Climate change discussion

>geoengineer
What does that mean practically? Are talking about dropping ice cubes from space into the ocean?

Climate change has cured my homosexuality.

> On the social level it's because so many climate activists are raging assholes.
I have to agree with you there. So many also try and mix caring with the environment with pushing for communism at the same time. This pisses me off in particular, climate change is already a hard sell without mixing it with the worst ideology ever developed.

> My main issue is that people in power and supposedly in the know are pushing for both, climate change and mass migration and essentially open borders.

Yea, in fact the exact opposite would make more sense. We are likely heading for a future where the west will barely be able to feed our own, so closing borders asap would be the most prudent move.

This is the biggest reason I am concerned with the political right getting on board with global warming. The left talk the talk, but lack the resolve to do anything that will actually be necessary for survival in the future.

spectrum.ieee.org/energy/fossil-fuels/this-power-plant-runs-on-co2

Watch any lectures you can find on atmospheric physics, particularly how EM radiation interaction changes with wavelength. That should give some good foundation theory.

In terms of data, there is a lot to look at there, just try and read as much as you can by both sides. When you understand the foundations, it is easier to go through various claims without being overwhelmed.

I am actually considering trying to make some YouTube videos on the topic of climate change more from a right leaning perspective

Where to begin.

Quick rundown
youtube.com/watch?v=0gDErDwXqhc&t=65s

Molyneux makes a good series on this.
>youtube.com/playlist?list=PLMNj_r5bccUzUZnC7tAtjh_G0Sr3wgEpi

"Climate change skeptic" is something of a misnomer. The majority of (reputable) skeptics I've heard do not dismiss the fact that the climate is indeed changing nor even that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Rather, they dismiss what is known as the multiplier effect. The multiplier effect is the theory that, while CO2 only results in a (relatively) mild increase in global temperature (about 1 degree Celsius every time CO2 concentration is doubled), the increase in temperature causes an even more potent gas to evaporate, water vapor, tripling the rate at which the planet warms. On looking at actual temperatures (be it oceanic, ground or sky), all projections that take this theory into account have exaggerated the rate at which the planet actually is warming. One possible explanation for this is that water vapor, once high enough in the atmosphere becomes clouds, which reflect solar radiation back into space which actually result in a multiplier effect of 0.5. That is 1C * 0.5 = ~0.5 C increase in temperature every time the planet doubles in CO2, a far more conservative estimate.

Attached: 1551211481451.jpg (2894x2226, 2.07M)

>mixing it with the worst ideology ever developed.

Yeah it gets thrown in a basket of issues instead being a discreet concern. And at least in American politics, you have to pick 1 of 2 sides. Well, maybe a 3rd for all the people who've become apathetic. The tribalism would go away if climate change were presented as a threat apart from party platforms more akin to terrorism. Obama tried that though. It's a tough nut to crack.

It's not that it's not real. It's that it is used to further the ((agenda)) to further shame goyim into self-deprecating themselves.

Nobody on the left cries about china gassing their air 24/7 on levels that put any other western country to shame.

Beyond that, mass hysteria over climate change is retarded when it has been happening several times in our history already.
Even if we had not stumbled upon the industrial revolution, the climate "changing" would have happened regardless of our meddling or not.

Not to mention that alternative energy such as wind is fucking up the nature around it at a alarming rate,is crazy expensive, and not really that effective. Not exactly a good thing to be doing and then turn around and cry about coal and nuclear.

Speaking of nuclear. Scientists are on the course to making a meltdown near virtually impossible, as well as reducing waste down to negligible levels. When it is working it's the cleanest energy you can get your hands on from the smallest resources. But retard enviro nuts wants to put up HUGE fucking towers that massacre the birds who come close, scares away animals in a huge radius. Costs tons of tons of metal, and leaves a ton of waste once it stops working and cannot be repaired any further.

