[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/sci/ - Science & Math



Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.




File: 1490198491557.jpg (131 KB, 459x448)
131 KB
131 KB JPG
How do we debunk the Climate Change meme?
>>
>>10056818

with scientific plausible proofs, not with autistic sperging.
>>
You can't because it's a scientific fact.
>>
>How do we debunk the Climate Change meme?
Read the relevant papers and realize that climatologists don't even use the scientific method.
>>
>>10056818
>t. trump
>>
I need serious answers. This shit is poisoning our national discourse and we can stop it.
>>
>>10056840
If you're trying to fit the data to your conclusions, you're not doing science. Try >>>/pol/
>>
>>10056840
Are you a shallow short-term person with a vested interest in the fossil fuel industry? If so do everything in your power to deny science (which includes everything ever invented by science), or else realise scientists know what they are talking about and they almost all agree climate change will have bad consequences.
>>
File: 1536724336707.jpg (93 KB, 966x627)
93 KB
93 KB JPG
>>10056867
>anyone who disagrees with muh scientists is a shill
>>
>>10056899
well, either they're a shill or they're just dumb
>>
File: Dumb Frogposter.jpg (33 KB, 640x640)
33 KB
33 KB JPG
>>10056818
>>10056899
>>
>>10056899
Anyone who disagrees with the scientific consensus is either a scientist or group who noticed inconsistencies and overturns a theory (unlikely to happen with climate science given how long it's been around and how many scientists have studied the theory and experiments), or a shill or a follower of a shill.
>>
>>10056818
I'm curious where you got the idea climate change was a meme.
>>
>>10056923
the constant shilling + lack of evidence
>>
>>10056899
Funny group of guys you all are
>>
>>10057038

lack of evidence doesn't count if you haven't actually looked for it.
>>
File: 1429033758254.jpg (79 KB, 466x379)
79 KB
79 KB JPG
>>10057038
>lack of evidence
>>
>>10057086
keep laughing, cuck, but look who makes decisions on your joke science
>>
>>10056840
Climate change is the single most important issue in the world. There is nothing that comes even close.
>>
>>10057277
So now you admit openly that you are a shill. Good. Yes your masters rule the world. It is unfortunate. It can only end badly.
>>
>begin with conclusion
>"how do we work backwards and prove this?"
Hmmm.......
>>
>>10057287
if you could make a case for your climate autism we wouldnt be in this position
>>
>>10057277
what a tragic waste of dubs
>>
>>10057301
I know the conclusion is right, we need to prove the other conclusion wrong
>>
>>10057302
>if you could make a case
>if you
>you

If I randomly asked someone off the street to prove the Poincare conjecture, and they couldn't do it, does that mean that the Poincare conjecture is false?

Bad analogy, anyway. "If I don't agree with the Poincare conjecture than Perelman's proof is invalid." That's more accurate.
>>
when did /leftypol/ take over /sci/?
>>
>>10056818
>we
this is what collectivist politics does to your brain. you mean you and your in-group, not we.
>>
>>10056818

Any science that tries to make predictions about events set to happen 100 years from now, aside from maybe astronomy or some parts of physics, is quackery.
No matter what people do now, in 100 years from now, when their models are not met, they will attribute it to some other immeasurable cause.
"Oh we generated too much carbon". "Oh we didn't generate enough carbon". "Oh cows farted too much".

Also you have to laugh at people rationing water when they wash their teeth or changing to a less polluting car when a single farm in the US probably wastes more water and generates a bigger carbon footprint than millions of people could realistically save in a life time.

If you're not willing to admit even a little bit that this is outplayed to make people buy more expensive "clean" products by companies that do fuck all to reduce their footprint you're legitimately gullible enough to qualify as a child.
>>
>>10057405
except now it’s only a couple of decades until the shit hits the fan
>>
>>10057405
>people are trying to profit off this
>agriculture is not making any changes
>therefore it doesn't exist
Retard logic. And as a reminder, the predictions are indeed coming true as you read this.
>>
>>10057376
“The facts have a well-known liberal bias.”
>>
>>10056840
>I DONT LIKE IT SO ITS WRONG
>>
>>10056818
Climate change is real you fucking retard, especially anthropological global warming. I'm a conservative and wonder why so many conservatives deny this simple scientific fact backed by a consensus. Just as bad as flat-earthers.

But while climate change is real, doesn't mean I'm against it. I actually support climate change. I'm a Canadian and climate change will melt our Arctic north and open up the Northwest Passage for trade between China and Europe, it's going to make Canada rich as fuck. Climate change really benefits only 2 countries on the planet, Canada and Russia.

I'm fully aware that climate change is killing millions of shitskins in developing countries but good riddance lmao.
>>
>>10057357
>can't prove it, but I know it's true
>>>/pol/
>>
>>10057457
now there, an honest conservative. at least he’s open about supporting mass suffering and death for brown people. why can’t more republicans just be honest about it?
>>
>>10056840
>he thinks that a theory in of itself can "poison" a discussion
>>
>>10056818
Create an alternate theory that explains all the crazy shit that's happening.
>>
>>10057462
>coal takes millions of years to form
>burn coal
>globe starts to heat up
>stop burning coal
>globe continues to heat up to an equilibrium then stabilises
>temperature trends downwards from that point via carbon slowly being sequestered

of course this is a scenario in which we did not reach the tipping point of the oceans becoming a carbon source rather than a carbon sink which is projected to happen around 2 degrees of warming

do you see the urgency now?
>>
>>10057457
>I'm a conservative and wonder why so many conservatives deny this simple scientific fact backed by a consensus.
Politics as a team sport. If 'they' believe it, it must be wrong no matter what. The reason it's the conservative position to deny climate change is that climate change is inconvenient to capitalism.

>I don't care about millions of deaths because I got mine, fuck you, you're not human anyway
Typical conservative scum. You're a greedy bastard with zero empathy, and a footsoldier for fascism.
>>
>>10057421
>>10057444

Are Americans genetically incapable of understanding conflict of interest? You know there is a reason you have to disclose this shit when publishing, right?

>Predictions are coming true as you read this.
Please make a detailed exhaustive list.

"It rained a lot this one time and summer was hot!" is hardly a scientific observation.
>>
>>10057485
heavens forbid we take climate change seriously lad
>>
>>10057405
>No matter what people do now, in 100 years from now, when their models are not met, they will attribute it to some other immeasurable cause.
>"Oh we generated too much carbon". "Oh we didn't generate enough carbon". "Oh cows farted too much".
The models are not supposed to predict emissions, they are supposed to predict the temperature from various emission scenarios. That's why they are called projections and not predictions. You're arguing against a strawman.

>Also you have to laugh at people rationing water when they wash their teeth or changing to a less polluting car when a single farm in the US probably wastes more water and generates a bigger carbon footprint than millions of people could realistically save in a life time.
So you support a carbon tax instead? Good.
>>
>>10057467
You say it in a way which paints me as evil but here's the truth : Only white countries (and a few others) are the ones advocating solutions to combat climate change.

The countries that suffer the most from climate change, like Bangladesh, or Indonesia, or most of the Middle East, couldn't care about the effects of global warming. Meanwhile countries that suffer the least, like my beloved Canada, keep talking about fighting climate change and constantly offer solutions like the carbon credit economy.

Why? Fuck it. Because of climate change, the Canadian northern ice will melt and a trading passage which will save China 40% on fuel (vs Panama canal) will open. If Canada builds infrastructure and imposes duties/fees, we will become insanely rich. Same for Russia. I welcome my arms to climate change with an open heart.
>>
>>10057483
>stronger hurricanes
>each year a new heat record
>the arctic vortex being fucked
>increasingly frequent drought and wildfires
>receding arctic ice
The list goes on.

>>10057492
Same reason climate denial exists; the fossil fuel lobby.
>>
>>10057490
I open my arms to climate change with an open heart*

Woops, mixed the words there.

>>10057492
Anti-nuclear propaganda runs deep in the West surprisingly.

>>10057481
I put the needs of my people first. If millions of my people were dying because of climate change, say just like in Bangladesh, I'd be against it, but that's not the case.

Again, I told you, I live in one of the few countries that benefit from climate change. Not only will it open up our arctic north, but it will also make fresh water (which Canada controls 20% of global supply) more valuable.

However if I was an American, I'd wholeheartedly be against climate change. So yeah, I agree conservatives in the US that pretend climate change isn't real are bumbling idiots who have no idea what's coming to them. But you can't blame me as a Canadian for being pro climate change when the benefits are so large.
>>
>>10057505
>Not only will it open up our arctic north,
China is already running out of water. An open Arctic gives them a ready area to invade Canada and take your water. You're talking about the benefits of trade but ignoring the fact many of your trading partners will be hard fucked by climate change.
>>
>>10057492
cognitive dissonance
>>
>>10057513
We will keep selling water to the Chinese until they build better desalinization plants. Of course we want to sell our water, but not until we run out and our enemies feel like they have no choice but to invade to survive.

