>>16147165
The capitalist jew has brainwashed you to think that wealth transfer from poor to rich via taxation to subsidize big corporations is communist but communist = robin hood and climate change = reverse robin hood.
>b-but muh taxation and regulation *drool*

>>16147165
>>16147224
https://twitter.com/cloverhogan/status/1783429995852964162

Climate change isn't the goal. Equity is the goal. They dont want solutions.

>>16147165
>communism is when Blackrock, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Pfizer, Exxon, BP, Google, Meta, Amazon, Microsoft, IBM, Raytheon, and Lockheed Martin dictate the governments and the central banks to force the population into living in the pod, eating the bugs and owning nothing

>>16147246
>Equity is the goal.
How? One lbs of meat per week maximum for everyone? But carbon credit scores are like catholic indulgence fees so those can't create equality.

File: Crop 2024-04-26 21:09:55+02:00.png (4 KB, 255x29)

4 KB PNG

>>16147165
I think I got the message.
Just one thing I don't understand. Why is there value in shitposts that are public anyway?

File: Molten-Sulfur.jpg (435 KB, 630x630)

435 KB JPG

yes, the planet's climate and temperature changes all the fucking time, it's natural
what isn't natural is the stupid amounts of CO2 humanity has pumped into the atmosphere
it's poison and can make people retarded if it goes much higher

>>16147224
>wealth transfer
fancy word for "stealing"

>>16147288
You sitting at your desk creates a high CO2 environment than what you'll find outdoors.

>>16147165
why did this guy make electric cars if he hates the concept of green energy
Sounds like he doesn't believe in his product at all and just wanted to make money.

>>16147303
EVs can be powered by coal as well as solar.

File: 1714162393713.webm (1.4 MB, 720x1280)

1.4 MB WEBM

Bruh I can't afford a house or groceries. I'd be happy living in a commie block at this point

>>16147165
A manufactured crisis

>>16147224
>The capitalist jew has brainwashed you to think that wealth transfer from poor to rich via taxation to subsidize big corporations is communist but communist = robin hood

adulthood is realizing that both communism and capitalism are poor to rich subsidization systems in practice because all economic systems have always been. It's a feature of human civilization that the people in power eat first. There is no way to impliment robin hood and there never will be. All we can do is get richer as a species so there is more left over for the common man.

>>16147325
Agreed in principle but in practice inequality can increase or decrease. The bottom of the hierarchy must play their role but are demoralized instead. That's not natural.

>>16147165
Of course climate change is real. The alternative position is that the climate is unchanging but a cursory examination of reality reveals that everything changes.

More useful questions would be: To what extent are human activities driving the change? To what extent can we purposefully alter that change? How much will it cost? Who will pay? What happens if we do nothing? etc.

The climate isn't changing at the same rate everywhere or in the same way. Some areas are becoming more habitable for people, some areas are becoming less so. This has been happening since forever. Things might be faster now. It's unclear because as a topic climate change draws in many disingenuous actors i.e. people whos motivation appears to be seeking power or seeking to punish perceived opponents.

>>16147363
>More useful questions would be:
No because rational debate benefits the experts who are so knowledgable and skilled that they are better than anyone else in abusing facts to create false narratives and win the public debate. They must be defeated with retarded memes.

>>16147363
>To what extent are human activities driving the change?
A negligible amount, if any at all.
>To what extent can we purposefully alter that change?
Not at all.
>How much will it cost?
Way too much.
>Who will pay?
The average citizen, through taxation and inflation.
>What happens if we do nothing?
The climate keeps changing back and forth in cycles like it always has as far back as we can observe.

>>16147261
They dont want nuclear power because that would mean people would still continue to functioning society.

They want electric deficient power. So they can remove people's ability to own and drive their own car. All CARS. They dont like electric cars. They dont like gas cars. They want to remove all private ownership. The solutions offered by capitalism doesn't work because it enables individuals to still have freedom.

Their proposed answer is public transportation, expansion of government powers, reduction of energy usage, reduction of meat usage, eating the bugs, depopulation campaigns, castration campaigns, etc.

>>16147272
>posts regularly on 4chan
>complains about incessive shit posting
dilate

>>16147381
good summary

>>16147303
He is a grifter.
Tesla is doing bad and he tries to pivot.

>>16147381
>that would mean
Not necessarily. Either way the powerful will find excuses to increase their control over our lives like for our health, for our safety etc. That's the fate of any system like the other anon said. By the way it needs to be mentioned that Musk's technology supports the plan to totally control our lives.

Yes, and it's human caused. But it is not the end of the world.
The media and the powerful use it to push their agendas and control the people, their best strategy is marrying truth to a lie. But they have a whole dialectic playbook.
>truth and lie to manipulate
>set up to feed any reaction so it becomes an overreaction
>use overreaction to take back power or just infiltrate it and wait for the next pendulum swing to the left to make even more commie shit
Example:
>industry fucks climate
>we need carbon tax and government control or we all die!!!
>push, push, push ridiculously
>reactionaries push for fascism
>help fascism happen
>government now huge
>infiltrates already there, all power figures can be blackmailed from their data, from their epstein island visits, from their woke brainwashed kids
>feed revolution against fascism
>get the government and make it even harder
>>16147317
All according to keikaku.

>>16147306
petrol and diesel cars can only be powered by fuels so they're more fascist and suit him more.
Teslas are associated with liberals and communists. Fascist conservatives don't buy them.

>>16147401
he should make Tesla pollute the environment more

>>16147303
No, its because regular folks dont understand what the "climate" agenda extremists want.

See >>16147381

Meanwhile solutions like nuclear energy, electric cars, solar panels, etc are seen as evils by the the extremists. They are evil because it allows individual ownership and individual means of control. Thats antithetical to their "climate" activism, which is socialism.

>>16147447
this guy gets it

>>16147165
I don't give a fuck what Elon Musk is talking about

File: 114Tangela.png (202 KB, 431x431)

202 KB PNG

>>16147165
>Is Climate Change Real?

From a natural, "the planet doing it's thing in order to preserve and achieve homeostasis"? Yes. Climate change has historically happened and will continue to happen. There's nothing wrong with acknowledging that and making adaptive decisions in response to natural phenomena.

From an "industry is making too much pollution & carbon and if we don't stop we'll cook like a dog in a van" Sort of. There's problems.
-The first problem is we're collectively very bad at making predictive models for the environment because we actually know jackshit about biology, ecology, and the environment in general. We're excellent at collecting data, making lab models, simulations, understanding particles, physics, chemistry, etc.. But the environment could be considered 'alive'ish' and it's constantly doing new things we can't account for that in turn make 'us' look stupid.

-The only 'real' method of environmentalism is restoration and conservation: grow things back and leave them alone. But then our environmentalist models of action have been completely hijacked by globalist consultants & industrial capitalists and their, frankly insane, carbon markets that have it in their head that it's perfectly fine to remove a biome or ecosystem if they can compensate it's 'estimated value' and/or cultivate a new one of equal or greater value in some hypothetical future.
Do you know that thing Wimpy from Popeye always says? The, "I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today" ? That's basically official policy now.

In 1969 Lake Eerie was so polluted it caught on fire and burned for 30 minutes. In 1972 Richard Nixon signed the Clean Water Act that effectively made it illegal for that kind of thing to happen and set the EPA on the war path to cleaning the rivers and lakes of America. Something like this is basically impossible in our super cool 'reductive' carbon emission meme future.