The climate changing or outright turning into a mini-ice age or even a full blown on is inevitable.
The question should be to prepare for it with some small changes here and there that do not impact peoples jobs and make everything crazy expensive. Rather than focusing 100% on a unattainable dream (thinking we are gods that can control the weather and the temperature).

In the end, we are not making it worse than it already would be. The end result is the same. It's simply speeding up the process.

Because if it was true that it's entirely humanitys fault, ice ages and the temprature changing beyond the norm should not have happened all those years ago (it did).

>The problem I do have, as a right-winger, is the solutions which are being proposed, which are basically "just give more money to the government".

This is why the right absolutely must get on board. The left can't fucking manage anything, they have no idea how to handle resources. They push to raise taxes claiming it will be used for good, then spend it on crap like pic related. They will never solve the problem of climate change.

Attached: _96277416_gettyimages-453879976.jpg (320x180, 9K)

Environmentalist groups are always leftist so lefties have a vested interest in freaking people out about environmental issues, they get votes/power out of it.
What's real about it tho? Media hyped hysterical predictions that the icecaps would be gone by 2010? Or the CO2 our coalburning spews out warms things up a bit?
Yeah it's probably real but not in the way the alarmist catastrophisers say it is.

That's cool, but it doesn't reverse existing or future problems. It's a more efficient way to use natural gas. Which again is cool. Renewable isn't always viable for now. But your link still isn't a solution to undo damage.

The Middle Ground on Climate Change
>you're too chicken to take a side
Yes, that's why I stand between the sycophants on both sides.

Anthropogenic Climate Change
(ACC) is typically couched as either
"It's significant and must be countered."
or
"It's natural and can't be countered."

Truth is that scientists believe ACC is real, but cannot determine its magnitude due to lack of historical data- both pre and post increased CO2 emissions.

Both the scientific knowledge and efforts to combat ACC are government funded- thus both serving government interests- which are non-free-market activities, given that citizens are compelled to fund it- and there are no metrics (data showing reversal of ACC) able to prove that costly efforts are worth it.

As such, ACC funding will only be spent to achieve political purposes- to increase support for government, especially the ruling government.

Thus, the rift between believers / deniers is actually a matter of belief / disbelief in political solutions to scientific matters.

Climate Change is real HOWEVER it's pushed by government because:
1. CC has no metrics to prove that any action actually combats it.
2. relating to (1), money spent on CC can never be proved to be a waste.
3. CC allows politicians to buy voters (carbon tax scam- collect money on fuel, then give it to citizens near election) and corporate favors (choose which corporations to give CC-related contracts to).

That is, the debate isn't whether CC is real, but whether or not it matters whether real or fake.

The graph for climate change looks more like this. OH MY GOD WE ARE ALL GONNA BURN

Attached: 074E7D72-B16F-42AF-830E-E5809055EED5.png (600x450, 267K)

Even if you can make a copy pasta of link to good YouTube videos and start a climate change general with it every once in a while, that would be a huge start.

If we can Jow Forumsacks and the right to have a cohesive understand, opinion and solutions for climate change that would be a massive boon to getting people away from communist bullshit. So long as only the left discuss climate change, a lot of you g people will be drawn to them.

The whole concept of right vs left is a false dichotomy.

Cheers for the links, will definitely give them a thorough go through later. Though the water vapor feedback inst the only feedback loop to take in to account, even if there are some issues with that theory.

A much more serious problem in the methane feedback look that could be caused by rotting vegetation that is trapped under permafrost in northern Russia.

dude the climate can change all it wants but right now its just an excuse for the left to be pompous assholes and treat scientific theory as religious un-arguable fact.

Had the solutions not been "let's harass the Western middle class" it would be more palatable. If it's so dire, why do they allow for so many contradicting policies.
>We need more power
>Coal
>Higher CO2-emissions
>Tax the electricity
>Poor people can't afford, be subsidized by the middle class
>Owners take out billions in profit

It's like hearing our politicians and electricity producers talk about why the price increases.