Yes, many of our trading partners will be fucked. But the benefits outweighs the losses. East Asia and Western Europe will become the two densest most economically powerful regions on the planet, and Canada will be the link between the two. Canada will have to compete with Russia though, since they have the North East Passage which also opens up China to Northern Europe. China will never invade Canada by the way. The US would take over before that would ever happen.
>>
Are Americans this dense in real life or just the ones that come on here?
>>
>>10057532
50% of them at least
>>
File: TrumpFunder.jpg (39 KB, 474x368)
39 KB
39 KB JPG
>climate change is good for you
>>
>>10057405
>If you're not willing to admit even a little bit that this is outplayed to make people buy more expensive "clean" products by companies that do fuck all to reduce their footprint you're legitimately gullible enough to qualify as a child.
If you're not willing to admit even a little bit that this is downplayed to make people think it isn't a dire threat so that they keep buying cheap bullshit they don't even need, you legitimately qualify as ignorant of the facts or a retarded consumption addict.

Major lifestyle changes are required. That won't happen, because humans are selfish, stupid vermin that will believe whatever is convenient for their immediate wants.
>>
>>10057489
>So you support a carbon tax instead? Good.
not sure why you people always attack the demand side (with your tax), instead of the supply side (production cuts). The effects on the price of carbon would be the same, except by limiting production you actually do limit the amount of carbon going into the atmosphere, unlike with your uncertain theoretical conjecture that a tax would do so. I think its because you are part of the corporate/government establishment that literally depends unsustainable development.
>>
>>10057280
>Climate change is the single most important issue in the world. There is nothing that comes even close.
(Radical) Islam
>>
>>10057541
Tax on demand is the most market friendly, most capitalist friendly way to go about it. That's why it exists. If you actually asked the scientists, they would just tell you to turn the power down. It's just the economists and the liberals and such that want a super market friendly solution.
>>
>>10057543
Climate denialists are literally doing more harm to everyone than the whole of Islam ever did in aggregate since its inception, and that is not a hyperbole.
>>
>>10057078
>>10057086

Nice pieces of evidence guys.
>>
>>10057550
Only limiting production will limit emissions. You can double the price with a tax, but if production doubles to fill the gap, then you achieve worse than nothing.
>>
File: warming.jpg (1.01 MB, 1200x7920)
1.01 MB
1.01 MB JPG
facts and evidence
>>
>>10057556
Yeah, I'm not a big fan of market-based approached myself. I'm just explaining why they exist.
>>
>>10057550
>market friendly solution.
there is no such solution. as long as exploitable energy exists, there will be a demand for it.
>>
>>10057558
Why would someone make this ironically?
>>
File: inconvenient truth.jpg (57 KB, 600x398)
57 KB
57 KB JPG
>>10057495
>>10057489
>>10057540

I'm indifferent to the carbon tax. You're not going to see me rushing to buy a more expensive car because "the scientific consensus" told me it's better, however.

I really would like you to tell me why "THIS TIME IT'S REAL" should be taken seriously when it comes to this shit? You sound like slightly less scientifically illiterate doomsday cults.

And as for "heat wave and hurricane records" I really want to see the data to back that shit up. If you're going to pull some random european or australian city from your asshole I can also do that at literally any time point in recent history by cherry picking random cities in random microclimates.

First long standing dataset of daily temperatures I found was the last 70 daily temperature measurements in Seattle and it's largely the fucking same shit for the 70 years. I'd like to see these types of plots for every fucking city. Not projections, actual measurements of historical data in different microclimates.
>>
>>10057560
fair enough. Sorry if I mistook you for one of those "carbon tax will save the world" types.
>>
>>10057481
>a footsoldier for fascism
That’s not what fascism means, sweetie. It’s not a synonym for “something I don’t like”.
>>
>>10057562
because it's unironic and truthful
>>
>>10057038
>giant meteor headed towards earth
>anyone can go take a look at it and see it's clearly headed our way and that there's a 99% chance it's going to collide with us
>we have the power to stop it
>everyone who's taken a look and seen the meteor keeps proclaiming that we need to take measures to stop it
>WHY WONT THOSE SHILLS STOP TALKING ABOUT THE METEOR IT MIGHT NOT EVEN HIT US REEEEE.
>>
File: 1526499905784.png (467 KB, 800x450)
467 KB
467 KB PNG
>>10057541
>increasing price lowers demand
>uncertain theoretical conjecture
>>
>>10057556
According to what model?

http://news.mit.edu/2018/carbon-taxes-could-make-significant-dent-climate-change-0406
>>
>>10056818
the real "red-pill" is that burning fossil fuel does make the average global temperature higher. Especially when you also burn and cut down forests faster than they grow back. All opinions to the contrary is propaganda meant to preserve the status quo.
>>
>>10057553
http://www.ipcc.ch
>>
>>10057505
>I put the needs of my people first by cheering as everyone else goes through hell
By this monstrous logic, America should 'put the needs of its people first' by annexing Canada, murdering all Canadians, and settling on the cleared out land.

>"You can't blame me as an American for being pro-Canadian genocide when the benefits are so large"

> you can't blame me as a Canadian for being pro climate change when the benefits are so large.
I can and I absolutely will. Canada will not be able to isolate itself from the changes that are coming, you are naive to think your life won't be disrupted. And how fucking shortsighted do you have to be that you think you'll benefit from the Northwest passage trade, when both Asia and Europe are being royally fucked by climate change?

>>10057568
The point is not that he follows Mussolini's ideology 100%, but that by being a proponent of "might makes right" nationalistic ideology coupled with a disgusting disregard for who he considers "shitskins" he is actively normalizing the ideological framework necessary for fascism to take root. Once the shit hits the fan, do you think he would protest a nationalistic totalitarian capitalist regime, so long as it destroys the left and claims to act in the interest of Canada?
>>
>>10057638
fucking pricks if they do that shit
I'm not going down without a fight bro
>>
>>10057631
Are you serious?

You don't produce it, it doesn't end up in the atmosphere.

You produce it and tax it, it ends up in the atmosphere.

Jesus, this stuff is simple enough that a retard could understand it. No wonder populists are elected by people when you insult their intelligence in this way. You are an absolutely vile human being.
>>
File: ds.jpg (37 KB, 800x600)
37 KB
37 KB JPG
>>10057558
>politically divisive
>frogposting
>Strawman references
>mostly unsourced infographics
>David Lappi graphs that don't measure any data from the past ~20 or more years.
>"since several billion years"
>"wake up, sheeple!"
i wonder who could be behind this image?
>>
>>10057563
The data is out there if you care to look.

>heat waves
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record#Warmest_years

>hurricane records
https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/
>>
>>10057630
Not at all. It is a Pigovian tax look it up. Primarily it is just to appease the autistics screechings of liberal capitalist economists.

Basically the money collected is not the point. The point is to account for the negative externalities.
>>
>>10057630
In theory it's supposed to decrease demand. It doesn't even remotely work in practice.
>>
>>10057558
>President Donald Trump isn't dumb
kek, you Internet Research Agency guys really throw some zingers don't you
>>
File: 1504790845017.gif (999 KB, 500x267)
999 KB
999 KB GIF
>>10057635
Those guys are never going to admit they're wrong. When they'll retire, someone will pay off new experts. Don't get memed.
>>
>>10057558
OP here. THIS is what I'm talking about. Any more?
>>
>>10057625
it creates demand for cheaper alternatives
>>
>>10056818
The fundamental issue is economic growth and the increasing demands of such on energy. Governments/corporations will lie through their teeth to avoid addressing this issue because they depend on economic growth for their jobs. The idea of a carbon tax is an obfuscation. Smoke and mirrors.
>>
>>10057655
This is a science board. If you deny science when it suits your political agenda, what are you doing here?

And as a reminder, there is not one scientific agency in the world which disputes that climate change is real. If it were legitimately a made-up thing, there would not be universal consensus in literally every country.
>>
>>10057625
if it lowers demand then why is production increasing worldwide despite carbon taxes?
>>
Guys, stop. What evidence is there that climate change "denailists" on 4chan are for real? What evidence is there that they are not just trolling? There is basically no evidence to suggest that we should assume that they are serious in their denial. Until they prove they are actual climate change denailists, there is no reason to engage them.
>>
>>10057657
If you like unsourced, misleading, memeshit propaganda that forms facts from convictions instead of the other way around, this isn't the board for you. You should probably check /pol/. They have plenty of what you're looking for.
>>
>>10057673
We don't have them in place. They have only been implemented in certain countries and the implementation is completely corrupted by politics so they are ineffective.
>>
>>10057657
oh you want info that confirms your biases, and you ignore everything else? maybe try >>>/pol/
>>
>>10057677
even in many places that have then, emissions have increased.
>>
>>10056818
https://nationaleconomicseditorial.com/2017/12/01/carbon-taxes-increase-global-co2-emissions-period/
>>
>>10057646

>Ask for measurements of temperature in microclimates.
>Post plot of global average model going 400000 years back.