File: concrete-arrow-beacon-ent(...).jpg (52 KB, 640x480)

52 KB JPG

>>16147447
One of the most eye opening parts of the pandemic was how many of my friends I made from when I was a transit activist were angry about the huge expansion of work from home. They should have been overjoyed by it. It had always been one of the "commute alternatives" that we pushed but once it finally happened on a large scale, many of them revealed themselves to really be authoritarians in favor of forcing everyone to live in dense city centers with only government supplied transportation to get around. Turned out many of them were anti-car not because of worries about climate change or pollution but because cars allowed people to live distant from the problems of the city. If they can do that, they don't have an incentive to care about and help solve the problems of cities. In the end, it comes down to a desire to make their problems into everyone's problem so everyone will be forced into solving their problems for them.
pic unrelated

File: global-thermonuclear-war.gif (1.25 MB, 480x270)

1.25 MB GIF

>>16147502
>falken's maze
>global thermonuclear war
Doesn't look very different from the total war on climate, so where is the difference, i.e. not complete annihilation of whatever?
This is why I oppose action on climate change btw.

PS
The IPCC only discusses scientific theories
PPS
the only winning move...

I want to fight climate change AND to eat the rich.

>>16147521
>In the end, it comes down to a desire to make their problems into everyone's problem so everyone will be forced into solving their problems for them
Even then it sounds slightly positive. But thats not it either. As I said before, they dont want a solution to fix the problem. They want THEIR solution. Which is to implement fascist socialist ideology. They see technology as a threat to their ideology. They see prosperity as a threat to their ideology. They see free people as a threat to their ideology. When free and prosperous people propose a technological solution, they hate them for it.

I want to say its a subversion of the original "climate" ideology which has morphed into a globohomo socialist order cult. But I think I might be bit too naive on that. Its possible that the original ideology of climate relies upon hatred of free society and the seed of communist ideology was supplanted to destroy the society itself. Yes grand conclusion, but the way its going, I cant rule it out yet

>>16147539
those are not conflicting ideologies.
they're both part of communism these days

>>16147794
Not if the rich wrap themselves up in a rainbow.

>>16147165
Yes but humans can't do anything about it

>>16147165
Of course it's real. But it is natural. The climate changes throughout the day because the Earth rotates on its axis. The climate changes throughout the solar year as the Earth rotates around the sun. The climate changes throughout the galactic year as the Sun orbits the Milky Way.

>>16147165
>Is Climate Change Real?
yes, but human CO2 emissions play only a smaller role

>>16147165
we live in an age where chang and igor will employ pajeet to convince barry, hans and pierre that climate ain't real, all while pajeet will get fucked first and the hardest.

>>16147255
Corporations have somehow brainwashed people into thinking corporations are communist but to oppose them we have to prop up the corporations. And both conservatives and liberals fall for it hook, line and sinker.

>>16149564
Just one flaw with this analysis: a substantial portion, perhaps even a majority of "woke" people are white. Non-racist white people are not shunned or ostracised by the movement. The people this is supposed to "divide and conquer" aren't divided by it. Keyboard warriors like you who whine about mentions of racism in the media are, because you feel personally attacked. So if you want to do something about it, look to yourself.

>>16149680
>(((WHITE)))

>>16147303
Teslas aren't about saving the environment

>>16149735
current EVs are transition EVs, you cannot have good EVs without a causal chain for having them. everything we do we make better in incremental steps. if you want that super clean proper EV with all that, you need something worse before it, makes logical sense anon.
the most retarded twitter tier argument is seething that last 5 years EVs are not all that when you had 100 fucking years of gas cars before. it's not reasonable, and all of this while the whole fucking planet tried to fuck with Tesla so they aren't successful.

>>16149726
There aren't enough Jews in the world to substantiate your aspersions

File: How_Black_Men_Are_Seen_In(...).jpg (840 KB, 1280x1915)

840 KB JPG

>>16149680
>a majority of "woke" people are white.

Almost all Woke people are White.
The rest of the world can clearly see the truth.

>>16149677
Fabian Society

>>16151081
>>16147255

>>16147255
Look at this typical rightwing conspiritard gish gallop. Why do you censor the most important part of their message?
Sure, they will be in the pod.
Yes, they will be eating bugs.
And yeah, they will own nothing.
But you forgot one thing: they will be happy.
And isn't that what really matters?

>>16147224
The capitalist has brainwashed you into thinking there just isn't enough for everyone, but the only scarce things are jobs and money, and it's set up that way on purpose, or at least there is no reason for it to be that way.

>>16147296
You think the poor in the ghetto care? They need thrir food stamps and medicaid. Sooner or later these guys are going to vote in real socialists and we are all going to really suffer.

>>16147317
Then I suggest moving to Cuba

This is a /pol/ thread. The mods have udderly failed in their only job.

Sage

>>16147288
>it's poison
That kind of poison that makes plants grow.

>>16151125
>a happy life in the stone age is of the same quality and equally valuable as a happy life in modernity
Relativism has damaged your brain.

>>16150511
>power fantasies of "this is what i'd do if i was in charge"
The bigger concern is that they don't self-correct when they see that the real consequences of what they think is good are actually bad.

>>16151138
>thinking there just isn't enough for everyone
As long as there are people who prefer predatory strategies over symbiotic strategies the symbiotes must act like predators to predators and as symbiotes to symbiotes. Climate change policy is a wolf in sheeps' clothing. That's what the controversy is about.

>>16150511
but the right side of the picture is in fact from another religion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfwMpxhrCYE

>>16151431
Stop talking in riddles, it doesn't make you sound smart, and people will think that you are schizophrenic.

>>16151642
>riddles
We use abstractions to summarize a truckload of details. That's how conversations on an academic level work because a shared knowledge base between conversation partners is assumes. If it's not clear what I'm referring to, like the word ''relative'' of who ''they'' are or why I use terms like ''predator'' and ''symbiote'' then you can just ask me to clarify so you can check whether or not my words are empty before you label me as a schizo.

>>16151652
People speak like that when they lack sufficient abstraction to grasp the problem.

>>16151671
Instead of attacking what content of my statement you don't agree with you're attacking the way I use language. That reminds me of political ideology derived from post-modern philosophy: very telling.

>>16151694
Think of a neural network, which is trained to identify tachycardia. You can train it to read the ECG, and tell you if it's tachycardia, even identifying various kinds of tachycardia, and it doesn't have to know what a heart is. Tahycardia is much less abstract than a fast heartbeat.

I'm an Earth scientist. The data you need to understand that question is freely available. The best source of information is the IPCC but for some reason people have poisoned the well and claimed that anyone who claims man made climate change is real is somehow a shill of .... 'science' I guess? With some tenuous claims about a conspiracy or something based on misunderstanding emails from 15 years ago that were long ago debunked.

So here's sources not related to the IPCC, however, keep in mind, the IPCC's job is literally to inform the public about the reality of man made climate change.

Here's ExxonMobil admitting climate change is real and caused by humans:
https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/sustainability-and-reports/advancing-climate-solutions

Here's BASF a major petroleum chemical company admitting climate change is real and caused by humans:
https://www.basf.com/us/en/who-we-are/change-for-climate.html

Here's BP pretending they care about reaching netzero, which is addressing the damages their own company causes:
https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/sustainability/getting-to-net-zero.html

Friend, even the oil companies admit climate change is real and caused by humans. You can fudge numbers all you want, you can pretend some super conspiracy by ordinary scientists but you can't escape the fact that even oil companies now are forced to admit their product is dangerous and hurting people. Something they would never do if the evidence weren't completely against them.

