caused a decline in the average temperature at the Earth's surface of up to half a degree (Fahrenheit scale) for periods of one to three years.
>Do the Earth’s volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities? Research findings indicate that the answer to this frequently asked question is a clear and unequivocal, “No.” Human activities, responsible for a projected 35 billion metric tons (gigatons) of CO2 emissions in 2010 (Friedlingstein et al., 2010), release an amount of CO2 that dwarfs the annual CO2 emissions of all the world’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes (Gerlach, 2011).
The published estimates of the global CO2 emission rate for all degassing subaerial (on land) and submarine volcanoes lie in a range from 0.13 gigaton to 0.44 gigaton per year (Gerlach, 1991; Varekamp et al., 1992; Allard, 1992; Sano and Williams, 1996; Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998). The preferred global estimates of the authors of these studies range from about 0.15 to 0.26 gigaton per year. The 35-gigaton projected anthropogenic CO2 emission for 2010 is about 80 to 270 times larger than the respective maximum and minimum annual global volcanic CO2 emission estimates. It is 135 times larger than the highest preferred global volcanic CO2 estimate of 0.26 gigaton per year (Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998).
>>7719110
Nobody has even remotely been able to answer the dilemma I posed about smokers except for hand waving it as either anecdotes or "lol genetics"
And climategate is a reference to leaked climate emails detailing corruption in the climate movement, in case you weren't aware.
>>7719130
I'm not sure what you're trying to say, I'm just pointing out that there are a lot of things that are hypothetically equally as "bad" as smoking or secondhand smoke but people don't try and regulate those things nearly as much. On some level everything from chemicals in car upholstery to oxygen to shampoo is equally bad.
>>7716353
It's part of a larger political package fed to people by the right.
>>7719178
>>7719183
I feel like the constant astroturfing has actually succeeded in making large numbers of people on the right believe that global warming is a massive conspiracy.
>>7719172
>on some level
this is a bullshit argument. You're trying to justify other peoples actions ( which you have no basis for, and you don't know if they will be rational ) while feeding it into a subjective measure of 'hypothetically as bad'. Who knows what people care about and why they care about it, i bet tons of people don't have good reasons, or any at all - emotions!
I'm trying to say walking in circles - what you're doing - doesn't further an argument. It just shows how you don't have one.
>>7716464
Oy goy you are so right
>>7716384
It's exceeded it
>>7719207
But it literally IS a massive conspiracy
It's like any liberal conspiracy, everyone involved in promoting it is making tons of money doing so
>tons of money
>>7719164
>Climategate is a reference to leaked climate emails detailing corruption in the climate movement,
The stolen emails that were deliberately taken out of context by deniers, where none of the multiple investigations found any trace of fraud?
That "Climategate"?
>>7719439
>It's a conspiracy because I don't like it.
>>7719607
>$22 Billion Scam
$22B wouldn't buy you shit, as far as world politics goes.
>>7718921
>Wind power is already cheaper than coal
Maybe in your universe, friendo.
Wind is the most expensive form of power. The maintenance cost both per MWh and per year on wind turbines is insane.
It's also the most unreliable source of renewable energy.
Nuclear or GTFO.
>>7716485
>Christopher Booker
You know this guy thinks evolution is a lie and thinks asbestos and second hand smoking is harmless right?
My gripes about global warming. The public focus is on things like CO2, which isn't very reactive and has a low heat capacity. CO2 is .04% of the atmosphere currently and it was around 10x higher in the triassic/jurassic.
We worry about CH4 much less, which has a higher heat capacity than CO2, so does H2O gas, which makes up much more than .04% of the atmosphere.
I'd rather be spending money cleaning up plastic from the ocean or cleaning up heavy metals. Its a lot harder for the governments of the world to make money off cleaning up the oceans or heavy metals, when you raise the spectre of CO2, you can literally do nothing, but institute a sin-tax and be swimming in money with no tangible results required.
tl;dr We should just clean up the oceans, but no one would make money off that.
>>7716454
>would kill all seals for one human
>entire villages in the Arctic depend on seals for food, heat, light and sex
>>7719900
welcome to democracy
>>7716353
>Why are people still skeptical about climate change
I think most people are beginning to believe our climate is far more complex than we thought. Weather models have improved considerably within the last 100 years, but forecasting is still far from perfect.
I do believe the trends point towards a global heating, but I doubt we will see flooding of the kind predicted by some climatologists in 50 years.