It really feels like you are deadly scared that your premise might be false. That maybe an average increase in global temperature cannot be significantly tied to local micro-climate events as reliably as you want to make it seem.

I guess most of us still have a good 60 years ahead of us. It'll be fun seeing who is right. In 20 years from now, if the world hasn't exploded in a fiery furnace of climate inferno, I have a slight feeling that you will still not retract or review your position.

For my part, I believe in measurements. The fact you failed to post them reminds me of every time someone has to defend their claims by 'averaging 24 models of moving averages of smoothed projections of estimated likely probable predictors'.

You know they need all those biases and over-fitting to save their ass.
>>
File: hqdefault.jpg (19 KB, 480x360)
19 KB
19 KB JPG
go away /pol/

stop trying to shill your red pills here, you degenerate druggie
>>
>>10057481
>a footsoldier for fascism
i got a chuckle out of that
>>
File: Medicine Works.jpg (139 KB, 650x433)
139 KB
139 KB JPG
>>10057672

No nation in the world denies medicine works, yet it is one of the most affected areas of knowledge regarding the replication crisis.

Climate change science takes decades to be 'tested', but I have no doubt it'll go down in history as another area deeply lacking in methodological rigor.
>>
>>10057543
Fucking retard...

The only "radical" Islam there is is on good terms with the US (Saudi Arabia and the likes). We are talking about devastation on a planetary scale devastation when climate change is mentioned, not just some US-funded terrorists blowing themselves up in Syria.
>>
>>10057558
Somebody somewhere is retarded enough to believe this.

>>10057657

Oh look here's one.
>>
>>10057558
what this does is what every single fucking retard does

>WE ONLY COUNTRIBUTE 0.00000000000000000000000000001% OF GREENHOUSE EMISIONS IT'S ALL GONNA HAPPEN ANYWAYS LMAO

the fucking retards do not take into account
>animal industry gases
>chlorofluorides
>ozone layer
>the fact that 1% difference is fucking massive
if you increase something on a global scale, even if it's >1% it's gonna make a big difference

>IT'S GONNA HAPPEN ANYWAYS LMOA
we are trying to fucking delay this you retards, it's gonna happen no matter what but if we can make a >1% difference it's still gonna be a thousand year difference in the global scale
>>
>>10057563
>global cooling meme
nobody fucking believes in world cooling it's a really unpopular hypothesis

also of course the media it's going to escalate things it's what they do best
WAIT, ARE YOU TELLING ME MEDIA EXAGERATES NEWS IN ORDER TO GET THE PUBLIC ATTENTION?! IMPOSSIBLE, IT'S THE SCIENTISTS FAULT
>>
>>10057543
>t. neocon
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>>
>>10057569
Truthful? Except for the fact that it ignores everything that's been discovered over the last century.

The chain reaction effect of climate change (CO2 warms the planet enough to release hidden methane and other devastating GHG from the Arctic)

The level of CO2 ppm drastically increasing in the last 100 years (nearly doubling) compared to the last thousands of years.

The fact that the Earth has had countless extinction events during all those millions of years shown in the CO2 levels graph.

The fact that the graph downplays global warming by mentioning things like the Minoan warming while ignoring the fact global warming literally lead to the destruction of Bronze Age civilization.

I can go on and on, but if you anybody unironically believes that graph starting pepe, then said person is definitely mentally retarded. Or a Republican. Not that there's much difference.
>>
File: index.jpg (9 KB, 225x225)
9 KB
9 KB JPG
>>10056818
>All "scientific fact" must be validated by my feelings and I'm far too easily offended to accept anything but "da juice did it" so everything I know inevitably is inaccurate and/or a conspiracy theory

I wonder what it's like being this far gone?
Living this far detached from reality.
At what point does their delusions become clinical inanity and they become a threat and danger to society?
>>
Well, I know Al Gore took his Inconvenient truth money and bought a beach house in Montecito (very expensive property in CA). His house is right on the water, according to him, his house should have been under water by now
>>
>>10057682
That doesn't mean carbon taxes didn't lower demand. The ones that do exist are very weak and not universal.
>>
File: 1537508823323.jpg (39 KB, 792x767)
39 KB
39 KB JPG
>>10057747
Also every claim in the movie has been verified false since then. We're supposed to be dead now.
>>
>>10057659
And?
>>
>>10057672
>scientific agency
There's people in those agencies who disagree, probably more than a little. But the official stance of the agency can't deny it because they all benefit of the lie. Almost everything can be linked to climate change. There's always been people predicting doomdsay. They have to save the world, and they need your money for it.

>>10057672
>If it were legitimately a made-up thing, there would not be universal consensus in literally every country.

It's more like an inevitability, that in a world like ours there has to exist some a doomsday narrative for the merchants of fear to market, just believable enough for the that the dumbest 60% will buy it. Something has to fill that void, and it's "Climate Change".
>>
>>10057457
You know the most war-like and well-equipped country is positioned on your southern border. If things got too difficult, America would annex your country and flood you with the 56%(probably around 30% by then)
>>
>>10057730
>the fact that 1% difference is fucking massive

Don't even bother. I've seen some people unironically say "it's just 1 degree more, what could that change?".

>>10057638
>America should 'put the needs of its people first' by annexing Canada

Don't be a dumbfuck, there's no comparison with you've said here and with what I said. I only said that I'm welcoming something that the rest of the world is responsible for.

The US is worst polluter on the planet, you deserve everything coming your way from climate change. At the very least China has spent hundreds of billions of dollars going green, becoming the energy that uses the most renewable energy on the planet in a short period of time. What has the US done? Fucking nothing.

You're doing the equivalent of stabbing yourself then blaming others for not trying to stop you. Again, just like what Russia is doing, I'm hoping that Canada simply shuts the fuck up about climate change and prepares itself to build infrastructure in the Northwest Passage.

Europe is not fucked. Southeast Asia is hugely fucked, but the big economic players like China are quickly moving towards renewables and are finding scientific solutions to deal with climate change problems so I'm not too worried. The China-Europe trading passage will come and there is nothing you can do to stop it.
>>
>>10057766
becoming the country*

>>10057764
Climate change is bad but it will not push the US to total destruction. At worst millions of Americans will die because of more occurring natural disasters and tens of trillions of dollars are lost in the economy. Nothing severe enough to push the US to invade Canada.
>>
>>10057642
You're being obtuse. What model shows that production would cancel out the decrease in demand from taxation?

>You don't produce it, it doesn't end up in the atmosphere.
So you are planning on banning it completely right now? That would be more catastrophic than global warming itself and wouldn't happen anyway. Oh wait, you mean just limiting production, well then it gets produced and ends up in the atmosphere, obtuse faggot.

And you didn't respond to the article that shows carbon taxes work. Because you have no response.
>>
>>10057745
please take not of this

you people are arguing with people who can't think with logic or reason. They're purely emotional thinkers. Winning an emotional debate is insane. You are all posting in a troll thread, and OP is so far gone he doesn't even know he's the troll.
>>
>>10057655
How are they wrong?
>>
>>10057750
so the goal is to "lower demand" and not to reduce emissions? ok gotcha. also what makes you think a large dose your "carbon tax" medicine will work if a small dose has absolutely no effect? this is getting ridiculous.
>>
>>10057774
>refute that
>you find a new study
>refute them all
>they'll hire more hacks to write more studies

Our of an infinite number of data to draw from, the world, there's always a new way to write a doomsday narrative. Don't be retarded.
>>
>>10057784
you'd still be arguing this same shit if there was an asteroid the size of pluto visibly heading straight for us
>>
File: fixed.png (427 KB, 800x419)
427 KB
427 KB PNG
>>10057563
>I really would like you to tell me why "THIS TIME IT'S REAL" should be taken seriously when it comes to this shit?
Because the "other times" in your comic are fake.

https://skeptic78240.wordpress.com/2016/04/20/the-comical-conservative-7/

I really would like you to tell me why you only post idiotic strawmen and not attack the actual science itself? If you disagree with the consensus all you have to do is show how it's wrong.

>And as for "heat wave and hurricane records" I really want to see the data to back that shit up.
Took me 5 seconds in google scholar.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234114398_Global_increase_in_record-breaking_monthly-mean_temperatures
>>
>>10057704
>he doesn't understand the difference between replication and prediction
Why are you on the science board /pol/tard?
>>
>>10057778
>so the goal is to "lower demand" and not to reduce emissions?
No, the goal is to reduce emissions. Your argument is incredibly fallacious. First you assume that because emissions increased in a country, carbon taxes did not reduce emissions. This is obviously false since the carbon tax is not the only thing that effects emissions. Then you assume that because this occurred in one example with a small carbon tax it must be true in all cases regardless of the size of the tax. Are you retarded?