>>16151708
A human is a pattern recognition machine. The goal of my posts is to point out those patterns because that's one level up in awareness from not recognizing those patterns at all. Now we can misunderstand what those patterns mean like the famous example of the rooster and the sun, but it's still up to you to point out where my interpretation is wrong. Stop stringing me along if you're serious or continue without my reply.

remember when the ozone hole was correlated with refrigerant patents?

>>16151736
Yes there's a picrel suggesting how it could be seen as a business model.

>>16151734
Your reply had nothing to do with what I said. I said that capitalism only pretends scarcity - so for example, there isn't enough houses for everybody, so we have to determine who gets to own one. There isn't enough bread for everybody, so we have to somehow decide who gets to eat. But this almost never happens in reality, and the only two scarce things are jobs and money, and there are empty houses, amd people who can't afford to buy one.

>>16151748
There's a bunch of careless people at the top of capitalism that don't care about these problems the lower end face and are controlling things and stopping help from coming so they can keep their top position. Largely due to luck

>>16147165
Didn't Elon used to market his electric cars on the basis of them being environmentally friendly? What changed?

>>16151748
>But this almost never happens in reality
It is reality. It's the darwinian nature of living beings, the biological motivation systems of fear/desire, punishment/reward, pain/pleasure and all the psychology that derives from these biological motivation system like the will to exercise power over others, territorial behaviour etc. Human emotions are a dashboard for how well we satisfy these drives. It feels good to do better than anyone else.

You seem to want to downplay the reality biology in favor of the fantasy of social constructivism and morality. Instead I propose to recognize that some humans have a different kind of biology: they feel better when sharing and cooperating rather than dominating.

>>16151757
Elon is a hack fraud but here he is right. There's too many climate change grifters who have ulterior motives

>>16151757
People want electric cars to be a good alternative. What people don't want is to be forced to switch and pay through the nose. Teslas were marketed more as a high-performance electric sportscar than a save-the-planet-mobile.

>>16152183
that's how you make it cheap. start with expensive small number models then expand build capability and make that cheaper and cheaper. I think it's a business model or something

>>16152183
Electric motors are superior, it has always been propaganda to show electric cars as slow and weak. An ICE can never reach the torque of an electric motor.

>>16152701
EVs are trash

>>16153556
Try beating one in a race.

File: Ccl_climate_dividend_cycl(...).png (85 KB, 1024x724)

85 KB PNG

Here's how to cut the Gordian knot:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_fee_and_dividend

>>16153810
You're going to have issues with step one and step two. You'd have to beat the lobbying power of fossil fuel corporations who would lose money from having to raise their prices. You'd also have to convince politicians to evenly distribute a bunch of money to every citizen, which is a political nonstarter. Instead of the perfect solution what we need is any solution because what we have currently is a plan to delay action for as long as possible.

>>16147363
This. It's literally a coin flip argument. Either nothing happens or something happens. The former is more absurd than the latter. Full stop.

>>16153931
You are retarded beyond belief. This is already happening and you don't even see it.

>>16154750
Which part is already happening? People winning lobbying wars against fossil fuel companies? Taxes are being evenly redistributed to the citizens instead of just the rich people? One of us is definitely a retard.

>>16147303
>why did this guy make electric cars if he hates the concept of green energy
Where'd you get that from?

>>16155953
Take an economics class, moron. Raising prices reduces sales.

>>16157139
People get angry at Musk for being successful because they're jealous of him

>>16147347
So what if they’re demoralized, they’ll still keep making money and serving the rich until they drop dead. The rich are untouchable gods and you should respect them.

>>16147165
Yes, it's called the sun getting brighter and the Earth's core cooling down, plus ninus whatever random events happen on the planet surface.
>>16147224
fpbp

File: download.png (144 KB, 1696x1325)

144 KB PNG

>>16158224
That's not what's happening

>>16159252
Gistemp uses NOAA surface stations and NOAA surface stations are almost entirely badly sited on asphalt in and around urban areas and as such are ruined by heat island effect.

>>16159283
Even if we took what you said at face value that wouldn't explain an increasing trend, especially not when solar insolation is decreasing.

>>16149680
>>16149726
>>16149816
>>16149826
don't see any unmentioned relevant points left here, but do see the lack of some coup de gras that rebinds this ideological divide which probably would be something like /sci/ is >>16156998 and not being racist means you're okay with >>467082268 or in other words people are still only parroting their respective echo chamber's bs

>>16159752
scuse me it's a post on /pol/

>>16147165
Yes. It is. It can be and has been measired. /thread

File: Imminent War.png (560 KB, 1278x667)

560 KB PNG

>>16147165
It doesn't matter if it's real or not for two reasons.

1)
>It isn't related to humans and is completely out of our control

2)
>It is caused by humans and the only solution is to wipe out a massive percentage of the human population

Whether it is or is not our fault or if it is even real at all it doesn't matter because the only solution would be more horrendous then the problem itself.

>>16159755
about hunger

I mean yeah to some extent. Is it as chronic as purported by the media? I cannot imagine so, but things such as ocean acidification are certainly real. Also, it would be nice to just not live in a chinese esque shithole if possible, even if there weren't any side effects, I don't want smog in my cities and garbage in my rivers. Let's keep the third world in the third world if possible

>>16159830
>but things such as ocean acidification are certainly real
no it isn't

>>16153702
insanely easy in any endurance race
try driving it on a highway for any amount of time
they are for cities only

>>16159334
cities are growing and heat island effect grows with city size
and we are more and more obsessed with paving every inch of soil within the cities

>>16149735
All motorized transport is for the degenerate and doesn't help the environment either.

>>16147317
>posts communist/statist divide and conquer tactics between the genders

>>16161129
helps the people. you alive doesn't help the environment so you know what you have to do to save "the environment"

>>16147377
>>16147381
this

>>16147408
>the fate of any system
of government. If you could set in to motion a system devoid of government, this fate would be avoided

>>16153810
>surely price controls will work this time!
Price controls don't work. You're ilk just want to steal from other people and call it a tax. KYS promptly.

>>16161145
youre a bit confused arent you ? Degenerate motorist. The minds weakness rivals that of the body. Typical for your kind.

>>16153810
This cycle would reduce the size of the econmy by forcing people to use costly "climate friendly" (reality is untaxed products) alternatives.

By increasing the price of goods, you reduce people's wellbeing. You are scum.

>>16156391
Sadly most people don't even understand how prices are determined. This is a principle reason for why the vote should not be universal, or at minimum highly restrict what can be voted on.

>>16161162
how tf do you get around, ride a fucking horse?

>>16159766
>2)
>It is caused by humans and the only solution is to wipe out a massive percentage of the human population
Exactly. This is the logical end point of all climate change nonsense, and I'd suggest the wider concept of leftism as a whole.

The problem leftists/climate types point out is humans making an impact on the environment. The only foolproof way to eliminate human imapct on the envrionment is to exterminate all humans.
This dovetails perfectly with the wider antinatalism of leftism, and is part of why envrionmentalism attracts them so much. That and it gives them an excuse to further steal other people's things.

Leftism is the product of dysgenics.

>>16161168
Healthy and functioning humans have legs and are capable of bipedal locomotion. For the extended trip I recommend a bicycle. Cripples, elderly, women, weak, injured, children and other degenerates of course have my blessings when using motorised means of transportation as everyone should have the possibility to participate.

>>16161179
bruv that'll just make everyone get a cripple permit. or literally get crippled so they get the permit.

>>16161192
I don't see how my opinion of them would make anyone want to do anything.

>>16161126
The magnitude of the effect doesn't increase with city size and decreasing solar insolation would lead to decreasing temperatures even if the weather stations are all on asphalt.