>mfw I saw the future
>mfw I see cities in the skies
As a society, we face the consequence of allowing more faith based reasoning to hide the fact that we are less happy and less healthy. Society wants you to believe you are happier and healthier and hopes you don't really analyze what's going on.
By allowing this level of faith we sacrifice proper judgment of important issues. People in western worlds believe, without question, that they are living in a Utopian state without pertinent problems. They don't analyze their situation because it removes the utopia they believe they are in. What does a person who lives in this fantasy say when you tell them that their lifestyle is causing a global crisis?
Society is not ready to strip people of the masks they wear.
>>7719296
>this is a bullshit argument. You're trying to justify other peoples actions ( which you have no basis for, and you don't know if they will be rational ) while feeding it into a subjective measure of 'hypothetically as bad'.
Even IF secondhand smoke was bad for you, there are tons of other things that people are exposed to on a daily basis that is bad for them and their lungs that they absolutely cannot avoid in this society. Why single out smoking? It has more to do with ideals than actual logic. Even if it isn't rational some people just like smoking and don't see why they have to be restricted. You can't just paint people who like doing something as irrational.
>Who knows what people care about and why they care about it, i bet tons of people don't have good reasons, or any at all - emotions!
No idea what you're trying to say here.
>I'm trying to say walking in circles - what you're doing - doesn't further an argument. It just shows how you don't have one
You mean circular reasoning? That's not what I'm doing. I'm using the "just as bad as" fallacy. And using a fallacy doesn't make an argument invalid nor does it make the argument incorrect.
the ones with iq and influence arent
>>7719704
Hide the decline.
No real testable hypotheses and predictions.
Using private planes to get to Paris to discuss how to tax the plebs harder, in this age of compter technology, puts many people off. Also the agenda was in place with Thathcer already.
If they really gave a shit they would be bringing up reasonable and substantial methods to reduce co2, not this elitist farce of money grabbing.
>>7719036
Pft, holy shit. You guys are gold.
>>7720330
idiot
>>7717561
>>7717635
These two chaps sum up the situation quite nicely. To OP's question, I think that most people don't really understand Climate Change, are uncomfortable with the idea of Climate Change, are opposed to having to change their own lifestyles, opinions, etc... or a combination of these things.
prepare your anuses for the next
level of dumb:
"[GOP] used to argue that U.S. emission limits would be useless, because China would just keep polluting; now they’re starting to argue that U.S. action isn’t necessary, because China will cut coal consumption whatever we do"
>>7716353
Because nobody in the general public, including anybody on /sci/ actually has a good grasp of the data, theory and interpretations of climate change.
>>7720330
>Hide the decline.
I never new you cared so much about the recent divergence of Eastern American tree-rings as a proxy.
Like I said, taking quotes out of context.
>No real testable hypotheses and predictions.
Is reading too hard for you? Do you want to sit on my knee while I read the IPCC reports to you?
>Using private planes to get to Paris to discuss how to tax the plebs harder, in this age of compter technology, puts many people off.
So you don't trust climatologists because politicians are dicks. I'm sure that makes sense somehow.
>If they really gave a shit they would be bringing up reasonable and substantial methods to reduce co2, not this elitist farce of money grabbing.
Who is "they"?
You seem to be assuming from the start that this is some kind of big organized conspiracy.
>>7720418
>"[GOP] used to argue that U.S. emission limits would be useless, because China would just keep polluting; now they’re starting to argue that U.S. action isn’t necessary, because China will cut coal consumption whatever we do"
Repeat after me:
"It's not happing, if it's happening it's not significant, if it's significant it's not harmful, if it's harmful it's not our fault, if it's our fault it's too late to fix it, if we could fix it it would be too expensive".
>>7718923
So we get cold weather, more (Much more) Record heat then cold. It's December and today was the first day I needed a coat, and I live in Missouri.
>>7716453
>My dad totally works for nintendo!
>>7719704
>taken out of context
That's ridiculous. Their words were painfully clear, they want to scare people.
reminder the climate model works under the assumption that heat radiating out into space reduces as the planet warms
thats enough to throw out the entire theory
>>7716431
>Both extremes are retarded and the truth is somewhere in the middle.
>I SAY THERE ARE LOTS OF REAL DRAGONS!
>WELL I SAY THERE ARE NO REAL DRAGONS!
The truth must be that there are *some* real dragons.
>WE WERE FOOLS TO BACK EITHER EXTREME!