>ok gotcha. also what makes you think a large dose your "carbon tax" medicine will work if a small dose has absolutely no effect?
Even a small carbon tax has an effect, why are you so intent on lying about this?

>this is getting ridiculous.
Yeah, your sophistry is ridiculous.
>>
>>10057784
You haven't even refuted one though. Not only are you putting forth a completely indiscriminate argument that could be applied to deny literally anything arbitrarily, but you are also lying about what you've accomplished.
>>
>>10057887
Why are you fighting so hard for a carbon tax when the best way to reduce emissions is to reduce production?
>>
>>10057891
Because a carbon tax is more practical to actually implement and has less negative consequences. Now answer my question, why are you lying about carbon taxes?
>>
>>10057896
you're not out there protesting new pipelines or fracking or new mountain top coal mining. you're fighting tooth and nail for a regressive carbon tax. you disgust me.
>>
>>10057913
>new pipelines or new mountain top coal mining
Yeah, because neither will actually reduce emissions, retard. All that shows is that you care about looking like your doing something, not finding the actual solution.

>you're fighting tooth and nail for a regressive carbon tax.
Another lie. Pathetic.
>>
>>10057558
Pretty good bait
>>
>>10057931
>>new pipelines or new mountain top coal mining
>won't actually increase emissions
wat?

go ahead and keep demonstrating how much of complete and utterly useless asshat and con man you actually are
>>
>>10057696
I bet you like to argue with mormons when they come to your door.
>>
>>10058013
Please explain to me how pipelines increase emissions (this should be good).
>>
>>10058041
You really never managed to connect those dots, eh? I'm not surprised.
increased pipeline capacity = increased production

whats youre next question?
>please explain to me how increased production increases emissions?
>>
>>10057696
This guy right, if the data was clear and solid it would be much easier to present. And more people would accept it.

The reality is most climate models are deterministic predictions Ed Lorenz proved such a prediction method will desync with the real data even in short timescales.

Pilot wave dynamics kinda sucks right now, but you need probabilistic models to actually get coherence. I'm working on it, well get it soon.
>>
>>10058034
I mean they believe blacks to be descendants of Cain so that's kinda bad
>>
>>10058046
Increased production does not mean increased consumption, consumption is what causes emission.
>>
>>10056917
>Anyone who disagrees with the scientific consensus
better back it up with evidence
What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence
>>
>>10058046
>increased pipeline capacity = increased production
aaaaaaaaaah wrong. You could ship the same oil by rail. The only reason stopping pipelines would significantly decrease emissions is by making oil more expensive, but then you would have to admit that cost lowers demand! Hilarious.

So let's see, you are advocating for an inefficient way of increasing the price of oil and inefficiently lowering production in certain places (which only reduces emissions by making oil more expensive). So you're just arguing for inefficiently making oil more expensive when we could just be doing it in a very easy, optimal way. But no, we have to do it the stupid way so that you can virtue signal. Fucking retard.
>>
>>10058060
Yes it does, because world oil storage capacity is a small fraction of annual production.
>>
>>10057563
The mean surface temperature has been consistently rising over the last century. Why do denialists obsess about failed predictions or projections? Could it be to avoid confronting the data that clearly shows the warming trend that has occurred and is still going on? To obfuscate and cast doubt on something that is blindingly fucking obvious if you would just look at the graph of the measurements and not graphs of predictions that say jack shit about the science of it?
>>
>>10058060
There ya go. Check this out. Behold, the oil shill thinks carbon taxes are great too:
>>10058068

Like two pees in a pod, you two.
>>
>>10057492
Because people are fucking idiots and allow themselves to be compromised by ideology over rationality. Fuck so much of the left for being anti-nuclear, it's so fucking insane to be anti-climate change and anti-nuclear at the same time.
>>
>>10056899
just shut the fuck up and shill me your oil
>>
>>10058068
You typed out all that repetitive nonsense, drivel, and insults without even having a glancing thought about world oil storage capacity (tank farms, etc.), didn't you?

Interesting. and sad. lol
>>
>>10058104
>No response to the post
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. You just get continually BTFO and move on to the next irrelevancy.
>>
>>10058119
you can't even see how production, storage, and consumption are interrelated.
now run along back to /pol/ and bitch about jews or something.
>>
The /pol/lacks think that climate change is a globalist conspiracy. They do not realise that the actual consequences of climate change are catastrophic for the ecosystems that everyone relies on, and that relocation of food production will not be sufficient to preserve civilisation. Genocide and war are inevitable regardless; if the developing nations are not contained or controlled, gains elsewhere will have been for nothing. That is the mistake the left makes, thinking that everything can be handled within the confines of feel-good liberal democracy and that shitty nations with uneducated, impoverished populations will fix themselves in the current model of "assistance." What good can come of a population explosion of the primitive and uneducated in backwards nations? The right is even worse for declaring climate science a conspiracy, simply because 1) it harms capitalist interests and 2) the left are currently its proponents. "Fuck the left and everything I think they stand for" is idiotic when it comes to matters of science, just as idiotic as e.g. the left is for denying the accuracy of certain racial data. There's been an apparent complaint about this being scaremongering and apocalypse fetishism -- I don't understand it. If the threat is real, then how can any advocacy for an extreme reaction to the threat be scaremongering? Was the US simply the victim of scaremongering in its reaction to the USSR, or vice versa? If the threat is real, then what does it serve you to reject it simply because it's been taken as a banner for your ideological opposition?

The only solution is authoritarian control, not just in governments over their societies, but also in developed governments and their societies over undeveloped societies. Population growth in Africa, India, etc. must be reined in, their economic development managed, and their societies regulated. Capitalism and democracy have failed.
>>
>>10058124
Please tell me one thing in that post that was wrong. You're being vague because you have no response. Fuck off.
>>
>>10058130
your post wasn't wrong, just irrelevant.
>>
>>10058145
So you agree that you're just advocating for an inefficient way of making oil more expensive. This is the entire argument, so it's clearly relevant.
>>
>>10058155
It's irrelevant how expensive it is. The only thing that's relevant is total oil production. Once it's out of the ground it is out of the ground.

Carbon tax shills and oil company shills alike love to misdirect people's attention away from this basic fact because the very concept (as simple and obvious as it is) cuts deeply into their bottom line.
>>
>>10056818
God you guys are boring. Get a goddamn hobby
>>
>>10058173
You're delusional, same as global warming deniers. You're denying empirical facts and practical solutions in favor of dogmatic ideology. There's no point in continuing this discussion.
>>
>>10058205
>You're delusional, same as global warming deniers.
so in other words, you've got literally nothing. fucking pathetic. you sicken me.
>>
>>10058205
you probably spent the last half hour scouring the net trying to prove that world oil capacity is several trillion barrels... and came up with nothing.
so you failed, and now you come back with the tired last resort of the failed, ignorant, loser.
>delusional
>denier

truly, you are pathetic
>>
>>10058206
Nice projection. You only have to look at one of the first posts in the discussion >>10057631 to see that carbon pricing greatly effects emissions. You of course never responded to this because you have nothing to say.

>>10058220
>you probably spent the last half hour scouring the net trying to prove that world oil capacity is several trillion barrels
So you responded to being called delusional by detailing more delusions. You still haven't explained how yelling "oil capacity" responds to anything I said. Instead, you resort to calling carbon tax advocates shills, which makes no sense. You're just proving that you're a dogmatic fool with every fallacious post. You're the one who belongs in /pol/. Fuck off already.
>>
>>10056818
Start talking about chemtrails instead of scoffing like some momo.
>>
>>10058254
production - storage capacity - consumption

since storage capacity is very small
production = consumption. (more or less)

didn't you dispute me on that, before? do you want to continue to call me delusional because I pointed this out? or maybe you'd like to reevaluate your position.

or maybe not.

probably you'd like to just keep shilling for your new coal mines and your new pipelines and your carbon tax, and sing tra la la look at me, the saviour of the world, while calling people who call you out on your bullshit delusional, and deniers.

you sicken me.
>>
>>10057552

Of course, it is. Climate change, when assumed to be true (it isn't) most proportionally threatens brown useless eaters. Stupidly, you haven't even considered the possibility that one day, all the antibiotics just up-and-stop working. That's the real scary one, though it also carries the blessed pregnancy of wasting a bunch of brown useless eaters.
>>
why do libtards get so upset about this?
>>
>>10057532
>implying the republican party doesn't astroturf the fuck out of this board

Motherfucker, do you think your typical mentally ill reactionary who decorates his car with unintelligible sentence-fragments and alex jones bumper-stickers has the intellectual capacity to use the phrase "poisoning our national discourse" (see >>10056840).