>>16161123
t. Never even seen an EV

>>16161056
how

>>16147165
Yes it’s real. The denialists just like slurping oil nozzles too much to admit it is real. It is seen with your very eyes, every average temperature has been higher than the last. Does this mean the socialist solution? Of course not. Texas already mogs California on green energy despite California being socialist and socialist China is making more coal. Free market forces are solving climate change more than the socialist countries, explain that.

>>16162125
>explain that.
Subsidies

File: Stalin_dictator_black.png (269 KB, 524x540)

269 KB PNG

>>16147165
>Is Climate Change Real?
yes.

>>16147246
>Climate change isn't the goal
it's not a goal, it's a phenomenon. Attempting to stop CO2-induced global warming is a goal

>>16162125
>Free market forces are solving climate change more than the socialist countries, explain that.
I won't explain that because it's simply not true.
If it weren't for governments' socialistic environmental efforts, the green economy would not have gotten started

>>16162209
CO2 doesn't cause global warming

>>16151731
Over a week. My post is still ignored.

You guys don’t want facts about climate change. You want propaganda.

>>16162828
nobody read your self indulgent wall of text, you only presumed they would because you have a personality disorder that clouds your judgement

>>16163423
Cope harder

>>16164622
don't you think is selfish and presumptuous to presume that anyone wants waste time reading your long winded garbage? why should they? imagine posting a wall of text and then crying because nobody replied to it. you seem desperate for attention, but writingtoIQ scores your post at 78 IQ so you're not worthy of attention even though you clearly presume you are.

File: trudeau.jpg (14 KB, 193x258)

14 KB JPG

>>16147317
Don't worry. The state will give you all the help you need to kill yourself.

File: muh globohomo warming.jpg (111 KB, 716x1024)

111 KB JPG

>>16162204
LMAO, only commies are stupid enough to believe in such crackpot nonsense.

>>16165250
>LMAO, only commies are stupid enough to believe in such crackpot nonsense.
incredibly ignorant person detected, also a very empty, hurt narcissistic person detected, or they would not feel the need to seek valuation by mocking others. Sad, many such cases.

>>16161339
their already bad range gets even worse at high speeds
which is why you often see EVs driving slowly on longer trips
have you never left the city you live in?

>>16166036
t. Never even seen an EV

File: 1697250009160862.gif (2.95 MB, 320x567)

2.95 MB GIF

>>16147165
Even climate change denialists have been slowly coming around. Absolute denialists are increasingly rare. It's just that it's moving from "the climate isn't changing, it's all a hoax" to "of course the climate is changing but we have nothing to do with it". The next step is "we're causing it but there's nothing we can do to fix it so there's no point trying".

>>16159252
> cherry picked time period

>>16161155
>functional analfabetism
No, carbon dividends goes directly back to the population. AND it should be raised at a pre determined rate.

The beauty is that the government can't hoard money that they can spend money on special projects. IFF the government want to spend money on R&D, they have to spend regular tax money.

>>16165250
>shitty bad faith image 2: the retardening

>>16167928
>Even climate change denialists have been slowly coming around. Absolute denialists are increasingly rare. It's just that it's moving from "the climate isn't changing, it's all a hoax" to "of course the climate is changing but we have nothing to do with it". The next step is "we're causing it but there's nothing we can do to fix it so there's no point trying".
Nice sum-up. Also harping about how many chinese and indians there are yadda yadda is just doomerism. With carbon dividends that raises custom barriers against these conuntries (it wasn't like that someone forced corporations to outsource their production)

>>16159766
Fake dichtomy, meet:

>>16161174
Dishonest enabler.

How people can deny climate change when its effects can be seen in living memory is beyond me

>>16147165
It doesn't matter.
Just adapt.
Change only hurts rent seekers.

>>16147224
Robinhood didn't steal from the rich to distribute to the poor. Robinhood stole from an overtaxing government. Communism is trusting the government to be honest and fair equally. Goodluck

>>16168479
>Robinhood didn't steal from the rich to distribute to the poor. Robinhood stole from an overtaxing government.
Under Feudalism, they were one and the same. Wealthy nobles used tax money to enrich themselves; Robin Hood wanted the tax money to be used for wealth redistribution and took matters into his own hands.

>>16151381
>That kind of poison that makes plants grow.
Yes.
BUT YOUR NOT A PLANT
DUMBASS

>>16147447
>nuclear energy...
>allows individual ownership and individual means of control
?
If you wanted real ownership and means of control you'd want decentralization not multi-billion state megaprojects

>>16169773
>Sound like a familiar story?
far, far too familiar

>>16167934
>It's totally normal for something to get warmer when there's less sunlight

>>16151652
>That's how conversations on an academic level work
and who the fuck should care about that on this board?

>>16169342
*you're

File: NASA-US-1999-2019-1.gif (87 KB, 700x538)

87 KB GIF

>>16170845

File: wind power did the slave trade.jpg (206 KB, 1204x1336)

206 KB JPG

>>16147303
He had a mental breakdown after one of his kids trooned out and he blames liberals rather than the fact he's a shitty father

>>16171912
He should blame lead deficiency, and whoever forced the conspiracy theory that it is toxic.

>>16171912
>the trans atlantic slave trade
should be called "the jewish slave trade" since the jews were selling their negro slaves in europe as well as in the americas

>>16171912
wind power sisters, are we really responsible for slavery?

>>16174250
negroes living in america are the wealthiest, longest lived, best educated and have the highest standard of living of negroes anywhere on the planet, if you're responsible for that then negroes owe you a lot of gratitude

>>16174411
/pol/'s Razor, Secunda...

>>16161162
>cyclist hands wrote this post
arent you busy cutting off traffic and mowing down pedestrians

>>16147255
It's literally textbook fascism, I don't see how it "not being exactly communism" makes it any better.
>>16147165
Elon is a retard, green policy is like half his net worth.

>>16176483
He cashed in on it because he is a clever businessman who saw an opportunity to make money, not because he believes global warming is real. Do you have any idea how massive the carbon footprint of SpaceX is?

>>16177939
cobalt mining is also a major CO2 emitter

File: diesel powered EVs.jpg (474 KB, 2309x1309)

474 KB JPG

>>16178915
EVs have a larger carbon footprint than real cars do

>>16174411
Yeah no shit. Look at any black country. Being black and poor in america is better than being rich in any African country. Atleast your safe in america. Unless another black man murders you lol.

>>16169342
no shit faggot

but the more plants we have the more oxygen and renewable resources

why are leftists so fucken dumb lol

>>16180082
I hope you're trolling.

>>16147165
Fanum tax skibidi rizz

>>16151381
CO2 isn't a pollutant

>>16147165
of course, climate always changes. Implied in the word. Details and propaganda dumbness reservered for idiots and /sci retards. Like (YOU)?.

>>16182020
Literally this.
I laugh my ass off when leftoids in zoology or archeology are talking about the late Cretaceous and how it was the hottest the planet has ever been and life was flourishing. No self awareness.

Climate alarmism is a cult. Nothing we do could kill all life on Earth. There is no way to "kill" a planet, as they so often say. Nor is the planet burning. We can literally live in space, there is no condition on Earth that could pose an existential threat to the human species.

All the useful idiots who scream their heads off about this shit and glue themselves to road are unknowingly doing the bidding of people who use climate change as an excuse to lower standards of living and import cheap migrant labor. All western governments say this same shit, and so do all corporations and celebrities. I honestly don't know how lefties maintain the cognitive dissonance to believe that they are being counter-culture by repeating those talking points. It's always the same
>we need to eat less meat and more bugs
While the rich eat premium cuts
>we need to give up the independence of our own modes of transportation
While our politicians fly around the world to conferences they could hold online instead
>we need to open our borders to climate migrants
While we don't even provide for our own nationals.