>YOUR WISDOM HAS SHOWN US THE ERROR OF OUR WAYS!
Sometimes an extreme is right.
>>7719704
>>7720880
>and many more
Oh, it's you again, our climate changer in residence.
Do they pay well?
>>7716353
Because muh ant-gubmint paranoia and people don't want to believe they may have to change their lifestyles at some point.
Uneducated laypeople have to put their faith in somebody, and it's easier to jump through hoops to believe in a world where there is a global conspiracy of scientists out to get the big research grant dollars (lol) and that there's a small fringe of rebels telling it like it is, instead of a consilience of research across multiple fields that is sometimes not bang on but undeniably trends towards the conclusion that AGW is a real threat; because in the former world there is no consequence for living the dream rolling coal on cyclists with your giant gas-guzzling F-series dinosaur.
>>7723241
I don't believe in a conspiracy, and I do believe human CO2 emissions contribute to climate chance, but if you don't think scientists don't hunt for significant findings to stay relevant and get grant money then you're a fool. Publication bias is real. Research miscondunct is real and shamefully common.
>>7723241
DON'T LOOK AT THAT TAMPERED DATA!!!!!
Please, please don't believe your lying eyes. Anybody who notices the ridiculously changed temperatures is obviously just a wack-job conspiracy theorist.
>>7723208
Except we can record, monitor and experience climate changes.
We cannot do that for dragons for they don't exist and we have searched.
0/10 example, try again.
>>7723097
>reminder the climate model works under the assumption that heat radiating out into space reduces as the planet warms
If it did, the oceans would either start boiling or freezing within a day.
If you're going to make shit up, at least make it vaguely plausible. No one is going to believe you if you you go around telling people that "physicists think that red things fall faster".
>>7723229
>our climate changer in residence
You're giving me way too much credit.
I'm sure there's at least one other person on /sci/ who's actually literate.
>>7723469
Where the fuck are these graphs even coming from? They look like shit, and don't have any source. Plus "NASA" is not a dataset.
Also, your Red and Blue lines are basically the same anyway: the choice starting value for the anomaly is arbitrary and only the trend is significant.
>>7723474
It was actually a pretty good example, they were trying to highlight the fallacy of the golden mean.
>Except we can record, monitor and experience climate changes.
The data we have is pretty alarming.
Every time you bring up the deniers "evidence" and criticized their work. They get upset and start throwing tempter tantrums and calling you libtard, shill, communists, and idiot. These people are never taken seriously in global politics but in the state of Ameristan money buys influence so that's why they're loud. Even though they're losing influence to the US military. Those guys have openly stated that climate change has already effected their mission capability status. If you know anything about National security in the US, then you would know that trumps everything in US politics. Politicians will have a change of heart and say climate change is real and some shit.
There was literally a tornado ripping through Sydney today; an unprecedented event in recorded knowledge. I saw people butthurting about climate scientists being full of shit because they couldn't predict this, despite years of warnings of increased energetic weather.
The problem I believe is pic related.
>>7716453
Bullshit! The lifecycle emissions of "green tech" have been well studied and accounted for. Yes there are emissions resulting from the manufacture of the technologies in question, but they are far lower than coal or gas plants.
Here you go retard
http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/sustain_lca_results.html
>>7716454
Holy shit you're using so many fallacys.
>>7724008
the issue is, we haven't been able to accurately record weather data for much more than a century. We can't fairly say this variance is abnormal, we just don't have enough data. For all you know, throughout the history of Australia, it might on average get 1 tornado every 500 years, and it may not have had one for the past 1000 years. Its almost impossible to model a system with so many variables.
Meteorology is pretty interesting, I grew up in an area with a long chain of mountains, next to a large body of water. The local meteorologists always joked how impossible it was to accurately predict weather in the region more than three days out because of just the mountains and the water.
Its almost impossible to control for all the factors affecting climate, we can't examine this shit in a vacuum so we need more much more data over a longer duration.
>>7716353
because it's not primarily anthropogenic. the earth goes thru cycles.
more importantly, you can't stop it. you can prepare to survive it, that is all. the political/scientific left is barking up the wrong tree, and people know it.
>>7716353
>mfw science tards all over Facebook are saying climate change is real because of the slightly warmer than average "almost winter" weather in the Eastern US now
Why are science worshippers the most retarded about science? Why are feminists the most sexist, blacks the most racist, and gays/LGBQTRPGXII the most intolerant and hateful?