These are fucking shill posts. It's so fucking irritating that spergs will scream bloody murder about "muh commie SJW boogieman" till the cows come home, but when the actual wolves are out on the prowl people all of a sudden become aloof and ignorant.
>>
File: 1538979404517.jpg (132 KB, 1773x750)
132 KB
132 KB JPG
http://joannenova.com.au/2018/10/first-audit-of-global-temperature-data-finds-freezing-tropical-islands-boiling-towns-boats-on-land/
>>
>>10056818
There was a paper in Nature two years ago that showed only third world countries will have a negative economic outcome from the predicted warming. First world countries except Australia all were to benefit economically due to reduced severity of winter making up for being a bit more aussie temps in the summer. (This apparently effects not only farm output but office work through various psychological and practical effects). So if you're worried about climate change just focus on making sure there's no possibility for ruined turd world shits to swamp the first world and it's all good
>>
>>10058466
That sure is a credible source.

>>10058513
With respect, the science has been reevaluated in the last two years and the projections have become much more grim.
>>
>>10056818
>Climate Change meme
Lrn2meme fgt pls
>>
CHEMTRAILS.
>>
File: 1532434028679.jpg (127 KB, 640x641)
127 KB
127 KB JPG
>>10056818

One word: "falsifiability".
>>
File: CC_18502016_gtt.gif (2.83 MB, 720x775)
2.83 MB
2.83 MB GIF
>>
>>10057444
>>10057475

Flooding is a regular occurrence recorded all throughout history. Mitigated now more than ever through better planning and engineering rather than shrinking your juju footprint before the storm god.
>>
Reminder that hockey stick man refused to disclose his methodology because "people would just use it to prove him wrong".
>>
Travel in time and measure today's temperatures and crave them into stone.
>>
>>10057457
>But while climate change is real, doesn't mean I'm against it. I actually support climate change. I'm a Canadian and climate change will melt our Arctic north and open up the Northwest Passage for trade between China and Europe, it's going to make Canada rich as fuck. Climate change really benefits only 2 countries on the planet, Canada and Russia.
Norway also becomes much more fertile.
Anyway, these reasons make me want to move to Canada, because climate change seems insurmountable.
>>
>>10057277
>There is no evidence for climate change
>gets shown evidence for climate change
>any evidence for climate change was made by shills

man you must think real big
>>
>>10057505
>I put the needs of my people first.
why does conservatism always boil down to "fuck you, I got mine"?
>>
File: irritated cat.jpg (70 KB, 622x621)
70 KB
70 KB JPG
>>10057558
gonna repost my rebuttal from last time you posted it, fag:

the chart listing greenhouse effect by gas is uncited and, unsurprisingly, false; water vapor accounts for only 50% of the greenhouse effect, and CO2 about 20%
>ftp://soest.hawaii.edu/coastal/Climate%20Articles/CO2%20role%20modern%20warming%202010.pdf

the figures claiming that human-produced CO2 is only a minor component of total CO2 in the atmosphere is also false.
natural sources of CO2 are large, but they're completely counterbalanced by natural sinks; NET emissions (rather than gross emissions) are overwhelmingly dominated by manmade sources.

the diminishing returns chart uses the climate sensitivity figure from Lindzen and Choi, two well-known deniers whose estimate is well out of line with similar work done by scientists who haven't gotten tens of thousands of dollars from coal companies.
>http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/lindzen-and-choi-unraveled/
using a more realistic parameter suggests a shallower curve.

the Vostok ice core data series is real, but a misleading claim is made about it.
yes, we see 100kyr cyclicity due to Milankovitch forcings. so why would we see SUDDEN, RAPID change when we're not at that part of the cycle? we're already in an interglacial; we shouldn't see rapid warming.

the sea level curve doesn't show modern sea level rise. the fact that it remained fairly steady for 8000 years means that the sudden rise we're now seeing (3 mm per year, not quite the speed seen during glacial retreat but pretty fast) should set off alarms.

the "no global warming for 18 years" graph is a hilariously cherry-picked interval. the 1998 El Nino excursion skews the trendline because it's right at the start; using pretty much ANY OTHER starting point shows a warming trend.
also, RSS needs to be drift corrected or it's out of whack with other data series.
>https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00767.1
>>
File: outraged cat.jpg (17 KB, 462x534)
17 KB
17 KB JPG
>>10057558
>>10060394
as for the infamous Lappi graph, GISP2 uses 1950 as its zero year, not 2000. That graph ends at 1855...before ALMOST ALL modern warming happened.
that particular figure has been debunked for years. only shills (who know it's false but don't care) and brainlets (who are too stupid to do the most basic fact-checking) post it. which one are you?

tornado counts are a hilariously stupid metric for storm intensity. accumulated cyclone energy (a metric for tropical storm energy, which IS directly fed by warmer oceans) has shown a weak increasing trend, but for some reason isn't in the picture. hmmm...

the drought figure uses the wrong metric for crops. the Palmer Hydrological Drought Index measures precipitation as it relates to groundwater on a longer timescale, so increased precipitation in one season can counterbalance drought in another. the Palmer Drought Severity Index, however, focuses on the effects of drought on plants in the shorter term, and the PDSI shows a clear drying trend worldwide.
>https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2010JD015541

the Al Gore quote is fabricated. this isn't news or anything, it's been known to be fake for ages.

any questions?
>>
>>10058466
This kills the shill.
>>
File: map-cropped.jpg (926 KB, 2259x2335)
926 KB
926 KB JPG
>>10058466
America doesn't exist.
>>
>>10060464
Neither does global warming.
>>
>>10057532
if you only knew how bad things really are
>>
>>10058466
fuck off
>>
File: tbv0ilzsvtf11.jpg (24 KB, 460x345)
24 KB
24 KB JPG
>>10057405
so you're telling me an actual way to make a difference is by going vegan?
>>
>>10056818
We don't
>>
>>10060394
>>10060400
based
>>
>>10060805
>only animals come from farms
>crop farminf doesn't create pollution
lmaoing at this retard
>>
>>10058077

The cognitive dissonance in this post is unbelievable.
Climate Change discussions are always paved by projections, never by measurements. This is probably the reason for why so many deniers exist.

It's impossible to argue with measurements, so present measurements. Presenting projections that fail is the precise definition of a poorly constructed model.
>>
>>10057873

t. brainlet

Prediction is just one of the things under the umbrella of Replication. You know that even today in 2018 there's still experiments trying to verify if Newton's Laws hold for specific conditions?

What makes your claims so special that they can't be questioned?
>>
>>10057540

Are you willing to make those major lifestyle changes? If so, why aren't you already?

I've seen how this story ends and it always ends with the majority eating garbage and the Maduros eating steak served up by a celebrity chef. Only the little people will have to make the lifestyle change. And more than likely only self-sacrificing Western countries will. You mean to tell me China will tell its citizens "No more expansive meat diet, no more abundant use of cars, no more cheaper electricity" all because of some agreement made with white liberal European and American countries?

You know why people are suspicious of global warming? Because of people like >>10058127 who contend the only way to fix the problem is totalitarian (and I mean literal totalitarian) despotic rule. And every single time, EVERY SINGLE TIME, these fuckers end up enriching themselves and demanding everyone else sacrifice rather than them.

>>10060384
Why does liberalism think that anyone else will not be "Fuck you, I got mine"? They thought China would democratize and liberalize because of rising standards of living and economic prosperity. Whoops, instead they got Emperor Poo. Liberalism thinks that everyone else is playing by the rules and everyone will be honest and faithful.
>>
>>10060812
>only animals come from farms
Counting in mass, 98% of Earth's land vertebrates are farm animals.
>>
Deniers should all be relocated and chained to a pole at the shore when the sea levels start rising
>>
File: HadCRUT4.png (68 KB, 630x730)
68 KB
68 KB PNG
>>10060830
>Climate Change discussions are always paved by projections, never by measurements.
Closing your eyes doesn't make the measurements go away. Just about every climate change thread on /sci/ gets flooded with graphs.

>Presenting projections that fail is the precise definition of a poorly constructed model.
The track record for predictions in climatology is actually pretty good, particularly if you excuse poor estimates of non-climate factors (such as emissions).
>>
>>10060845

>Flooded with graphs.

Graphs of measurements? Also, here's a tricky question for you. When you post temperature anomaly graphs, what the reference average temperature? You know, the one used as a basis to compare the anomalies to?

Is it the same for every temperature anomaly graph posted?

Why is it so scary to just plot temperatures. No funny business. No moving average. No fucking around. Just temperatures. I don't understand how this can hurt anyone. It's literally the only thing that could shut up a denier.

Talking about "temperature anomaly" without giving the reference average is like presenting a histogram without explaining the binning criterion. It's easy to manipulate, and makes it look like you're trying to use dishonest tactics to convince a well meaning but skeptical person of something.
>>
>>10058793
>"falsifiability"
babby lern'd a new werd
>>
>>10060851
>When you post temperature anomaly graphs, what the reference average temperature?
Different organisations have different standards - it's not generally considered important.
In the case of HadCRUT, anomalies are against the 1961-1990 period.