We are doing fine.

Attached: 1551424766128m.jpg (1024x860, 168K)

Did you get an “A”?

Here is a nice redpill for ya in pic related.
There is a 160'ish W/m2 of energy from above heating the surface. There is a 50 W/m2 lost through radiation, while nobody talks about the huge amount that evaporation and convection cools. Do you want to tell me with your Phys 101 course that decreasing 2-3 W/m2 in radiation will not be counterbalanced by more evaporation and convection?

Attached: The-NASA-Earth's-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes (1280x989, 308K)

Sceptical science has a lot of very well sourced articles that debunk various arguments against acc and is what mostly convinced me that its actually a problem.
Their articles on solutions always seem a bit weak since they always try to evade the topic of nuclear power, but aside from that its a good source of information.
Some topics that they have articles on include:
>Its not actually that warm compared to the last 12k years
>Human emissions dont matter compared to natural ones
>We dont have enough information to say for certain that acc is a problem (which is what I believed until recently)
They usually have different levels of in-depth-ness depending on how much general knowledge you have on scientific matters.

Looked at the data.

They lied.

It's happening, but it's tiny.

The evidence is lacking for AGW.

Man has had a profound negative impact on many other areas of nature, all of which are quite foul.

The problem is that climate change is being mounted on the horse of AGW, which is pretty weak.

C02 is not nearly as threatening as pollution destroying ecosystems etc.

The reason righties call bullshit is twofold, half are sheep following the lead of their corporatist overlords (and the numerous versions of ill effects they thrive upon) and the other half sees the shaky evidence for AGW and calls bullshit.

Lefties, half says yay gay rainbows and bad feelings are bad, the other half says "this is socially admirable, I'll be popular if I say this".

Also, as mentioned above it's always tacked onto other issues and a game of give more money to a government that cannot manage a damned thing without screwing it up.

I believe we need a resurgence of conservationists, and an utter destruction of environmentalist.

If co2 is a climate motivator, while being a trace gas, why hasn't water vapor boiled the surface of the fucking planet yet? Does it magically somehow produce more heat?

>confusion
Welcome to pol!

Attached: 849234982342.jpg (620x428, 47K)

Because the left sees it as a religion they can use to control people, complete with its own version of "Disaster happened because you sin" and full on apocalypse/rapture predictions (See this from 1990, claiming all kinds of predictions based on rock solid science, including that NY and LA will be under water by 2015 youtu.be/Uz0HzS1O-ug ), and their only solution is to dismantle capitalism and tax the shit out of the rest of us.

Most passionate climate activists are dbags that don't know what they're talking about. Warming isn't even the important issue, but they never fail to push that kindergarten picture of IR radiation getting absorbed by active molecules.

Climate change is about a push further from equilibrium, which is necessarily unstable and dangerous to an environment. It's not an easy problem, cause it's not like we're talking about 50% of temperature being kept from space vs 90% based on man-made CO2. The mean free path is already incredibly small, meaning the difference between no humanity and humanity polluting is a tiny sliver in the tail end of a distribution. So I can get why it seems innocuous and one could be skeptical ( i was myself for some time).

But climate change is a major, major problem.

Since you studied Physics, you should know that real science, and real scientists, welcome debate and people attempting to find weaknesses in their theories. Fake science, on the other hand, tries to make it illegal to question them. Why don't you know this?

the temperature has not risen in 10 years while the amount of CO2 certainly is rising

really makes you go hmm

Attached: image002.jpg (494x371, 16K)

this graph is the only thing that makes me sure that global warming isnt a problem.