>>7716376
>Implying middle America retards aren't fools.
>>7716921
>it seems that they drastically overestimated the positive feedbacks
...imagine a world where people still used CFC aerosols
Bet your 1980's "Camaro Cut" would look nothing like the guy in this pic....
>>7716353
>Miners
>stopped by a rock
They don't deserve their jobs
Either every human has to die and leave Earth in peace or we accelerate forward and colonize other planets. To accomplish the second, we'll probably need globalization under an Austrian economic system. All of human society would have to change, but it would leave the best of us to continue the species.
>>7723844
>>>7723469
>Where the fuck are these graphs even coming from? They look like shit, and don't have any source. Plus "NASA" is not a dataset.
>Also, your Red and Blue lines are basically the same anyway: the choice starting value for the anomaly is arbitrary and only the trend is significant.
Read the label. Yes that's NASA. Yes, it comes from NASA GISS. But what does it matter? If the graph were fake (its not) you'd just say, "told you so." But if the graph were true (it is), you'd say, "hurr durr, I'm sure there's a perfectly good reason for all those 'corrections.'" It heads you win, tails I lose. Because, like all dogmas, Climate Change is unfalsifiable.
>>7716353
>american syndicated political cartoons
what a fucking joke, patronisingly over explained.
At that point why not just cut out the picture and have a flow chart?
I can't fucking wait until stellarators make fusion a reality and all these coalmining "jobs" become obsolete and they become luddites in the original sense of the word.
Then someone call redraw this comic with the coal miners as professional bread toasters, and the rock as a toaster
>>7723844
>Where the fuck are these graphs even coming from? They look like shit, and don't have any source. Plus "NASA" is not a dataset.
>Also, your Red and Blue lines are basically the same anyway: the choice starting value for the anomaly is arbitrary and only the trend is significant.
>Look I'm already trying to whine my way out of it. Its the same starting value! Sheesh. And they're not the same shape.
Not that you care, because Climate Change is an unfalsifiable dogma, but here's the sources:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=620040300000&dt=1&ds=14
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=620040300000&dt=1&ds=1
>>7716384
Even if it didn't exceed it, wouldn't precautions we took have lightened the load?
>>7725793
So many warmists in the thread.
The answer is right here: >>7725793
Yeah, that graph is true. You may commence with your whining to maintain the unfalsifiability of your dogma.
Undeniable facts:
>CO2 is transparent to yellow light
>the majority of the Sun's radiation is yellow light
>CO2 is opaque to some infra-red wavelengths
>the Earth radiates heat as infra-red radiation
>atmospheric CO2 lets in more energy than it lets out
I've yet to see these fundamental, undeniable facts disproven.
>>7717565
Also "We're well on our way to boys outnumbering girls 2 to 1 and that many unattached boys are a severe social disruption"
>>7718879
What if it turns out climate change isn't real and we create a better world for nothing?
>>7725953
Oy vey who would support the oil and military industry then
![ExxonMobil-Rex-Tillerson[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/IM9uusH.jpg "ExxonMobil-Rex-Tillerson[1].jpg")
>>7725953
A better world is one run by Big Wind? Ignore the green-government complex shills like this fag, the fossil fuels industry looks out for the little guys.
The worst thing about the climate change "debate" is that it actually obscures the many other negatives of fossil fuels, which poison the air we need to breathe and destroy the world in which we need to live.
>>7726019
You're assuming it's that bad over in the U.S. where CC is most commonly shilled as a "serious" political issue, where in reality there hasn't been any genuine data on how bad pollution is for people.
>>7726023
Have you been to LA?
>>7726024
Have you seen any studies showing how bad LA is for people? If not, then I don't need to be.
>>7726026
LA is a live case study in itself.
>>7716353
Failed doomsday predictions for one. Lots of failed doomsday predictions.
http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/04/25-years-of-predicting-the-global-warming-tipping-point/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/02/the-big-list-of-failed-climate-predictions/
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2015/06/12/flashback-abcs-08-prediction-nyc-under-water-climate-change-june
In a world that wasn't so superficial in their thinking that they'd believe anyone in a lab coat is an angelic guide that could tell no falsehood, AGW doomsday prophets would have as much credibility as the bozos that keep predicting Jesus' return.
>>7716353
>>7726067
This
Also, surface temperature data was faked to show a trend, the icecaps are not melting, and the only reason this is being pushed at all is so that the carbon credit industry can replace the oil industry in controlling world politics.