>Is it the same for every temperature anomaly graph posted?
No.

>Why is it so scary to just plot temperatures.
Temperatures of what, exactly? Just averaging all the datasets we have together is both physically meaningless, and would actually give an incorrect trend (for example, adding new stations in cold places would produce a cooling trend).

>Talking about "temperature anomaly" without giving the reference average is like presenting a histogram without explaining the binning criterion.
Outside of complaining datasets, the choice of reference isn't particularly important. And if you care, it's easy to look up.

>It's easy to manipulate
How can you manipulate a trend by choosing the reference?
>>
>>10056824
>Let's test if the Earth heats up or not
>>
File: 1512393858781.jpg (151 KB, 950x633)
151 KB
151 KB JPG
>>10057766
>China is a good example

pic related is the air pollution in China
>>
>>10060834
>Why does liberalism think that anyone else will not be "Fuck you, I got mine"?
I mean, it actually worked for the West as a whole under the Pax Americana.
I guess some people are just natural defectors (bastards) rather than cooperators (non-egotists).
>>
>>10057280
well, this but unironically
>>
It's October and it's still fucking summer and the shills are still shilling because that is just their job. The question is why are you retards replying to them?
>>
File: 1535585730114.png (235 KB, 650x487)
235 KB
235 KB PNG
This thread raises an important question. Why isn't /sci/ more right wing. The objective truths board shouldn't be in the same bracket as /his/.
>>
File: 1538687948618.jpg (50 KB, 640x461)
50 KB
50 KB JPG
>>10061659
There's a lot more women on /sci/.
>>
File: 1533192840893.jpg (193 KB, 960x684)
193 KB
193 KB JPG
>>10061873
Yeah, I can tell by the abysmal post quality.
>>
>>10057657
stop replying to yourself
>>
File: MEOW.jpg (60 KB, 480x640)
60 KB
60 KB JPG
>>10061659
I bet it really makes you think that the "objective truths board" have reached a different conclusion than you
>>
>>10060832
Wrong, retard. Replication is getting the same result from repeating an experiment or analysis. It's completely different from prediction. Climatology is both well replicated and produces successful predictions.

>What makes your claims so special that they can't be questioned?
What questions have you asked that haven't been answered?
>>
File: 1521878878264.png (1.75 MB, 1200x1200)
1.75 MB
1.75 MB PNG
>>10062036
>Climatology is both well replicated and produces successful predictions.
>>
>>10062087
This indicates the /pol/tard's confusion and lack of understanding.
>>
File: 1531929244114.png (95 KB, 664x476)
95 KB
95 KB PNG
>>10062099
>Muh /pol/ boogeyman
More screeching is done by "scientists" than actual studies. If your ENTIRE belief on an issue is based around "look at these retarded right wing deniers" or "muh coal lobby", and every study is used to do nothing but push communists world hegemony, then maybe your "science" is complete bullshit.
>>
>>10060834
>Are you willing to make those major lifestyle changes?
Yes, I am.
>If so, why aren't you already?
I already have made almost all of the changes that I can. Ultimately I'd like to have a homestead that I never leave, but that takes more money.
>>
>>10056818
buy realizing its true
>>
>>10057470
>he thinks it cant
>>
>>10062111
>the science is bullshit because I don't like what it implies
I couldn't have described your fallacious "reasoning" better than you just did. What a moron.

And I'm still waiting for these alleged questions that aren't being allowed to be asked.
>>
File: b8.png (42 KB, 500x501)
42 KB
42 KB PNG
oh look it's this thread again, with the same non-science arguments that have been debunked for the Nth time .
If you want to have a climate denial / muh globalists circle jerk, go to /pol/
>>
>>10056818
dude just because it's pretty much proven to be real doesn't mean you need to give a shit about it. we'll all be fucking dead anyways

i believe it's real. do i give a fuck about it? not at all
>>
>>10057405
If your argument is "cant know nuffin"
and "nothing one person does matters" you are a child. You dont know what you are talking about but still feel qualified to offer your opinion, why?
>>
>>10057457
>it's going to make Canada rich as fuck
You cant possibly have this simplistic a view of macroeconomics. You voted for ford didnt you?
>>
>>10057784
Even if we assume you are right, which you aren't, your own philosophy is abjectly garbage and irresponsible. Just because you won't be struck by lightning, have cardiac arrest, and spontaneously combust all at once doesn't mean you should go swimming in kerosene and eating big macs in a thunderstorm.

It's quite clear that you are going to refuse any change because you are dense enough to believe that there is no danger. Lead, asbestos, greenhouse gases, all perfectly safe to you because you are a short term thinker. Saddest part is, you don't even have a stake in oil. If you were some owner of an oil company than I understand your business concerns but you are nothing more than a commoner who sells his future to the industry.
>>
>>10061659
The right-left dichotomy is arbitrary and idiotic, a relic from nineteenth century French revolutionary politics. Objectivity and empiricism, and the knowledge we gain from empirical methods, should not be subordinate to any political ideology; nevertheless, it's a common feature of both the political right and the left to place their beliefs and biases above reality and truth where it suits them to do so. Scientific impartiality and modern politics are incompatible.
>>
>>10061659
what is /his/ like?
>>
>>10057697
>stop trying to shill your red pills here

should be called retard pills since thats what they are these days
>>
File: glasses.jpg (41 KB, 641x530)
41 KB
41 KB JPG
>>10061889
where is india?
>>
>>10056818
https://dailystormer.name/afp-tells-white-people-to-have-one-less-kid-to-stop-global-warming/

Second half of the article touches on climate change being fake. You can skip the first bit if you don't want the /pol/ stuff but if you're posting with Pepe you will like the whole thing.

I don't have articles for these because I don't save them but here are some talking points:

Climatologists have been consistently wrong for over 100 years, why believe them now? Boy who cried wolf.
Climatologists used to threaten about global cooling in the 50s 60s 70s, these idiots can't even make up their mind. (Time magazine article on this if you Google it)
Al Gore and his famous movie about New York city being underwater in 2016. Where is New York now? It also said vast parts of California/Florida would be underwater by now, yet he spent millions that he embezzled from his global warming is charities on a huge mansion in one of his own predicted flood zones. He knew he was lying and using bullshit climatologists data to screw the public out of millions for his own personal gain. Many others also abuse fake climate "science" in the same way by tricking the public. It's about money not saving the world.
The Temperature of Earth is always changing and a few degrees up is normal on the grand scale of Earths history.
>>
File: 1525097083301.jpg (66 KB, 850x400)
66 KB
66 KB JPG
None of you have to believe global warming is fake. In 50 years when literally nothing happens the next generation and generation after that will realize it's all bullshit. And that's all that matters.
>>
>>10056818
Go back to /x/ idiot
>>
>>10064003
Then die because of your stupidity
>>
>>10064019
enjoy wasting your time peddling this bullshit when in a few decades it won't matter at all lmao.
>>
>>10056818
We don't
>>
>>10064023
Enjoy crying because you city was destroyed for believing bullshits read on 4chan
>>
>>10064023
This is like a climate change pascal's wager. If I waste my time on the the climate change meme, all I will have lost is some time. If you do nothing and climate change is real, you will lose everything and die.
>>
>>10064037
This.
>>
>>10064027
>>10064037
>>10064044
Except the outcome for both us is the same. I didn't realize believing in global warming was all it took to prevent it. There's no difference you can make either way. Is arguing on 4chan going to change the outcome? Nope.
>>
>>10064060
Well you know, you nornally take 2 seconds to answer to the idiots here and normally you should have 2 free seconds to do what you want so I don't see the sense of your reply
>>
you know how.
>>
>>10056818
We don't
>>
>>10064060
Well I happen to be a designer and design is at the forefront of which direction industry takes on this question.
>>
What's with this bullshit meme of "le cannot trust the scientists", anyway?
Ok, first of all: some climatologists v. some oil tycoons
Really hard to figure out the liars, not.
Secondly, society is based on trust. Everything you do is based on trusting various entities in society that you don't even consider. Suddenly because you saw some youtube video telling you otherwise, you stop trusting perfectly legitimate social institutions without any justification.
But none the less, this is the dumbest conspiracy theory in the universe. You got David and Goliath switched and you want me to believe that some random academic that could well be one of my professors is the BAD GUY and some random Saudi Prince or American Banker is the GOOD GUY. Fucked up in the head.
>>
>>10056818
We don't because it's true
>>
>>10062087
If I think about my ex, she had:

>a bunch of countries visited photos
>matching tattoos with her two sisters
>pictures with animals
>multiple concert attendances