Nothing but a con.

>>16147165
doesn't matter because its not your problem and you don't have any power to fix it. sit back, relax, and watch everyone else lose their heads over a non issue.

>>16182614
>>16182510
>>16182020
>>16181983
>>16180082
Retard takes

>>16147255
This, this isn't communism or socialism and sure as fuck isn't "crony capitalism", this is ultracapitalism. Political favours can be bought and sold because the market is freer, even the people evidently aren't.

>>16147303
His stainless steel rust buckets are being buck broken by chinese EVs, he needs a different grift.

No and I am tired of pretending it is just because conservatives suck.

>>16182714
Nice deboonk. If only your masters would pay you.

>>16183583
If there is no free market, there is no capitalism. The market isn't free, therefore we do not live under capitalism. All western states live under Democratic Socialism. Every fucking country imposes laws on its people to force them to cooperate and eliminate inequalities. And it's not even like they are under the banner of equality of opportunity, it's brazenly equality of outcome.
Affirmative action, hate speech laws, protected classes, Equality Diversity & Inclusion funding, the list goes on.

You're so poisoned against a system you've never even experienced that you're raging against the system you asked for.

>>16185124
$2/hr is good wage in India
t. jeet

>>16147165
It's a distraction from industrial pollution
your heart and brain is too full of plastic and sneed oils and corn syrup and rot to know better.

>>16161142
>you should just put up with cuckpitalism and it's consequences you cummunist scum how dare you want to live a better life!!
I'm an ecofascist

>>16183490
>>16179562
nonsense, cars are inefficient and central generators are way better with fuel
while ideally they should get their power from renewables and none fossils, it's better in every way than a gas powered car
if anything it keeps the pollution away from the city

>>16176483
>It's literally textbook fascism
Mussolini literally nationalized over 90% of the Italian economy retard

>>16186076
And the Nazis were literally national socialists

>>16169342
We breathe the stuff that photosynthesizers produce as a waste product, so it's a win-win scenario.

>>16186082
North Korea is literally a Democratic Republic. Retard.

>>16186120
And apartheid is just an immigration policy

File: graph_twitter_o2.png (102 KB, 1240x620)

102 KB PNG

>>16186112
Are you aware that every atom of carbon added to the atmosphere is a molecule of oxygen that you can never breathe again? That's what happens when you dig up carbon and burn it. The fire eats the oxygen.

File: microplastics.png (569 KB, 943x912)

569 KB PNG

>>16185818
>your heart and brain is too full of plastic
Amazing how """microplastics""" were shilled in the media as causing cancer and heartattacks just as people started questioning the safety of the vaccine with the shortest development time in history.

>>16186263
You do realise as CO2 increases, plants produce more O2?
https://phys.org/news/2023-11-absorb-co2-human-previously.html

There was supposed to be a limit on how much CO2 plants could handle. Just like every climate model ever made: it's wrong.

If I choose to trust your graph (and by the way, there's no reason I should because although it names a source it doesn't say what study this was, and the lack of any other gasses measured even just for comparison is extremely sus) there must be an explanation other than production of CO2.

>>16186626
You are a moron. Where do you think the oxygen comes from in CO2? You dug up the C and used the atmospheric O2 to burn it. Now that oxygen is locked up in that carbon. It doesn't matter how many plants there are, more carbon dioxide means less oxygen. You should have learned this in high school chemistry.

>>16186263
>Are you aware that every atom of carbon added to the atmosphere is a molecule of oxygen that you can never breathe again?
That's not how that works, retard. CO2 is measured in PPM, it is a volumetrically irrelevant portion of the atmosphere, and oxygen levels were higher than today during the Mesozoic, when CO2 levels were consistently three times or more higher than today.

>>16186647
>more carbon dioxide means less oxygen.
Wrong. Oxygen levels during the cretaceous were higher than today and so were CO2 levels. You are wrong and should delete all of your posts.

File: 2015-06-01-b.jpg (78 KB, 500x250)

78 KB JPG

>>16186707
>>16186711
You're denying basic chemistry because conditions were different at another point in time without considering the context of that point in time. You could easily look up the actual data, but you don't want to because you know you're wrong.

>>16186955
>you could easily look up the data
>doesn’t even provide a source on this graph
Getting desperate

>>16186962
Do you really not know how to work a search engine? You keep complaining about the source, but the source is in the image. Here, have a bunch of articles that should be able to explain this to you using small enough words for you to understand.

https://www.sciencefocus.com/planet-earth/is-atmospheric-oxygen-declining-and-does-it-matter

https://askanearthspacescientist.asu.edu/is-earth-losing-oxygen

https://ugc.berkeley.edu/background-content/oxygen-levels/

Read any article. Literally any article. All you have to do is click on one and it will take you right to the page, and then you can just read it right off the page. I don't think I can make this any simpler for you, so I hope you can figure it out this time.

>>16187014
Youve fallen for the classic blunder, posting sources that don’t support what you’re saying, hoping no one will read them

1st one says nothing about CO2 production at all. In fact it talks about plants that absorb O2.

2nd one discusses CO2 production but says:
>Even when you breathe, you’re breathing in oxygen and exhaling carbon dioxide. So every year, as there are more and more people on the planet (over 7.5 billion right now) and as we cut down more forests, we’re consuming oxygen faster than it’s being replaced.
And later says:
>But the good news is this: LOTS of oxygen is already in the atmosphere. Compared to the 20% oxygen that is already there, changes in oxygen every year are less than 0.001%. It would take over 1000 years to really notice a difference.

And the 3rd one mentions fossil fuels but mostly attributes lower O2 to a decline in sea algae.

So you were asked to show that more CO2 means less Oxygen, and instead you showed that not only is the decline in Oxygen not because of more CO2 (it’s because of a decline in O2 replacement mechanisms), you also showed that the effect is completely negligible at 0.001% per year or less.

Oh, and for some reason you didn’t choose to use either of the sources for the graphs you posted here:
>>16186955
>>16186263
Pretty odd choice since you used them as evidence earlier. Mayhaps the studies don’t say what you claim?

>>16187159
You are just desperate to pretend that oxygen is increasing aren't you?

First source, first paragraph
>Oxygen makes up one-fifth of the air we breathe, but it’s the most vital component – and it does seem to be declining. The main cause is the burning of fossil fuels, which consumes free oxygen.

Second source, second and third paragraphs
>It takes two oxygen atoms (and a carbon atom) to make carbon dioxide (CO2). This means that all of these processes that make CO2 are taking oxygen out of the atmosphere. But the formation of oxygen happens at lower rates. Even when you breathe, you’re breathing in oxygen and exhaling carbon dioxide. So every year, as there are more and more people on the planet (over 7.5 billion right now) and as we cut down more forests, we’re consuming oxygen faster than it’s being replaced.

>But the good news is this: LOTS of oxygen is already in the atmosphere. Compared to the 20% oxygen that is already there, changes in oxygen every year are less than 0.001%. It would take over 1000 years to really notice a difference.

Third source, third paragraph
>Atmospheric oxygen levels are very slowly decreasing today due to the burning of fossil fuels, which consumes oxygen, and deforestation which reduces oxygen production, but not enough to alter biological processes

For fucks sake, can you even read? How about you post a source that shows that oxygen is increasing? Could it be because one doesn't exist?

>Pretty odd choice since you used them as evidence earlier
Yes, strange how literally every source shows that oxygen is decreasing, not increasing, and it's so strange that I brought you five different sources to demonstrate that. Now, I have lead you to water and poured it into your mouth, all you have to do is swallow.