If the last part sounds crazy, look at how much the hysteria of global warming has already changed the political climate of the last few years.
>>7726077
No it wasn't, they units were changed.
And if you're still confused, here are further links.
http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/mindex.shtml
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201510
https://www.wmo.int/media/content/record-global-temperatures-and-high-impact-weather-and-climate-extremes
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data.shtml
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v5/n6/full/nclimate2617.html
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0081648
It's not a doomsday prediction, it's a warning about our actions that damage our planet.
>carbon credit industry can replace the oil industry in controlling world politics
You are definitely retarded. What, you think the carbon credit industry is going to invade the middle east for carbon abatement?
That it's going to fun the trillion dollar military complex?
>If the last part sounds crazy, look at how much the hysteria of global warming has already changed the political climate of the last few years.
You're an American aren't you?
>>7726077
/Pol/, just fuck off, your idiocy is unwelcome here. Stop being so fucking arrogant to think that you're smart enough to redpill all of us.
Just fuck off.
/Pol/ has been making a lot of bait threads about climate change and race, most that are pruned or deleted. Because op gets btfo.
Go away.
>>7726023
You're kidding right? Thousands of people die from air pollution in the USA. How about you get some facts before you accuse others of assuming them.
>>7726097
>>carbon credit industry can replace the oil industry in controlling world politics
You are definitely retarded. What, you think the carbon credit industry is going to invade the middle east for carbon abatement?
That it's going to fun the trillion dollar military complex?
yes. oil is no longer relevant. but since you're not an american, you're probably too poor to own a vehicle. pretending that climate change isn't relevant in europe is bullshit too.
anyways, the industrial-military complex won't generate nearly the amount of money as a government collecting taxes on 7 billion people would.
>>7726067
Scientists model based on current knowledge and abilities to do so. Because the Earth is such a huge and complex system, it is basically impossible to model with certainty.
Regardless, the responsible thing to do is to try and formulate some information to base policy on. Scientists produce models which have a range of outcomes, with the worst being a runaway scenario. The runaway scenario is a worst case and even being extremely conservative and estimating that it's a 1% probability, is still a very serious threat worth considering.
Runaway climate scenarios are known from the geological record and are behind a few global extinction events, including the Permian extinction. We also have a case study in worst-possible runaway climate with our neighbour planet Venus.
Now, who's to say that we should risk the entire future of life on Earth just so you can drag your lazy fat ass down to the drive "thru" and eat a lard burger? When there are feasible alternatives you would be crazy not to consider them.
Also who is to say that even the modest attempts at emission control haven't actually had a beneficial effect, when the alternative of no action at all may have led to the worst case? Your argument reminds me of the simpleton brainfart about Y2K being a non-event scam; and totally ignoring the incredible amount of resources poured into making sure that it was a non-event.
>>7726155
>yes. oil is no longer relevant.
HOW FUCKING DUMB CAN YOU GET
Oil is still very relevant not only because of the petrodollar but also because:
1) It's cheap
2) Very energy Dense
3) Portable
4) Still present in large quantities
5) It's used for a range of commercial, industrial and daily uses. Plastic is made from the side products of crude oil purification for fuck's sake. You think oil is relevant? What the fuck are we going to do without plastic?
All you're doing is to create the most stupid, outlandish scenario which sits completely out of your comfort zone, use that anger to blame the imaginary bogeyman to keep yourself angry, and use whatever labels you can think of to put on this imaginary bogeyman to make yourself look smart.
>as a government collecting taxes on 7 billion people would
You think banks don't do that already? Please just stop embarrassing yourself, and don't reproduce. Dumb Americans were responsible for the GFCs.
>>7726190
I'm very comfortable with this scenario because I am aware of it. It seems like it is uncomfortable for you, and you are the only one labeling me, others, yourself.
America is not Europe, we don't have negative interest rates, and won't for the foreseeable future, so no, banks don't already do that.
>Americans were responsible for the the GFCs
but the decline of european countries as world powers left a vacuum for america to take over after the first two world wars. If anyone is to blame, it's your own feudalistic inbred past that caused the GFC.
>>7726200
Really, I thought it was the bankers and Wall Streets handing out loans to people who couldn't afford to pay them back, creating an artificial bubble which then burst, fucking up the world once again.
