I'm in some international environmental law class and we have some Swedish "expert" on global warming coming tomorrow to lead a discussion. He said that he welcomes any and all questions and comments about climate change/global warming. What are some of the best arguments I can throw at this guy?
Pic semi related.
Are you a climate change denier? That’s a retarded position. It’s ok though, we may destroy ourselves, but it will be because of our own stupidity. Sounds like justice to me.
Required reading. It will blow you fucking mind.
I want to have some arguments against it so this doesn't turn into some moral lecture about how we need to reduce our footprint or any of that bs. Personally, I would say I am have gotten more skeptical because of the fear tactics that environmentalists have been using for the past 50 years.
Go here.
wattsupwiththat.com
You'll find tons of evidence regarding the utter retardation of climate politics (because it's such a fraud you can't be intellectually honest and use the phrase "climate science")
wattsupwiththat.com
Are you too dumb to read that simple graph, 56%er?
The graph doesn't show actual climate data.
It shows nature-related deaths and how climate-related-deaths (equarquakes aren't climate related), are basically negligable today.
Why is that? Did the climate become better for humans?
Maybe yes, maybe not. Let's say no. Let's say the climate is actually worse, i.e. more drought, more floods etc.
How come fewer people, substantially fewer people, are dying then?
Because: Nature isn't clean, plentiful and save. Humans make it clean, plentiful and safe WITH TECHNOLOGY.
That technology needs _reliable_ energy.
And that's right now, in order of energy output used by mankind:
Fossil fuels
Hydro-electric
Nuclear.
Surprise, tree huggers hate all of them. Not because they love nature, but because they hate humans.
Ask him why the climate models have such abysmal records for predictions.
Ask him how man is supposed to deal with fluctuations in solar intensity.
Ask him why all the planets recorded similar increases in temperature as earth, all at the same time?
Find the average value of a human life from birth to death, and ask him how much it would cost to implement carbon cutting measures, and is it really worth that many millions of lives?
Thanks, I just book marked it. This is one of the assigned books for the class. The author says he calls it "Eaarth" because "it is not the same planet he grew up on." It is just embarrassing to be assigned reading that makes moral arguments and generalizations in a freaking law class. It literally goes against the reasoning and logic that we were taught our whole first year.
read >pic semi related
But yeah this guy's full on position is basically nature>humans.
Bro, McKibben is a fucking lunatic.
Here's a quote, taken from Epstein's book. (see pic).
He basically wants everybody to live the life of a peasant farmer. But I'm sure he's better than you, so he'll have luxury. You'll understand.
These people are nothing but communists.
>Personally, I would say I am have gotten more skeptical because of the fear tactics that environmentalists have been using for the past 50 years.
Liberals believe the ends justify the means, so they will lie to you if they think it will lead to a good result (I literally watched a tv weatherman basically say he does this yesterday).
They fail to realize that they undermine their own position with their lies. They only hurt themselves.
>ask this.
anthropocentric global warming implies that the human population has exceeded the earths caring capacity and we need to drastically reduce the human population of earth.
if anthropocentric global warming is real then why haven't we instituted one child policies and other methods of population control like surgical intervention to prevent unauthorized reproduction.
given the grave nature to this looming disaster we should be doing more than trying to institute a financial scheme like carbon taxes.
In this podcast, Epstein really has to polish his philosophy. The host challenges him to be really precise with his initial assumptions and they have interesting theories of what motivates anti-human nature-worshippers.
It's long, but I found it highly interesting.
Okay, and now please expand on what the fuck that has to do with climate change? The point is that the climate is changing and humans play a big role in it with fossil fuels being the main driver. It is certainly possible to reduce the use of fossil fuels. I'm not sure if you want to point out that OPs chart is retarded in that context, but most of your post did just that.
Call him a cuck and ask him how he thinks Sweden increasing its population by 1% per year from taking in illiterate nigger rapefugees will affect Swedish.CO2 output
That graph is only tangentially related and says little about whether we are facing an issue with global warming. You’re ramblings make you sound nuts. You ask me why fewer people die from natural disasters and then you answer your own question (you’re right, the answer is technology).
We might develop technology to save ourselves, but denying there’s even a problem is only going to make that harder. No worries though, if we fail it’s us that will pay. As I said earlier: justice.
Do you think the climate isn't changing because of human activities? I think it is, and its because of jewish finance and misinformation that its allowed to go on.
>nature>humans
True.
We humans need nature, nature doesn’t need us.