Forgot pic

Attached: Screen_Shot_20181128_at_11.04.44.png (590x724, 136K)

global cooling would be soooo much worse than global warming

there are actually some advantages if the earth gets a little bit warmer, the whole idea that it will be deadly is entirely bunk and absurd

110 W/m2 of cooling is obtained by evaporation and convection of the 990mm of average global rainfall per year. The 2-3W/m2 extra that CO2 would block could be cooled by 30mm of extra rain per year, a simple effect when things get warmer. 30mm is well within the 50mm rainfall variation, so a warming might not even be noticed. If surface cooling would be done by evaporation alone there would be a need of 1450mm of rainfall globally per year.
Remember Pinatubo releasing particulate matter into the air, which blocked the sunlight cooling the earth somewhat. What nobody mentions is the lack of precipitation in those cold years.
The water cycle is by far the main driver for global temperature.

Direct answer - Progressive seem to derive emotional satisfaction from a belief that they are engaged in Mighty Endeavors regardless of the scope. The ridiculous myth of Overpopulation leading to mass starvation by 1990, for example, led to a global push for hundreds of billions of dollars in birth control, abortions, etc. including forced sterilizations, involuntary abortions, and other atrocities to "save the planet". Anthropogenic Global Warming is another such "secular crusade".

I am very well aware that we are in an Interglacial Period of the current Ice Age
>Yes, really - we are in the middle of an Ice Age
So I *expect* climate to be extremely variable for thousands of years until we either enter the next Glacial Period or the Ice Age ends.
I am also aware that global temperature have changed a great deal more, and (yes) faster than anything seen recently.
I also know: sea levels have been rising for thousands of years; CO2 from human activities is frankly negligable compared to volcanic events, even in recorded history; Solar cycles are much more critical than atmospheric trace gasses; etc.
Add in that the models predicting future temps have *never* been accurate and I am leery of the CO2 = AGW = warming issue *in general*.
Since I know that the Earth has been MUH warmer when I hear people with English degrees screaming
>A 0.8 C increase in temperatures will DESTROY THE PLANET!"
I conclude that they are dangerously deluded.

Attached: flat temps.jpg (601x270, 43K)

all those people that tell you to stop eating meat to protect the environment take the plane 10 times per year. Even if the issue exist they cannot tell any of us to make efforts.
they are just a bunch of hypocrites.
if french they are the bobos. This term encompasses evrything they are.
lemonde.fr/m-perso/article/2019/02/22/l-avion-plaisir-coupable-de-l-ecolo-voyageur_5426851_4497916.html#xtor=AL-32280270

>you should know that real science, and real scientists, welcome debate and people attempting to find weaknesses in their theories
>Why don't you know this?

Thats why I came here and clearly stated " I would genuinely like to hear some opposing viewpoints on the matter."

Look at the dangerous rise in sea lebel!
Why, I went and measured it myself twice today and it rose over two feet!

Attached: 6BEE61EDC4BD4C16A1DA71758B255E9B.jpg (480x639, 42K)

>Could
First - pure supposition and we have no idea what cycles the methane would go through.
The permafrost in Russia will cease to be once the current Ice Age is over regardless of human actions. This release of methane at the end of an Ice Age has certainly happened before and is a natural cycle - and can't be stopped! Drastic action to halt it is ridiculous

Money = oil
1000$ phone = 800 liters (210 gallons) oil spent in manufacturing.

Ils ont renoncé aux Coton-Tige, au Nutella et même à l’harmonie scandinave de la cuisine depuis l’adoption du lombricomposteur et des moucherons qui vont avec. Alors pas question d’annuler le Paris-New York de cet été… Ils embarqueront avec les enfants, trop de bagages et ce léger sentiment de culpabilité qui gagne, depuis peu, ceux qui ont l’heur de voyager et de songer à leur bilan carbone.

Malaise et premières tensions entre copains, devant la pizza quatre légumes. Peut-on se dire écolo tout en s’envolant pour le week-end à Porto ? L’avion sème la zizanie. D’un côté, ceux qui connaissent les chiffres et commencent à s’interroger. De l’autre, ceux qui ne veulent surtout ne rien savoir de peur d’objectiver ce qu’ils pressentent : tous ces efforts louables pour acheter en vrac ou cuisiner les légumes bizarres du panier Amap n’auront rimé à rien s’ils prennent la direction de l’aéroport.