>>16147325
This

>>16187782
>literally cannot answer why he had to google unhelpful sources instead of quoting the ones he'd already posted graphs from
I feel like I'm watching a drowning man.

>>16188363
>unhelpful sources
Are you illiterate? They all say oxygen is dropping. Let's see you provide a source saying that oxygen is increasing.

>I feel like I'm watching a drowning man
Ironic.

>>16187782
>but it’s the most vital component
wrong, people survive just fine in nepal living with less than half the oxygen sea level sissies live with. if atmospheric CO2 were halved then everyone would starve to death because plants wouldn't be able to grow effectively.

>>16151731
come on. people are trying to work here and you make it hard for them. if they lose this easy job it means back to the shit mines or whatever industry they have in india.

>>16188593
>They all say oxygen is dropping. Let's see you provide a source saying that oxygen is increasing.
That wasn't at issue. Do I need to remind you of your own claims?
>>16186263
>Are you aware that every atom of carbon added to the atmosphere is a molecule of oxygen that you can never breathe again?
Literally is not true. You were told it isn't true, and in trying to prove that it is true, you accidentally proved that it isn't.
O2 does not necessarily drop because of CO2 producition, and it certainly isn't true that once O2 is converted to Oxygen you lose the molecule for breathing forever, which is precisely what you said.
There are O2 mechanisms for recycling CO2 into Oxygen. Every elementary school child knows this. Your sources say it too. The problem is that those mechanisms are declining for other reasons. Ergo, O2 go down. If those mechanisms were not in decline, O2 and CO2 could be balanced, or O2 production could even out pace CO2 production, which according to you is completely impossible.

>>16189111
Okay, so you lost an argument on the internet and now you're going to sit there and pretend you said something other than what you're literally quoted as saying.
If that's how you want to spend your life.

It's real but overblown. Climate change is going to result in more crazy weather like tornadoes and hurricanes and they will be far powerful. Less water so less food or more expensive food. Your going to notice diseases spread more instead of staying south. But it won't kill humanity off. At worst maybe 10s of millions die from starvation and the bulb effect. Which just means it's really hot and humid so the human body can't cool itself off with sweating.

>>16189111
>If the carbon comes from the ground then where does the oxygen come from?
NTA the oxygen comes from the atmosphere, of course. But eventually we will run out of carbon-based fossil fuels to burn. When that happens, photosynthesis will be able to start increasing global O2 levels again.
There is enough free oxygen in the atmosphere to combust all the fossil fuels in the world several times over without making a noticeable dent in O2 levels.

>>16189504
But 100% of plants don't fully decompose.
Peat bogs trap carbon, as does timber used in construction.
There are other processes which produce atmospheric oxygen, like photolytic bacteria which split water into hydrogen and oxygen gas.

>>16189675
>Stores of carbon emit carbon dioxide as well as sinking them. Any particular store will store carbon until it reaches equilibrium at which point it will emit as much carbon as it stores
You misunderstand. The peat bog doesn't have an infinite capacity to store carbon, but it can't emit more carbon than it stored in the first place. Peatlands are, by definition, net stores of carbon. Some CO2 is released, but the live plants on the top of the peatlands use this. It always stores a non-zero amount of the carbon that the plants drew from the atmosphere.
Peat bogs can be several meters deep and can grow for thousands of years.
I see you ignored my point about construction timber.

File: iu[1].jpg (365 KB, 2000x2700)

365 KB JPG

>>16169342
>YOUR NOT

>>16147255

>>16189901
>Timber rots just like everything else.
explain fossilized and petrified wood in that context
explain coal
explain how petroleum is made from organic matter millions of years old if all organic matter rots

>>16190400
So-called "petrified wood" comes from ancient, extinct silicon trees.
Coal is a mineral.
Petroleum is abiogenic.

File: speilmann.jpg (128 KB, 1088x1105)

128 KB JPG

>>16147165
No, its obviously fake

>>16189901
Imagine a future where we have run out of fossil fuels.
It'll happen eventually, right?
At that point, carbon sinks will all be net gainers. We'll have fusion and all sorts of mad shit so we'll be able to give space back to nature.

File: Screenshot_20240525_00000(...).jpg (571 KB, 1080x1064)

571 KB JPG

>>16190433
Lignite can still form, retard. Lignite is literally petrified peat. Even linin-digesting fungus can't overcome peatbog conditions. The majority of coal in the world is lignite.
Once global population has sufficiently declined and food production is sufficiently verticalised, the planet can go back to growing its lignite shell like it has been doing since the dawn of time.

>>16191781
Great. We're destroying all the peat bogs and they're net producers of CO2 because we've changed the climate. You've lost and you're clinging to these 0.000001% cases to try to prove the general case. It's sad.

>>16192019
>ALL peat bogs are destroyed and NONE of them are storing carbon any more
You want a chance to walk back that hyperbole?

>>16192019
Within two centuries or so, we'll have depleted the majority of our remaining fossil fuels, or massively reduced their use voluntarily.
Either way, emissions from combustion of fossil fuels, IE the vast majority of man-made emissions, will be gone. There will almost certainly be fewer people on the planet in 200 years. Almost every person in the world lives somewhere with a drastically low birth rate. Rates are falling rapidly in the places that are still above replacement. This drastically smaller population will require less net emissions to support. Crop foods will be engineered to fix their own nitrogen, freeing us from dependence on fossil-fuel derived ammonia fertiliser. Yields will be higher and far less land will be needed for the far smaller population.
More and more space every year will be given over to wild spaces to recover. Our descendents will live longer, healthier, materially richer lives than we do.
Some environmental problems will get worse before they get better, but the vast majority are due to inadequate management of our lived environments rather than something as abstract as our carbon emissions.
Things are going to work out.

>>16192224
>destroying
>are destroyed
You want a chance to brush up on Clifford the Big Red Dog?

>>16191773
>It'll happen eventually, right?
no it won't.

>>16147539
You'll end up eating the middle class and the not so poor while the rich watch

>>16151731
>Oil holdings backpedal after getting ahold of the green market when they were fervently against it before
>anon thinks that somehow helps his point
Are you mentally impaired?

>>16151731
>keep in mind, the IPCC's job is literally to inform the public about the reality of man made climate change.
What is the job of the Ministry of Truth?

>>16191773
We're not even making apparent progress toward using up fossil fuels. We have confirmed more than we've used every year for the last century. We'd have to have a at least eight decades of uninterrupted population growth and no improvements in geology or mining or any renewable technologies for that to even be possible.

None of those things are going to happen and the planet is gonna have a fuckload of biomass simply never be allowed to surface instead.

>>16147303
Yeah it's a marketing meme

File: file.png (1.18 MB, 1536x1536)

1.18 MB PNG

>>16180082
this is like saying more rabbit infestations in your farm you have more rabbit meat you will have.
No you will fucking not, even if you hunt all rabbits the loss of produce would be greater than the meat because rabbits wont turn all the food they eat into meat, a lot of produce will turn into poo.
A similar inconvenience applies here, no, plants do not produce adequate oxygen to make up for CO2 in the air.
>renewable resources
No, less bacteria and animals in the fauna and less nitrogen meaning at the end of the day the plants will not get enough nutrients to live on so they will start dying out too.
CO2 cycle is all natural and shit but what industries currently produce are up to unnatural scale.
This is like hoping that there will be more deers after killing all wolves, no bro, deer will eat all the grass and they will die soon too.

>>16147303
his brain only works in
>number go up
>good
terms.