The point is, that climate change is irrelevant, if you have a human-centrist worldview.
If your god is a nature how it would be, if no humans exist, you're going on a suicidal trajectory anyway.
If you want the highest possible flourishing of humankind, then, as is evidenced by data, climate change is irrelevant.
cfact.org
Start here maybe.
US is one of the world's least offending countries . Basically we just send billions to other countries (China specifically) so THEY can reduce their pollution, but who knows what they do with the money. It's likely they do nothing with it since they are basically getting rewarded for their pollution and don't seem to be cleaning it up.
look up plastic ocean pollution by country. its all china and india.
Its really a disgusting position. That's always what their end goal is, but they can't just go around saying it yet. They have to scare people into caring and then the takeover happens.
Our professor loves McKibben. Oh yeah it also doesn't help how her parents were prominent members in the US communist party and her father was an economist working on the New Deal. So far I'm the only one in the class who feels like something is just completely
We haven’t done it because people are stupid. Liberals who think climate change is an issue that we desperately need to address love travel flying all over the world and also think niggers should be allowed to breed on an unlimited basis and your money should be used to feed them. Not even for a brief second do they realize their consumption is precisely the cause of climate change.
>That's always what their end goal is, but they can't just go around saying it yet.
see:They are quite open about it in their internal communications
China gets these groups to rally for money to be sent to them for climate reasons and china breaks them off a cut. billions are made in this racket.
Have you read Atlas Shrugged?
If you find yourself agreeing with Epstein, chances are, you'll love Atlas Shrugged.
I loved it, it's easily one of my fav. books. I'm not a Randian or Objectivist, tough. But Rand lays out the process of society going down into a socialst hellhole step by step, with this anti-human, anti-progress philosophy metastasizing into everything. It was really eye-opening to me.
It's not a problem right now. If the the problem gets worse (which it most certainly will), then we will have problems on a larger scale which technology can't solve that easily. The recent refugee "crisis" was just the beginning. As an Austrian you should be aware that the local farmers already have problems related to the climate change. As far as I know, one of the big changes around here is that the weather extremes have a longer duration, that is, for example, we have longer periods of heat compared to some years ago. Of course, the problems of farming around here are fairly easy to fix, but that's not the case in other parts of the world.
well it seems like they think that if we just confiscate all the wealth from the "rich" we could put solar panels on all the houses in the world and solve the problem, not realizing that digging up 1/3 of the earths crust to accomplish this goal would be the worst possible solution.
every human brought into this world is going to expect a certain lifestyle and that lifestyle has a environmental cost attached to it. If humans want to maintain a modern lifestyle then the population must be reduced to achieve homeostasis with the planet.
there will be no deus ex machina to save you.
You're reiterating an atheist version of the Christian idea of judgement day.
Depending on the time you life in and the moral code you subscribe to (knowingly or not, most people don't even know what they actually believe), it's
literal judgement day with Jesus returning and everything
global cooling, ney global warming, ney climate change
overpopulation
acid rain
tree dying
AI
This form of rhetoric, and that's all it is, it has nothing to do with actual science, is as old as civilization itself.
It has a name, but I can't remember it now. They mention it in the podcast I linked here:
I actually started it two weeks ago and I'm about halfway through. Loving it so far. The government process in it actually makes me upset. Limiting metal production and requiring a certain amount to be sold to the government. Disgusting.
How much of the warming is due to human and how much is natural? Ask him to be precise.
Point to the failed models and ask him if it is wise to base policy on models which have shown time and time again to be imprecise.
>The government process in it actually makes me upset.
No spoiler, don't worry. Remember being this upset, I totally get it, I hated all these fucking parasites and liars, when the scene with the tunnel comes. I'm only saying that: tunnel. You'll know what I mean.
How many trillions will it take to make the climate ok again?
Unlimited trillions? Who pays?
Where does all the money go?
How do you change the weather with money?
What happens if a foreign country has no interest in reducing their pollution? Do you send them a couple trillion dollars or would it be more effective to go to war with them for the survival of humanity?
If we are taking this problem seriously, shouldnt we just nuke whoever doesn't cut their pollution within a set timeframe? Afterall humanity itself is at stake right?
If the lives of all of humanity are at stake, does that mean that there is absolutely no limit to what can be demanded from us until the problem is solved?
How will we know when the problem is solved? Couldn't they just milk it forever?
If it was a serious problem, like say as serious as a virus superstrain epidemic, wouldn't they have done something already? It's been like 40 years they have been talking about this.