Quarante fois plus polluant que le train

Ne me dites pas… Qu’un aller-retour Paris-New York envoie plus d’une tonne de gaz carbonique dans l’atmosphère par passager, soit autant qu’une année de chauffage et le cinquième des émissions annuelles d’un Français. Que tout trajet national ou européen en avion pollue quarante fois plus que le TGV, sept fois plus que le bus, deux fois plus qu’une voiture avec trois passagers. Que le secteur aéronautique est responsable de 2 % des émissions mondiales de CO2. Soit deux fois plus qu’un pays comme la France.

2 % seulement ? Et vous me priveriez pour si peu de la petite semaine andalouse prévue à Pâques ? Un chiffre trompeur, selon l’Agence de l’environnement et de la maîtrise de l’énergie (Ademe) qui souhaite « briser le tabou » en lançant « un débat démocratique sur la maîtrise du développement du transport aérien ».

Car ce secteur connaît une croissance exponentielle (quatre milliards de passagers en 2018, le double prévu dans vingt ans), et les progrès technologiques qui y sont attendus ne suffiront pas à absorber l’explosion de ses émissions de gaz à effet de serre.

Cerise sur le brownie du plateau-repas : il est exempté de tout accord onusien de réduction des émissions. La croissance de ces dernières fera simplement l’objet d’une compensation carbone, à partir de 2020, pour les vols internationaux.

Bref, au vu de cet « impact considérable sur le réchauffement climatique planétaire, impact qu’on peut évaluer à 5 % si l’on prend en compte l’ensemble des gaz à effet de serre émis, et pas seulement le CO2 », il est urgent de « rechercher une baisse du trafic aérien », insiste Lorelei Limousin, du Réseau Action Climat. Qui observe l’émergence d’une prise de conscience, y compris hors des cercles militants.

Why don't you mix up your diet of semen and vegetables with some insect meat then, and then learn how to talk shit without scribbling down every thought that pops into your head you complete fucking retard hippy piece of shit.
I don't have time to read essays written by cunts with downs syndrome you fuckwit.

C’est vrai que l’on se vante moins de la petite escapade balinaise, sur les réseaux sociaux. Toujours un fâcheux pour vous renvoyer à votre empreinte carbone… Chez les blogueurs voyage, le temps est même venu de l’introspection. « En huit heures de voyage, je fous en l’air une année de zéro déchets et 95 % de consommation locale et responsable, écrit Isa, du blog “Let’s go”. Je commence à ne plus vivre bien avec ça. En résumé, je suis une grosse hypocrite. »

« Schizophrène », même, se flagelle Pierre Grante, 30 ans, blogueur d’Un notre monde, temporairement installé en Thaïlande. « On sait que voyager fait partie des activités nocives pour l’environnement. Mais on empêche le cerveau de trop y penser pour ne pas se sentir coupable. Moi qui me prétends écolo, qui suis végétarien, j’ai une empreinte beaucoup plus forte que ceux qui n’ont pas les moyens de voler. »

Elle affleure, déstabilise, crispe à tous les coups, cette question de l’avion. Dissonance cognitive, diagnostiquent les psys, face à une telle incohérence entre convictions et pratiques. Car les accumulateurs de miles sont aussi ceux qui ont la volonté, les moyens, de manger bio et de rouler à vélo électrique.