And you said oil is irrelevant when it isn't, and the reason you said that is that you want to think stupid thoughts so you can lash out at whomever that
1) Disagrees with you or
2) Wants to reduce our damage to the environment
>>7725905
Muh conspiracies.
>>7726200
Akshually
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007%E2%80%9308
http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1877351_1877350,00.html
http://www.canstar.com.au/home-loans/global-financial-crisis/
>>7726232
Stop projecting, nowhere in his post did he say or even imply conspiracies. Simply scientific facts.
Who do you guys think has a lower avg IQ; 9/11 truthers, global warming deniers, or antivaccine activists?
It's a tough choice tee bee eych.
>>7726246
Bro my response of "muh conspiracies" was meant to mock deniers who do in fact go on about conspiracies.
>>7726255
Not that fellow, but I will point out that irony died about twenty years ago and there is literally no way to tell what is sarcasm and what is an actual belief.
>>7726250
it's not close at all
antivaccine activists have the lowest IQ because it's the only category that has no basis in reality.
>>7725905
Except that the sun has its highest output at 500nm. Or Green...
>>7726389
Explain more please.
>>7716353
>Why are people still skeptical
Because a good scientist doesnt believe anything.
Implying that being skeptical is bad outs you as a dogmatist
>>7726396
There's nothing wrong with being skeptical.
Most people are dumb and communicating complex data to them is difficult. Most just like to go "la la la can't hear you" and that's it.
Y'know what fuck it. I'm tired of this stupid discussion. Let's say the liberals are right, about all of it. Then what? Do we stop burning fossil fuels? OK great hope you didn't like being able to go anywhere in a plane train or automobile, because you won't be doing so now. Also. Enjoy your rolling blackouts because renewable don't even come close to meeting our energy needs. Also enjoy paying $20 dollars for a loaf of stale bread and other basic items because it now rediculously expensive to transport them without semis or freight trains. O and those wonderful research programs which could fix all this? Ya we can't afford that shit now that we are too busy trying to keep our citizens from freezing and starving to death
But hey it's OK right? Because we are saving the planet it's perfectly fine that we revert to a preindustrial society
>>7716353
I certainly hate how this argument has been framed globally but I don't believe that it would receive any attention without a doomsday scenario attached.
Are we dumping a bunch of shit into the atmosphere? Yes
Are we strewing shit all over the planet? Yes
Are we cutting down a bunch of trees? Yes
Is this probably not a good idea? Yes
Should we clean up our act and stop doing some of this shit? Yes
But without some fear attached no one would give a fuck if it is presented this way.
>>7726423
>Let's say the liberals are right, about all of it. Then what?
Peak oil will solve the problem for us
>>7726425
The problem is they are focusing on things they can sell carbon credits for, instead of the really dangerous stuff we are doing with the oceans that very really can end up with all life above some simple bacteria dying off.
I remember in the 90s it was just 'anti polution'. Thats the ticket, polution is bad, i can get behind stopping that and being entirely sustainable and in harmony with everything. The climate change crowd though is more about sending money to third would countries (remember any time money moves, people who know what they are doing can profit from it)
Of course humans change the environment, of all the really wide spread and powerful forms of life on the planet, we are the only one with enough mental capacity to simultaneously exploit and reshape so much. The rest have to make due to their simple automated processes acting as more of a constant pressure on the world than the massive spikes we are capable of.
The problem is this shouldn't come as news. Simply paving roads all over the world will very obviously change the interaction of the planets surface with the heat we get from the sun, for example. We change the world all the time in various ways.
Deforestation, overfishing, and dumping chemicals into the ocean, are much MUCH bigger concerns that burning fossile fules. But where are the global summits on this? Where is the media coverage and public outrage? The same place the money in it is.
>>7726434
Someone has to figure out how to get gloriously rich off of this while being under the guise of helping humanity. No one has completely figured that out yet or it would change in an instant...
>>7726434
My question was serious. I hear lots of environmentalists tell us how to stop Fucking up the planet, but nobody wants to address how to deal with the aftermath. Everybody can agree climate change is bad, that's why republicans try to deny that it exists, but people still need jobs. Liberals react to economic concerns the way conservatives react to environmental concerns, but both are very real issues.
The conservative solution seems to be: stay the course, new technology will come along and make fossil fuel obsolete eventually, thus solving both problems, we all know petrol won't get us to the stars anyway.