What kind of science condemns people who don't believe in it as 'deniers' (infidels)? Wouldn't it be more reasonable to present evidence of the claim that is irrefutable? You'd only do this treating it like a doomsday cult routine if you planned on making this 'problem' last forever.
Oh boy, I better fuck off Jow Forums soon and get back to reading.
yes, come to Jow Forums to inform yourself about a vastly complex scientific subject. Surely the same retards that believe in flat earth / young earth creationism / chemtrails / any number of absurd conspiracies will surely be able to adequately inform you with their blog links and biased random sources with zero expertise or authority in atmospheric sciences.
Go ahead OP, embarrass yourself.
absurd conspiracy theories. do tell.
Valid question
what's causing climate change? is it pollution?
Well, "actual science" supports my claims.
Just pointing this out if the problem doesn't have a single answer like say vaccines and pisses on big businesses like fossil fuel sales then you end up with a problem that has no real solution.in the end people who deny climate change don't really care if tomorrow shit hits the fan which is why you have certain people shitting themselves while others say it's not real(Chinese hoax,lil ice age,etc.)
Well people have posted legitimate sources. Do you think I would openly ask this guy some absurd thing like why isn't there a world-wide hold your breath for a minute daily policy?
>vastly complex scientific subject.
Do you realize how many vastly more complex scientific subjects we are making giant strides on? Weather isn't all that mysterious. You look at long term weather trends, you decide if there is a crisis, you pinpoint the causes of the crisis and determine if anything can be done to reverse it, then you implement the plan.
There's a reason this isn't happening though and never, ever will. It's because the UN-IPCC itself admits climate policy has nothing to do with environmental policy and is simply defacto wealth re distribution. Go ahead and check the source. Don't be a denier.
I'm not going to engage you shill. Keep it up though.
lel
What does 'denying' climate change have to do with accepting it as a legitimate political issue that requires unlimited money and time to solve?
Maybe it is changing. It has no bearing on how any of us should spend our money or vote or even behave. What control do we have over what China decides to do with their environmental policies? Using the term 'denier' I have to ask, what is it you are actually accusing people of denying? Just the reality of the global climate shifting up and down over the span of years? Who is denying that?
Yeah, but what is causing climate change? Is it pollution? What can we do about it? Why be so stand offish?
so you've seen it 7 times now and still never bothered to read what the SPOKESMAN himself had to say. Not sure why you people are deniers. Aren't you all about factual evidence?
You can infer a lot by a reaction to a problem.
solving anthropocentric global warming with a financial scheme implies the people in power ether
1. don't take it seriously, and want to make money
2. know nothing can be done, and want to make money
fun fact: trees literally turn atmospheric CO2 in to their cell walls and are solar powered, if CO2 is the problem then just plant some trees and use the trapped CO2 to build shit.
And it's precisely because these scientific geniuses never heard about things like cellular respiration that they can be led to believe anything fed to them.
Science is basically voodoo and scientists are the shaman with arcane knowledge of incomprehensible things.
this guy took environmental law class for a reason retards
International environmental law. Its supposed to be a focus on how international treaties are declared and enforced, but I didn't know we would be so bogged down by the climate change portion.
Ask him about the 400 year cooling cycle and ask why the world is most peacetand prosperous during warm periods. When he dodges the question tell him he is a Globalist faggot.
I might cut straight to the point and ask if he is jewish.
Here's a TIP he is
Is there any theory that takes into consideration the cyclic solar activity in climate prediction?
how come they "adjust" the temperature data so heavily, and how come the adjustments are not applied uniformly to all data from the same sensors?
what is your view on the current debate about the extent to which CO2 interacts with water vapor in a feedback loop in the atmosphere? many climate scientists are not in the "doomsday" camp on this topic
how come even the best projections from the Paris agreement only reduced the temperature by roughly one degree (or less) by 2050, what is the purpose of this agreement if it's not even going to come close to solving the problem?
how come Al Gore and other media personalities were so wrong about all their climate predictions? is there a mismatch between the scientific community and the media? do you think the media alarmists are helping your climate cause?
how come the current climate hysteria is so focused on CO2 only? is this a distraction from other pollution crimes? 99.99% of pollutants are not covered by a CO2 ban or tax
if we truly were in a doomsday scenario, why wouldn't the world implement advanced nuclear and other new breakthrough energy solutions immediately? instead we're supposed believe that the best solution is another tax (lol) and a credits system which will allow big emitters to continue emitting, so long as they have the credits?