Juliette Belliard, 28 ans, professeure d’anglais, incarne parfaitement ce malaise : « J’ai tout bon sauf l’avion ! », avoue-t-elle d’emblée. Colocation, refus de passer le permis de conduire, régime végétarien depuis sept ans. Mais Jordanie en ligne de mire pour les vacances. « Le voyage annuel en avion, je n’arrive pas à l’abandonner. Sans ça, je n’aurais pas le courage de tenir les autres résolutions. C’est ma récompense. » L’avion, dernière frontière du citoyen en transition écologique. Sacrifice ultime, une fois entrecôtes et SUV abandonnés.

1 500 jets privés pour le sommet sur le climat

Des figures héroïques de renonciation se dressent, barrant la piste d’envol de leurs bras écartés. L’adolescente suédoise Greta Thunberg en tête, qui s’est fait connaître en interpellant les puissants sur leur inaction climatique. En janvier, elle a rejoint le Forum économique mondial de Davos (Suisse) en trente-deux heures de train, avant de dénoncer les 1 500 jets privés des dirigeants venus évoquer le réchauffement climatique. Lire aussi Greta Thunberg et les jeunes marchent pour le climat à Paris : « Quand je serai grand, je voudrais être vivant »

Deux autres Suédoises, Maja Rosen et Lotta Hammar, ont lancé une campagne de boycottage : « We stay on the ground 2019 » (« Nous restons au sol en 2019 »), déjà suivie par 15 000 de leurs compatriotes. A Vienne, il y a trois ans, Magdalena Heuwieser les avait devancées avec son manifeste et réseau international « Stay grounded » pour en « finir avec l’avion roi ».

Au Danemark, le quotidien de gauche Politiken vient d’annoncer que ses journalistes ne prendraient plus de vols intérieurs, que ses pages Voyage, aussi, seraient repensées : priorité aux pays nordiques. Sur Twitter pullulent les hashtags incitant à la détox aérienne ou témoignant d’une nouvelle « honte » de voler (#flyingless, #stopflying, #flightfree2019, #flugscham, #flygskam…). Des universitaires et chercheurs y mettent désormais en scène leurs épopées en chemin de fer, comme ces climatologues qui ont fondé le collectif No Fly Climate Sci (« Ne prenez pas l’avion, climatologues »).

Et les Français ? Pour 35 % des interrogés par l’Ademe, en 2018, « ne plus prendre l’avion pour les loisirs » est un objectif dont ils se sentent « incapables » ou qui serait « difficile ». Si l’échantillon était réduit aux seuls clients de l’aérien, ce pourcentage serait encore plus fort, se doute l’Ademe. « Au voyage en avion est lié un imaginaire de déconnexion de ce monde hyper rapide, hyper techno, observe Amélie Anciaux, qui prépare une thèse à l’Université catholique de Louvain (Belgique) sur la consommation verte. En vacances, j’oublie tout, même mon empreinte carbone. C’est l’exception écologique. »

Pour l’instant dominent donc le déni, l’irritation contre les « Khmers verts » et autres « Notre-Dame-des-Landes », les petits arrangements avec la conscience écologique. « Les voyages m’ouvrent les yeux sur ce qu’endure la planète », entend-on. Ou encore : « Les avions décolleront sans moi de toute façon. » Et : « Avec tous les efforts que je fais, l’avion me rapproche simplement des émissions moyennes des Français. » De même : « J’irai au Pérou, mais sur place, si je vois un gars jeter un papier gras sur le Machu Picchu, je l’éclate ! »

Le kérosène non taxé

Tout pousse à emprunter le prochain couloir aérien. Les incessantes publicités incitant à « succomber aux envies d’ailleurs », les billets low cost, les promotions du Web, les programmes de fidélisation, les pouvoirs publics se félicitant de la croissance du secteur aérien – et le subventionnant. Sans compter les alternatives qui manquent ou coûtent cher. Les trains de nuit disparaissent (plus que deux en circulation dans l’Hexagone). Même sur un trajet de 500 kilomètres, l’avion bat souvent le train, côté porte-monnaie.