Obviously she cucked me good.
>>
>>10064120
I could never understand this either. Why yokels are so beholden to robber barons I will never know.
>>
>>10064060
the whole point of this is that the average person has a role to play. but i guess since you don't believe any of this is real, you don't believe that part of it either
>>
>>10064189
It's like an anti-conspiracy theory. Like a normal conspiracy theory has the weak being secretly oppressed by the strong, but this is the complete opposite.
>>
>>10064120
http://thefederalist.com/2018/08/31/explosive-ivy-league-study-repressed-for-finding-transgender-kids-may-be-a-social-contagion/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5299662/
https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/92/7/2519/2598282
>>
>>10063947
>blah blah blah I am stupid and full of shit also something something Al Gore and a prediction failed so science isn't real anymore
>>
File: 1525634573194.png (300 KB, 1283x1275)
300 KB
300 KB PNG
>A bunch of worthless women saying what is and isn't real
The true science is understanding that men are universally superior to holes.
>>
>>10064120
Do you seriously not see the irony in your post?
>>
>>10064275
>Fingers in ears
>Loud screeching
The average climate apologist, ladies and gentlemen.
>>
>>10064275
>la la la I can't hear you
holy fuck lmao.
>>
>>10064288
No.
>>
File: 1538981339568.jpg (83 KB, 960x960)
83 KB
83 KB JPG
You fucking doomsday cultists need to get a job and a hobby.
>>
>>10064357
>doomsday cultists
Have you forgot about your autistic screechings about ZE RACE VAR now?
>>
File: 1539258506208.png (526 KB, 954x736)
526 KB
526 KB PNG
>>10064361
>>
>>10064357
Sure thing Big Brother. "Everything is fine" amirite?
>>
>>10056818
>Look at that guy do that stupid thing. Ha! He got hurt. Serves him right. Another one for the Darwin awards
>Oh no! Climate change is hurting all these poor people who settled in places that don't qualify to sustain life! We need to fix this horrible problem and fight Darwinism!

Literally just white guilt covered with a blanket.
>>
>>10064357
>don't worry about real problems
>worry about some bullshit made up social conflict between the bottom 90% so that the elite can just keep lording and laughing at you
>>
So if you don't like climate change you support nuclear energy right anons?

Also regardless of how true climate change is, the premise is clearly being used as a massive racket and a way to introduce more fucking taxes rather than actually directly fixing the alleged causes of the problems.
>>
File: climate_change_today.jpg (220 KB, 1200x675)
220 KB
220 KB JPG
>caring about the southern states is white guilt
>>
>>10064368
The Jewish elite are the ones pushing "climate change" you retard. All major media, all colleges, the demorat party, silicon valley, all massively Jewish and pushing this climate change. Weird that the only people "denying" this reality are people who aren't jewish...
>>
File: brainlet1.jpg (40 KB, 645x729)
40 KB
40 KB JPG
>gets zero funding
>climate change is a racket
>THOSE EVIL SCHEMING SCIENTISTS
>those poor victim OIL&GAS CEOs
>>
>>10056824
3rd post best post.
>>
Friend, even the oil companies have finally admitted that Climate Change is real and caused by humans.

Accept the world as it is friend. It’s not a meme.

https://www.shell.com/sustainability/sustainability-reporting-and-performance-data/performance-data/greenhouse-gas-emissions/climate-change-public-policy-position.html

https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/sustainability/climate-change/case-studies.html

https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/current-issues/climate-policy/climate-perspectives/our-position
>>
File: polposter.jpg (25 KB, 474x492)
25 KB
25 KB JPG
>DA JOOS I TELL YA DA JOOS DA JOOS DEY TAKE YA MANEY!!!
>>
>>10056840
After the failed predictions of their hypothesis, the climate gate e-mails, the bad data, the fraud adjusting of the data, the failure to show any of the three assumptions of man made climate change, if you can't see that it's all fraud, you're beyond help.
And most people are too stupid to understand the scientific method.
>>
>>10064385
Climate change is CLEARLY a fucking racket even if it is true you absolute imbecile. Please tell me more about how the "carbon tax" will save the planet LOL
>>
>>10064367
You don't understand, first of all most majority of European cities on the continent are near the coast or major rivers. Secondly, the vast majority of inhabitants in American coastal cities are white. New York, Los Angeles, New Orleans, Houston, Chicago, Baltimore, San Francisco, and Seattle are all majority white. You're not thinking clearly because all you see is the nostrum of /pol/ oriented thought which says every modern problem is due to Jews or non-white eaters. While yes we need to depopulate the third world and remove foreign influence from western governments, this issue is more primary than any demographic or ethnic conflict. Climate change, more importantly, will basically destroy the viability of most ecosystems and begin depleting arable land from the bread baskets of the planet far inland. In fact you can expect food production to suffer immensely in the next two centuries alone even before the catalysmic effects of climate change have been felt. Lakes drying up, forest borderlands on fire for months on end, pollinating insects dying off en masse. Its not just flooding we have to worry about, and all of this isn't even beginning to deal with the problems controlling migration as well as the incredible interdependence of these biomes with the waterways of the world and obviously extreme weather patterns, and immense disruption of migratory cycles, population collapse (we're already seeing this in all high biodiversity ecosystems on Earth) and finally just total loss of autotrophs like phytoplankton, extremely low oxygen sections of the seas and rivers, etc. Its going to be hell on Earth, you can't imagine how much suffering it will cause and eventually it will make life for anything more complex than algae or fungi basically unfeasible for thousands if not millions of years. We will go extinct, all the mammals will go extinct, all the birds, reptiles, fish, amphibians, most insects and plankton will go extinct.
>>
File: libertarians_all_jews.jpg (50 KB, 600x340)
50 KB
50 KB JPG
>>10064379
Libertarians are 95% Jewish and 100% climate change deniers. Nice try though.
>>
I don't dispute that CO2 is a GHG and could heat up the planet. What I dispute is the rate at which it is doing so. After garbage study after garbage study saying we are all going to die in 5 years it all becomes somewhat tiresome.
>>
File: brainlet2.jpg (28 KB, 629x504)
28 KB
28 KB JPG
>Climate change
>gets no funding from anyone
>clearly a racket

Meanwhile if you look at the budget of any western country there are countless industries that get subsidies for very questionable reasons.
>>
>>10064406
Sorry sweetie, I'm an anarchist. Gonna have to try to change your /leftypol/ insults.
>>
>>10064415
>climate change
>get no funding


LOL
>>
File: brainlet3.png (24 KB, 543x443)
24 KB
24 KB PNG
>I'm so fucking smart I can do the job better than the whole field of science that I happen to disagree with for entirely unrelated political reasons (because some youtube channel told me they were scary leftists)
>>
>>10064416
You claimed it was a Jewish conspiracy when in fact most western Jews are anti-climate change. And now you claim to follow a Jewish ideology. Moron.
>>
File: brainlet4.jpg (23 KB, 403x448)
23 KB
23 KB JPG
>CLEARLY some well hidden LEFTIST conspiracy is at the root of climate change
>clearly it cannot just be the Oil&Gas companies using their well developed propaganda apparatus to delay policy action to keep profiting
>DON'T FOLLOW THE MONEY
>FOLLOW THIS STUPID RETARDED CONTRIVED BULLSHIT THEORY I CAME UP WITH TO EXPLAIN HOW THE LEFTISTS ARE THE CAUSE OF ALL HARM IN THIS WORLD
>>
>>10064389
...with the help of the goyim, surely. Also, if I was going to make a long term plan to totally exterminate some genetic lineage, I would put them where they would do wrong to me. That way I would hate them and destroy them.
>>
File: brainlet5.jpg (10 KB, 245x206)
10 KB
10 KB JPG
>I watched some Youtube videos
>I read some blog by some Alex Jones tier intellectual
>clearly these sources are just as legitimate as real science
>I only believe in scientists when they confirm my worldview
>matter of fact I don't even need science, because my worldview is already compete and 100% right
>the fuck I come even on /sci/ for I don't know
>>
>>10064423
>I'm so fucking smart I can do the job better than the whole field of science
ayyy, tfw I know that feel!