>>16193442
>this is like saying more rabbit infestations in your farm you have more rabbit meat you will have.
If there was a mechanism by which rabbits would fucking slaughter and butcher themselves and serve themselves on their fucking plate, then yes.
If only there was some method of oxygen production that doesn't require any effort on our part at all... oh wait there is! The fucking oxygen cycle that they teach to every child in the west before they even have a full set of teeth.

>>16193448
Do you think rabbits convert all the produce they eat into meat?

>>16193452
Where the fuck was that in the analogy?
>this is like saying more rabbit infestations in your farm you have more rabbit meat you will have.
If the rabbits slaughtered and butchered themselves and served themselves onto your plate, yes a rabbit infestation will mean you have more rabbit meat.
Why do you suddenly want to change what you said?
>Oh rabbits aren't all meat anon! Focus on that instead of the retarded analogy I posed!
Cool. Go research the efficiency of the oxygen cycle and try not to cry every time you see a study that says the upper ceiling of production is higher than all our predictive models.

Probably yes and anthropogenic. The science is not yet 100% there but there are more reasons to believe it is than it is not. Makes sense to start doing something about it.
I don't get why this is such a controversial topic. Individual carbon footprint is tiny, it's mostly the industry.

File: whywouldtheyneedtodothis.png (1.31 MB, 889x889)

1.31 MB PNG

>>16193583
>The science is not yet 100% there but there are more reasons to believe it is than it is not
When one side of the research is funded and the other is not, what can you expect?
Whenever you hear "hottest temperature ever recorded in [country]" it is pretty much always a weather station in the middle of an airfield, or next to power transformers that give off a load of heat and electrical interference.
But you don't see studies about where this data is coming from. Where precisely was the measurement taken? How reliable is the equipment? We don't know, we just take it for granted and then factor that data into other studies.
And then you end up with shit like pic related in the media.

Then the public fear is used to push through higher taxes on modern commodities, to justify restricting your freedom of movement (we're in the early stages of seeing governments talk about banning cars or limit personal travel to certain areas), and in the mean time politicians are still flying private jets around the world every single day when they could hold conferences online if they wanted to set an example.

I get why when you're raised with this shit, literally taught it in school, and every authority figure you can think of is jamming it down your throat, you think you're being sceptical and critical by effectively saying it's "probably true but the science isn't settled" but buddy, they go this hard on this shit to shift the window of debate like that. So even their opponents have to concede the premise. Concession is acceptance. Do not entertain the idea. Make them keep making outlandish predictions that fall flat, as every single fucking climate model to date has done.

If it was true they wouldn't need to scare you.

File: diesel powered EVs.jpg (173 KB, 1010x987)

173 KB JPG

>>16147306

>>16193915
The benefit of electricity is that even if it's generated by polluting methods today it could just as easily be generated by environmentally-friendly methods in the future. Gas-powered cars will only ever be powered by gas. Electric-powered cars can be powered by gas, diesel, nuclear, solar, hydro, etc, etc.

>>16147165
An Ice Age is one of many forms of climate change, so yes climate change is real.

Precision in one's word usage is important.

File: lithiumfield.png (917 KB, 897x644)

917 KB PNG

>>16194085
Ah the Hegelian dialectic.
>>16194541
>>16194550
Electric vehicles require vast lithium mines and rare earth metals obtained via slavery. All of which has to be shipped further than your average gas car part because there's only a few places in the world with enough lithium to be worth mining.

Following your own stupid fucking theories about climate and environment, you're just trading one disaster for another and calling it progress.

>>16194821
>you're just trading one disaster for another and calling it progress.
That is progress tho, new disaster>old disaster, everything changes nothing is lost

>>16194908
Kek 10/10 bait

>>16194541
CO2 isn't a pollutant, adding CO2 to the atmosphere is the most environmentally-friendly thing you can do. Plants grow better in high CO2 conditions and the rest of the environment that isn't plants depend on plants for their survival. Plants also require less water to grow effectively in CO2 enhanced environments, so adding CO2 to the atmosphere will allow arid regions to become more lively.

>>16195540
Retard take

>>16193442
>human activities are unnatural and evil
anti-human death cult rhetoric
>except my own of course, I'm a perfect saint
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/narcissistic-personality-disorder/symptoms-causes/syc-20366662

>>16168123
just dont look up you commie

>>16184027
that's all just liberal shit that has fuck-all to do with the material
the market is free because private agents get to do what they want and thus we live in capitalism, end of story, and no /pol/cel muh not real capitalism bullshit is gonna make that any less true

>>16147317
>pic related
they're obviously retarded and just don't know how much 800k actually is so it isn't really indicative of anything. they wouldn't actually require a guy they're dating to make 800k

>>16196864
>private agents get to do what they want
You would have to ignore thousands of laws and regulations on trade and labor to believe this is true.

Articles on CO2 producing a global greening effect which is in turn acting as a carbon sink:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-35799-4

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31534135/

https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.aal1727

>>16197171
The scyence atheists will just ignore those like they do with all other evidence which contradicts the selfish needs and desires of their mentally ill savior complex fantasies

>>16147165
yeah but its not a problem for the reasons they say

>>16197171
Nothing surprising as scientists predicted it decades ago:
Peterson and Melillo (1985) https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1600-0889.1985.tb00060.x

Goudriaan (1987): https://library.wur.nl/ojs/index.php/njas/article/view/16745/16159

>>16184027
>And it's not even like they are under the banner of equality of opportunity, it's brazenly equality of outcome.
>Affirmative action, hate speech laws, protected classes, Equality Diversity & Inclusion funding, the list goes on.
Equality of outcome is a euphemism for depressing living standards of the average person down to the point where it meets the living standards of the unemployable and slightly mentally retarded. There is absolutely nothing more to it. Banks and corporations don't push it because they have an intrinsic Kantian interest in helping the poor black person who, despite 60 years of affirmative action, performs no better in absolute terms than he did in the (white supremacist) '40s and '50s.
>All western states live under Democratic Socialism.
>Every fucking country imposes laws on its people to force them to cooperate and eliminate inequalities.
That's not democracy.
>>16186955
A relative increase in carbon dioxide (CO2) by 100 ppm necessitates a loss in oxygene by, how much? 100 ppms? For living beings, the relative proportion of oxygen to carbon dioxide is, to a limited degree, a much more important factor than the total amount of oxygen you enhale. If that wasn't the case, moving up a mountain would instantly cause you to die.

>>16199061
atmospheric CO2 changes by more than 100ppm on a daily basis and nobody notices the difference

>>16193636
Please stop noticing
t. ZOG

>>16147401
People tend to forget Musk's wealth is tied up in stocks, he has to play the grifting game or he's fucked.

>>16199061
>moving up a mountain would instantly cause you to die
It almost does.

>>16193636
The climate IS changing, though. When I was growing up, we'd get snow starting in early to mid November (sometimes even as early as Halloween), there would ALWAYS be at least a few inches of snow on the ground at Thanksgiving, February would always be in single digit or negative temperatures with ice everywhere, and we'd expect some snow showers as late as April. I live in the same city I grew up in and now we don't get snow until Christmas and it's a dusting at most, there's no meaningful snow accumulation until sometime in January, we have moderately cold weather in February, and temperatures are up into the 70s and 80s by March and April with no snow in sight. Over the last 30 years there has been a noticeable change in the climate and that's just plain undeniable.

I don't buy into the propaganda around it and I know the governments and media are all exaggerating things for their own ends and I know we shouldn't cede any freedom over it, but it's equally ignorant to claim there's been no change at all. If you really think that, you probably haven't been alive very long or have a terrible memory.

>>16195544
Not a rebuttal.