Car les dés sont pipés, déplore Matthieu Orphelin, député (ex-LRM désormais non-inscrit) du Maine-et-Loire, proche de Nicolas Hulot, qui « ne consomme l’avion qu’avec modération ». Contrairement à l’essence et au diesel, le kérosène n’est pas taxé, comme l’ont remarqué les « gilets jaunes », alors qu’il pourrait l’être pour les vols intérieurs. Les billets nationaux ne sont pas soumis à la TVA à taux plein, encore moins à la contribution énergétique.

« Pour baisser les émissions de la France de 3 % chaque année, tous les secteurs doivent contribuer, rappelle le député. L’avion symbolise les grands voyages, la liberté. Mais il n’y aura pas de tourisme dans un monde dévasté. Même s’il bouscule toute une culture, le sujet de l’aérien va s’imposer. » Au niveau européen ? L’idée d’une taxe sur les rejets de CO2 des avions revient régulièrement (le 12 février, encore, sur proposition néerlandaise) avant de s’effacer, telle une traînée de condensation striant le ciel.

Dans la génération Erasmus et Ryanair, pourtant, l’idée d’un « flexitarisme » aérien commence à faire son chemin. « Moi, je suis flexitaérien », se vantera-t-on bientôt ? Comme pour la viande, pas question de s’interdire, mais de réduire allègrement. Les vols d’agrément en priorité puisque, au boulot, proposer une téléconférence ne réjouit pas, hors période d’économies. Un long-courrier par an, de rares vols européens, plus le moindre en France ? Chacun se fixe un cadre moral de bric et de broc. Ex-grand voyageur repenti, Juan Martinez, 28 ans, chargé de mission environnement dans une mairie, s’accordera « un vol par an, mais pas de long-courrier ».

Récemment, il a gagné le Maroc en ferry (48 heures), la Catalogne en train de nuit, covoiturage et bus (17 heures). « C’est la suite logique de tout ce que j’ai entrepris pour réduire mon impact. Je reprends conscience des distances, je regarde les paysages traversés. Le déplacement redevient une aventure, une composante du voyage. »

A l’université parisienne de Jussieu, le 8 février, les étudiants ont programmé leur première grève climatique, une semaine plus tard, et formulé leurs revendications prioritaires. Dont l’interdiction des vols intérieurs.

Sentant poindre cette sobriété stratosphérique, Air France permet depuis septembre 2018 à ses clients de compenser les émissions carbone de leur voyage en finançant la plantation d’arbres dans le pays de leur choix pour quelques dizaines d’euros.

Le PDG de Voyageurs du monde, Jean-François Rial, affiche lui aussi des tarifs « comprenant la compensation carbone à 100 % des transports des clients et collaborateurs ». Mais surtout, il s’interdit désormais de proposer certains voyages « inacceptables » : « Les long-courriers en dessous de cinq nuits, les allers-retours en Europe dans la journée, c’est non ! Nous essayons aussi de renforcer l’offre sur la France et l’Europe, à pied et à vélo, en prenant le train. »

I'm not talking about temperature? I'm talking about a push away from equilibrium. *__*

if you're a moderately intelligent humanbean you don't even need the pseudo science.
when the people screaming about a planet-ending emergency immediately proceeds to tax the energy usage of the only nations producing clean energy and then insist they stop having babies, while simultaneously flying free food to niggerland,
well, if you're not completely normie-tier, then your jewdar should be off the fucking scale!

Don't get me wrong, I dont believe for a second that most of what politicians are pushing is actually intended to help in any way.

The issue is certainly being used as a justification to push globalist agenda's. But that doesn't have any bearing on the issue being real or not.

OK, here is one. Although you are a Physics guy, here is some biology. In nature, the populations of animals increase when they are in a favorable environment. As the climate has warmed, the human population has skyrocketed. Obviously, slightly warmer temperatures are favorable for the human species. I will also bet you that if government funding for these "climate scientists" was based upon them claiming it was getting cooler....they would all claim it was getting cooler. Always consider the source. Government always wants money. Since it does not have a job, it relies upon various types of theft and scams. I find it absolutely ridiculous that politicians are claiming that they DEEPLY care about people 100 years in the future suffering horrific consequences of the climate being 1 degree cooler. All that politicians care about is stealing, now.