>>10064430
>well hidden
It's not well hidden. It's just that the number of helpers agreeing not to mention it is very large.
>>
>>10064289
>>10064337
That's a cute way of pretending I said something other than what I said, which was >>10063947 is a post so bereft of sense or scientific understanding that it's laughable that it was posted on /sci/. Of course, I don't expect denialtards to understand why repeating the same canards over and over is unconvincing to someone who has actually looked up all of the relevant facts, because you consistently demonstrate you will repeat the same stupid bullshit over and over and never learn why you're a goddamn idiot.
>muh prediction failed, science don't real
>muh Al Gore
>here, let me just lie about science some more and hope you don't notice it
your mental bile isn't worth a serious response, because I've already destroyed these same arguments fifty times, and the vermin (You) always come back, ready to vomit forth logical fallacies and lies again
>>
File: brainlets.jpg (121 KB, 1024x576)
121 KB
121 KB JPG
>first I said climate change didn't exist
>the world moved on and now everyone believes it exists
>then I said climate change was a natural phenomenon
>the world moved on and now everyone believes it is man-made
>then I said climate change is not a problem, it's good for us
>the world moved on and now everyone believes it is a serious issue
>now I say climate change is alarmist and if that fails I will say it's too late anyway or maybe magic technology will fix it
>it does not matter what the argument is, the point is that I keep sustaining that there should not be any action
>I still believe I'm mostly correct, my friends all agree
>>
File: brainlet.jpg (14 KB, 558x614)
14 KB
14 KB JPG
>>10064481
>not invited to the party
:(
>>
>AGW deniers give up on arguments, spam thread with /pol/ crap.
Wow, no-one could have seen this coming.
>>
>>10064526
http://joannenova.com.au/2018/10/first-audit-of-global-temperature-data-finds-freezing-tropical-islands-boiling-towns-boats-on-land/
>>
>>10064542
>posts a link to a website that is specifically listed by institutional researchers as a source of much misinformation on the internet
>>
File: 1036233920634.jpg (13 KB, 416x76)
13 KB
13 KB JPG
>>10064549
>Expose lies
>Get labeled lies
Pottery.
>>
>>10056818
>>10056818
GOD FUCKING DAMN IT REAKS OF AMERIMUTT /POL/TARDS IN HERE
>>10056840
>>10057558
>>10057563
>>10057704
>>10057753
>>10057747
>>10058466
>>10058793
>>10061659
>>10063947
>>10064289
the average IQ in this thread is below the floor
>>
>>10064555
Sources of information are not equal you brainlet cretin. Am I supposed to give Free Energy Machine people equal weight when I am studying Physics? No of course not.
>>
>>10064401
because people change habits for finaces if we implment a carbon tax more people will stop buying big f350's and drive electric cars
>>
File: 1534548968367.jpg (560 KB, 1287x1691)
560 KB
560 KB JPG
>>10064825
We're hitting retard levels that shouldn't even be possible.
>>
>>10064734
of course free energy is a silly notion. with solar power or wind or gyroscopics there is always a hardware cost
>>
>>10061659
Scientists generally lean left.
http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-4-scientists-politics-and-religion/
This isn't to say that there aren't right-wing scientists, but there is a noticeable trend. Personally, I think it's the result of the difference between conservative and progressive worldviews.

In the conservative worldview, there is a concrete right answer that can be found in the past. To conservatives, a good society is one that adheres as closely as possible to that right answer, and any deviation from it is wrong by definition. This is one reason why conservatives often align themselves with religion. Religions likewise hold that there is a concrete right answer, namely their particular holy text, and that any deviation from that answer is wrong.

In the progressive worldview, there isn't a concrete right answer, just a series of progressively better answers. To progressives, good is a moving target and human society is essentially a form of technology that can always be refined in some way.

Just as the conservative worldview meshes easily with religion, the progressive worldview meshes more easily with science. In science, technology advances and new discoveries are made, potentially changing our understanding of the world around us. Things that seemed like the right answer in the past can be upended by new evidence simply because tools have improved and each round of discoveries is able to build on the last. That concept of gradual improvement fits in somewhat better with the progressive worldview. It's not a perfect fit, there is definitely friction, but it's enough to create general trend.
>>
File: 1136908425813.gif (987 KB, 500x255)
987 KB
987 KB GIF
>>10064839
Holy shit how can one poster be this fucking clueless? I have to sum up this whole thread as retards shitposting, because I just can't take this seriously. People like you are why this board is basically a containment board.
>>
>>10064839
Some excerpts from the link.
>>
>>10064839
This is one of the stupidest takes on progressivism and conservatism I've ever seen
>>
>>
>>
>>10064825
To be fair, it seem like 70% of Carbon Tax supporters are crypto-denialists who just want to create a fake solution that they can then corrupt with a tax that is too low to achieve anything. Case in point the "Nobel" in Economics this year.
Carbon Tax is more of a thing liberal market fanatics invented to try to reconcile climate change with capitalism.
>>
>>10064839
Conservatives, by definition reject paradigm changes. Paradigm changes are sometimes needed. Science cannot be always incremental. There is a lot of philosophy about this stuff but I cannot be arsed to look it up.
>>
>>10064855
I'm just trying to explain the data. If you have a better answer, I'd be happy to hear it.
>>
>>10056818
I lived in the south of my country when I was a 10 or something like that for 5 years.It was always raining and cold. There wasn't sun even on the summer. 10 years after I came back. It hasn't rained the whole year and now we have sun half of the year and negative temperatures on winter. If this isn't climate change it's probably worse.
>>
>>10064863
this. pretty much.
and the hypocrisy of it is apparent when you consider how governments that collect a carbon tax have an incentive to increase consumption of fossil fuels to increase revenue.
>>
>>10064893
Listening to two bystanders describing a car crash is enough for me to say fuck off you liar. Your memory is shit and by willingly spouting something that is not objective; using this information to manipulate others, or make decisions, then you are committing an evil act.
>>
>>10061659
Liberalism comes easy when everyone around you is smart and bourgeoisie.
>>
File: 1533680927483.jpg (183 KB, 1740x533)
183 KB
183 KB JPG
>>10064903
>Smart
>>
>>10064906
askhenazi don't make up 50% of the iq of Israel, closer to a third of the population actually
>>
>>10061889
((((((((((((selected countries))))))))))))))
>>
File: 1539304473084.jpg (125 KB, 545x1251)
125 KB
125 KB JPG
>>10064919
>>
>>10064928
how many euros are german intelligence paying you to sit here and shitpost Hans?
>>
File: SJWs.jpg (9 KB, 203x249)
9 KB
9 KB JPG
>>10064906
>Average IQ in Israel (all Jews)
No, Jews make up 74% of Israel's population, not 100%.

>Average Ashkenazi IQ is 115
It's 110-115. A significant inaccuracy given the numbers involved in the "math" in the image.

>Ashkenazis make up approximately 50% of the Israeli population
There are 2.8 million Ashkenazis in Israel. Israel has a total population of 8.5 million. That is 32% of the Israeli population, not 50%.

Three claims in and the alt-incel polSJW has already lied three times. What a surprise this is.
>>
>>10056818
Anyone trying to talk sense on the topic is immediately labeled as a looney, because climate change is now a buzzword associated with garbage like 2012, the day after tomorrow, or sensationalist news articles claiming the world will be a desert by 2020. The average person is reading headlines on the internet, not journals. If you want to win this war it starts with the media, not the people you're trying to reach.
>>
Funny how you all rush to defend your masters...
>>
>>10064935
not the /pol/nigger but Ashkenazi IQ is almost certainly not an average of 110 anon that's retarded. Its like 105-107 just like east asians. The caveat is that at the far end of the bell curve Jews have an unnatural number of 135+ iq people, much higher rate than any other race on Earth. So while their avg iq is only marginally higher than all European populations, at the elite level they are outpacing anyone else by far (though with a much smaller number of elite iq's than other races, granted higher rate)
>>
>>10064898
It's not shit, it's true
>>
File: WomensRights.png (595 KB, 1500x3719)
595 KB
595 KB PNG
>>10064940
Wrong. Europeans have the highest IQ spread per population percentage.
>>
>>10064938
Funny how you're a pathological liar who wants to be taken seriously.
>masters
Except no one who's actually a person believes your narrative/world view in the first place you imbecile.
>>
File: 1539065357225.png (530 KB, 640x853)
530 KB
530 KB PNG
>>10064959
Yeah, I'm just a russian bot.
>>
File: brainlet7.png (68 KB, 644x573)
68 KB
68 KB PNG
>>10064898
>don't believe yourself
>believe this blog written by a lunatic instead
>>
>>10064893
All over Europe, we have temperatures hovering over 25C even though it is almost mid-October.
>>
>>10064936
Don't think the media is invested in the pro-climate change side, either. I mean, they are just another part of the establishment. Why would they?
>>
>>10064831
>Saying mean things about daddy president is treason >:(
Talk about being fucking zombie npcs.
>>
>>10065066
Party like its 1099
Let Greenland be green land again not some hellish ice shelf
>>
Wait a couple centuries to see what happens
>>
File: 1537175928635.gif (2.81 MB, 310x233)
2.81 MB
2.81 MB GIF
Global warming is literally not real.

Read the Audit of the Creation and Content of the HadCRUT4 temperature dataset. All of the data is crap, and the data used to create (1/4) the ipcc report and others is trash. (((Climate science))) is as valid as sociology or feminist studies.
>>
File: brainlet8.jpg (12 KB, 211x239)
12 KB
12 KB JPG
>I put brackets around the words to strengthen my otherwise non-existing argument
>>
>>10057457
>it's going to make Canada rich as fuck
nope, it'll be a transit passage. Canadian gov will not be able to charge companies for sending ships though it, and it will be so inhospitable along the coast that no major cities will develop there.





Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.