Liberals don't seem to have a solution, at least not one that takes us anywhere other than a preindustrial amish-like society
>>7726448
So was my reply. If liberals are actually right about everything, this will become a non issue, we will run out of oil, we will plunge into a low energy apocalypse, but at least the planet will be safe.
I rather hope they arent right, because id like to think we will be able to make petroleum based plastics in the future...
Humans have dealt with the climate changing in the past. There are right now ancient settlements which are under the ocean off the coasts. The way we deal with the inevitable change is the way we always have. Move. The antarctic used to be savanna.
The ideal global real-estate will shift, this will screw over some countries, and be a boon to others. Because we are so dependent on our global infrastructure right now, the hit will probably be much more relatively severe to our comfortable way of life than it was in the past, ut honestly if this wasn't going to do it, something else would fuck with that eventually anyway. Its a vulnerability thats just waiting.
Basically doom is inescapable regardless. Well just have to deal with it.
The real problem with this particular issue (fossile fules) then, isnt the problem itself, but rather than while not some singular thing of massive importance, doing what we have done is still not the smartest idea, and the reason we have done it, is the same kind of thinking and social organization that is going to make dealing with inevitable global changes regardless of what causes them so much more difficult than it could have been. Its not like we dont have time to prepare, but that would cut into profits.
Basically humanities biggest issue is that money exists.
>>7726459
I'm still not sure what you stance here is. You seem to be saying the problem will resolve itself, which I can agree with. Basically it seems that the problem is not so much the change itself but rather how we as a species need to deal with it. I agree the outlook is rather grim either way. Massive population displacement is going to be expensive, and our global infrastructure will be very strained, but is it better or worse than the alternative of quiting fossil fuel cold turkey? I honestly don't know.
My opinion is that the best course of action is to use the resources we have drive the economy so that we can develop better alternatives, not hippy crap like wind and solar, but actually promising solutions like fusion.
Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be what anybody wants to do. Oil companies just want people to keep buying oil, so they aren't bothering to research the thing that is going to make oil obsolete, and instead they actively lobby against renewables. Likewise all the libs support wildly corrupt ventures who are in it for the govt fun bucks. Ventures which end up being more often then not more expensive and worse for the environment than the thing they are supposed to replace (1 gal of ethanol takes ~ 1.5 gal of gasoline to produce), or the extremists advocate outright abolition because they don't seem to understand how money works
>>7726459
>>7726448
>>7726441
>>7726434
>>7726425
>>7726423
>Muh liberals
Just shut up and stop embarrassing yourselves. If you had your bullshit PC and liberal culture wouldn't have spilled over the rest of the world and made climate science not associated with "lefties".
>But without some fear attached no one would give a fuck if it is presented this way.
Thousands of species are going extinct due to massive deforestation, oceanic and land pollution. Other species that used them as a food source also suffer. Once they''re gone, they're gone.
A global temperature increase of 2 C will cause irreparable damage and we'd be fucked because once the runaway climate (not weather) change starts there will be no stopping it. Positive feedback loops would be deadly.
Our soils are fucked. They're just damaged. Only thing going are fertilisers. And the dumb people who can't manage their lands (Looking at you, USA< Brazil, India and China) who keep cutting down forests for meat and organic almond milk instead of reusing their existing lands and maintaining them.
So yes there is a fear factor attached to these changes. Our environment and planet as a whole is fragile. Once the damages pass over a certain threshold it would be too late.
Although it is a lot less doomsday like when compared to ideological wars that will never fucking stop, and the USA and certain ME countries who want to fulfil some "prophecy" and bring upon the world's end.
Is there money involved? Yes. Our economy is imaginary and based on imaginary currencies. It's fucked up but that's the way it is. If environmental protection and GHG abatement creates jobs, that's good.
Lastly there is plenty of attention being given to environmental damage. Just because media is focusing only on climate change for now doesn't mean other areas are ignored. Do your own fucking research.
>>7726472
I forgot to add, problem with idiots like you is that you assume that renewable energy would be used to replace conventional energy production to provide a continuous base load. It fucking doesn't. It's used to help offset some peak and shoulder loads.
That's it. Quit bringing up stupid arguments like this when you know they're just false. For areas away from the grid such as villages or some stand alone facility solar panels with batteries are used. Otherwise it's grid.
Nobody is telling you to go cold turkey on fossil fuels, just be more efficient and reduce their consumption wherever possible. Anything who says otherwise is a nutcase and you shouldn't be giving them attention.
All energy production is subsidised by the government.