File: 20240513_220100.jpg (1.46 MB, 2677x3748)

1.46 MB JPG

>>16200954
That's due to the reduced air density, not the relative concentrations of CO2 and O2.
>>16199762
Forget atmospheric fluctuations, get a CO2 monitor for your house and observe the peaks and troughs, and be amazed at how long or how much you need to air the place out to get the thing to read close to atmospheric levels.
>>16199061
Picrel, my bedroom monitor when I've barely been in the room and the window has been open all day. It gets close to 2000 overnight. You likely spend the majority of your life indoors or in vehicles at 800-1500ppm.

File: tokyo_oli_2019229_wide.jpg (360 KB, 720x846)

360 KB JPG

>>16200976
>I live in the same city I grew up in and now we don't get snow until Christmas and it's a dusting at most, there's no meaningful snow accumulation
How many homes and how much infrastructure (5G, fibreoptic, powerlines, transformers, AC exhaust) has been built in your city and the surrounding counties in the last 25 years? Farms shut down and fields turned into homes and roads?
There is another definition of "climate"
>the prevailing trend of public opinion or of another aspect of life.
Our climate is changing - more and more infrastructure and absorbant black asphalt and waste heat from the billion devices and miles of pipes and vents and the millions of ICE vehicle activity. All of this stuff causes heavily built up areas, spanning many miles, to experience much warmer weather than surrounding rural locations.
99% of the "climate change" people cite as evidence is due to specific land use changes or environmental management failures.
Look at Picrel. Look how the heat so strongly correlates with urban sprawl. As soon as you get away and get vegetation, everything is cool: the plant life reflects more light and is pumping thousands of gallons of water daily into the air, not only reacting differently to hot weather but also making weather by contributing to cloud formation.

>>16201675
Toledo, Ohio. We used to have an event at our zoo called "Frozentoesen" that happened every February and had all sorts of extreme cold weather activities like outdoor ice sculpting. It hasn't happened for years because February doesn't get cold enough to do those kinds of things. We used to bundle up in winter coats in February and worry about frostbite, and now it's basically just thick sweatshirt weather every year. And it's not just my memory playing tricks because we have years worth of home video footage and the weather difference in the winter from then to now is stark.

>>16201698
It's not like it snows on Thanksgiving out in the country but not in the city. I'm not sure exactly what point you're trying to make. There is a change happening, regardless of the cause. I'm only saying it's ignorant to deny that change is happening and it probably means you're just not old enough to have experienced it.

File: interesting-look-at-the-s(...).png (537 KB, 1080x783)

537 KB PNG

>>16201717
>Toledo, Ohio
Here is what has happened south East of Toledo downtown since 1994. See the farmland retreat and the suburbs and Walmarts close in. More roads, more cars, more asphalt, more power lines, transformers. More heat absorbed and emitted instead of being reflected. If this it it's like on the fringes of the suburbs, what do you think it's like downtown?
Look at >>16201698 again.
It doesn't even have to be a very strong effect to alter weather.

>>16201729
Enough extra net heat is in our local air mass to change the weather. Snow needs particular circumstances to form and to accumulate when it lands.

>>16201731
>>16201740
Forgive me for getting a little confused, it's just that you started by calling me a liar for saying winter weather has significantly receded in my lifetime and then proceeded to agree that my claim is completely reasonable. Are you getting worked up over some assumption of what I might think the cause is? I never said anything about a cause, I only spoke to my objective observations of the changes in the weather. If you also think that the climate is changing over time then we're in agreement. The only thing I said was undeniable is the change itself.

>>16201745
I am not
>>16201675

File: a-utopian-futuristic-city(...).png (232 KB, 640x640)

232 KB PNG

>>16201745
>>16201745
I'm not the one who called you a liar, but identifying the CAUSE of the changes we observe is crucial. If you accept that the primary cause is carbon dioxide emissions, then "doing something about" climate change has only one solution - a nebulous commitment to "reduce carbon" without fixing any of the myriad specific problems in our lived environment and shortcomings in land management.
If you believe that the primary cause of observed changes is due to land use changes, then the set of solutions grows much larger, and more diverse, and potentially more radical. Eradication of city sprawl, an increase in rewinding and a managed decline in the global population. A complete redesign of our remaining city infrastructure, buildings and roads made as bright, white and reflective as possible with the inclusion of as much greenery as possible.

>>16202266
I definitely don't think the problem is carbon emissions. It's become very obvious to me over the years that's just an easy scapegoat that gives people in power carte blanche to fuck people over for profit and more power. The whole narrative around cows the past few years in particular made that plainly obvious to me.

>>16202440
>I definitely don't think the problem is carbon emissions.
Then you have a moral duty to oppose all those who call for redress toward carbon emissions in general rather than land use changes or environmental management issues in particular.

>>16147165
The west socialized losses and privatized gains. What the fuck is this retard talking about? He's the biggest comrade welfare queen on the planet. Climate change is not real to the people in the west with fully running ac, but is definitely very real to people popping like popcorn in over 50C environments. The real migration hasn't started, yet.

>>16202673
you're clearly obsessed with politics and have no interest in science, so why are you insist on forcing yourself on the science board?
4chan has a board for politics discussion >>>/pol/
goodbye, you won't be missed

>>16203596
Wrong. Did you not see the words "climate change'? Very scientific. Thanks for crying out loud though. I appreciate your suffering with my penis.
>so why are you insist
Because I can, dear ESL.

2nd law of thermodynamics
Ideal gas law still holds even in a non-constant environment like the Earth's atmosphere, how does the greenhouse effect not violate these 2 laws?

>>16204140
Take a freshman physics class.

>>16205079
Tides?

>>16205117
The high tide line is the darker line against the paler rock. Spot the high tide line in each pic.

>>16205117
Yeah, you nailed it dipshit. The Statue of Liberty actually dips below the water line at high tide. You're a genius.

File: 1717272300997137.jpg (123 KB, 720x866)

123 KB JPG

>>16205196
>>16205223
?
If we're comparing low tide to low tide, then what exactly is this trying to say?

>>16205230
Who knows what the tide is in either picture. Point is the island the statue is on is extremely close to sea level and it hasn't gone under because the sea level isn't fucking rising.

File: Screenshot-2022-06-13-at-(...).png (119 KB, 768x363)

119 KB PNG

>>16205246
Why do you automatically assume the statue of liberty would go underwater if the sea levels rose? Even since 1920 the waterline has only rise by about .3 meters (1 foot in amerishart units). Every "gotcha" image I've seen on here is far too zoomed out to tell if the water level has actually risen.

I want you retards to refute claims people have made, not your own strawmans.

>>16205230
We can't know for certain if either picture is actually taken at the lowest point of the tides, and tide heights vary along with moon cycles, due to storm surges, shifting currents, etc.
But we CAN see the high tide line, the rocks darkened by the growth of seaweed etc.

>>16205262
So that's a "no" on trying to refute climate scientists then?

File: WorldLGM-1.png (1.44 MB, 3509x2481)

1.44 MB PNG

>>16205263
Apparent sea level, ie tidal extent on land, is determined and dominated in most of the populated northern hemisphere by the effects of post glacial isostatic rebound. Its effects far eclipse in magnitude the virtually undetectable global rises claimed by scientists.

>>16205254
>Why do you automatically assume the statue of liberty would go underwater if the sea levels rose?
Because the claim since like the 80s has been that sea levels are rising to a degree that if we don't do anything the entire eastern seaboard will be flooded out and half of Florida will vanish into the ocean.

File: 3-s2.0-B97804445364330013(...).jpg (66 KB, 533x400)

66 KB JPG

>>16205280