>>7726477
Awful lot of use of the word you there m8.
Also
>implying alternatives can't be used for base loads
>implying the problem is with generation techniques and not storage techniques
>implying there aren't already proposed solutions just waiting for funding to be developed
>implying
>>7726448
>The conservative solution seems to be: stay the course, new technology will come along and make fossil fuel obsolete eventually,
New technology has been actively suppressed by coservatives.
>>7726487
[Citation needed]
And no the oil lobbyists don't count I already addressed them
>>7726496
Sorry I believe you need to do some of your own research. You are clearly operating on opinion.
>>7726498
>makes broad statement
>asked for examples
>"No you'really the one who needs examples"
OK then
My shitty (probably) view, because I have absolutely no experience of analyzing the global warming case, is that we should turn to renewable sources of energy. But I guess this isn't possible for the time being, because there can't suddenly be a shift from the most popular sources (oil), as there will be a turnaround financially. Would the nations/corporations who sell the oil be eager to lose their grip into the forefront of the market? I don't think so. As long as there's the profit factor and no co-operation things are going to remain as they are.
Deny it all you want, but peak oil is here. We're in the predicted plateau phase with the accompanying predicted global economic malaise and superpowers sabre-rattling over resources (Ukraine, Syria, South China Sea, Arctic Circle).
>>7726389
You fucking lying cunt.
To be skeptical means to look at both sides of the problem, instead of just 1, which seems like the proper thing to do. Especially when it's a political issue like this and everyone and their mom is saying "these are the facts don't you dare doubt me what are you some kind of nut"
>>7726591
>"these are the facts don't you dare doubt me what are you some kind of nut"
My mum does this, it's maddening. She's irrational and impossible to reason with about anything, skepticism and reserving oneself from a deep plunge into false certainty, seems lost to her.
It's only a problem because she asks for my opinions knowing full well an argument will start. Makes me real feel real deficient. Like if I was just better, I could twist the situation to my liking. Like I'm the source of the screaming match, and it's something I should know how to deal with.
Plz halp Freud, wat do? And don't try to tell me it's some kind of sexual tension or regression to an infantile sense of maternal dependence again.
>>7726591
In this case it seems being skeptical means taking seriously one side of an argument which wholesale ignores basic physics.
>>7726595
Your mom is a cunt. She's weak and hates herself for it. She wants to check if her own creation is strong enough to stand up for himself.
>>7716353
Die.
>>7726598
No, I meant originally, that's what skepsis means.
But yeah this is what you get when the debate is (very deliberately I'm sure) polarized between truth and denial.
>>7716376
Why are people still skeptical over the moon landing?
>>7726602
I think insecurity is a major part of it. She claims I'm brainwashed and only parrot my father, but ought to know better. I don't think she can distort her reasoning enough to worry I wouldn't stand up for myself though.
At 22, this shit is getting a bit unreasonable. I can't even talk to her.
>>7726615
Why do you want to with your mom about climate change just don't.
>>7726619
It's not just climate change, it's everything.
Think about wandering through a series of grand gravity wells. No matter what, eventually, you'll be pulled into one of them. Because once she learns about something, suddenly, everything is about that thing.
I don't want to sever communication with her outright.
Climate change is inevitable. But disrespecting the environment, turning it into a cesspool for our future generations is goddamned foolhardy.
>>7725953
>Okay, so I lied for decades to push my agenda...
>but I'm totally not lying when I say it was for your own good.
Fuck off commie.
>>7717558
>>7717526
We know that planets with high amounts of carbon dioxide in their atmospheres have higher surface temperatures due to the way that these atmospheres interact with solar light.
Do you really think Venus is a bubbling pool of hell-spawn because of "previous climate changes?" That it's just at the tail-end of an ice age?
>>7719882
>smoke
SHS is harmless though
http://www.bmj.com/content/326/7398/1057.full
http://www.yourdoctorsorders.com/2009/01/the-myth-of-second-hand-smoke/
>>7727805
>single epidemiological study
>some pseudoscience blog
Not so harmless to your arteries now, is it?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3977486/
>>7727828
>disproving a claim based on a single epistemological study with a single epistemological study
>not considering the fact that many people getting sick from smoking are genetically weak/shitty lifestyle choices.
>expecting me to trust a source that claims beside exposure is irreversible when that is obviously bullshit based on the vast number of people over the years exposed to SHS who are still perfectly healthy.
The sky is falling!