The right are wrong but mostly they’re simply retarded.

>except the issue of climate change.

You're an idiot!

Stop falling for Jewish tricks.

Attached: Climate Chart.jpg (960x720, 84K)

>But that doesn't have any bearing on the issue being real or not.
like I said, moderately

Attached: wakeme.jpg (626x960, 59K)

But you are assuming there is nothing to balance that push. I am telling you the water evaporation cycle is the balancing factor. Water evaporating is right now contributing with 77-80W/m2 of global average surface cooling. This is half of surface cooling. And if it gets warmer the evaporation intensifies, it is a powerful negative feedback.

>You're an idiot!
I would be an idiot if I didn't seek out opposing views, which is exactly what I am doing.

>The right are wrong but mostly they’re simply retarded.
I don't think that's the case. People on the left refuse to believe certain things that there is much clearer evidence for than climate change.

There are obviously underlying reasons for why groups believe or disbelieve certain things, but I dont think stupidity is a good expatiation.

>Government always wants money. Since it does not have a job, it relies upon various types of theft and scams.

I'll let the boys at border patrol know they don't have jobs. Also FAA, CDC, and well, I'm sure I could list more but why bother? They're all useless leeches on your patriotic ass right?

My skepticism comes from the fact that skepticism seems unacceptable to the far left. Also the 97% figure keeps getting quoted by people who don’t understand what it means.

Because 95% of Americans (and people in general) have no idea what politics and policies actually mean and they are more or less orange man bad drones.
People on the right don't like to believe in climate change because people on the left do believe in it and so on.

A couple of arguments come to my mind:

Firstly it´s about political implications. As other anons have already mentioned you get climate change in a package. It´s mixed with open borders, restrictions on economic and other freedoms, like EUs max limits for power of vaccum cleaners to reduce electricity consumption, hate on nuclear plants and many more.
I don´t agree of this package on most points. Neither in detail nor in principle, because most of it is commies wet dreams. Also real politicical solutions like reduction of populace through sterilization etc. are not even mentioned or discarded as evil or just brushed away with the argument it would be to expensive, like adaptation.
This leads me to the conclusion, that nobody in politics is interested in solving the problem of climate change, but to use it as vehicle for other goals, because you can guilt people in to them. Nobody is so stupid or evil to want the plantes destruction, duh, so suck this refugees cock.
Secondly it´s the cult. Even the word "believe" just fuels me with anger. I don´t want to believe, I want to know or get more information until I know. Till then it´s a hypothesis I´m ready to observe and critisize. Also "to denie" is obviously a hate crime. I don´t approve of hate crimes. Relentless shilling with clickbait-like forecasts shows me again and again, that the powers behind this shilling have different goals, than to resolve this issue, namely for you to suck refugee and government cock.

And thirdly, what is most like important to you, is the physical truth behind it. I confess I´m not an expert in this field, but my rudimentary knowledge of physics and a lot of hours hobbily research, let´s me conclude, that a lot of "knowledge" regarding climate change is guessing. The climate is an extremely complex system. It changes and adapts. It grounds on an unknown ammount of variables, that have unpredictable ammount of interplay. Giving forecasts on a couple or even a single variable is just silly. But of course there is space for good and much needed reasearch. But for it to bring forth truths, that pass the test of time you have to reduce the system, use ceteris paribus. Also climate research in this day and age is an industry with a lot of "bribe" money. Scintists are also just people, they dance as the music tells them to dance. And the DJ is daddy government and the (((people))) behind it.

Are you denying the six million scientists who are in consensus on man-made global warming?

Whole planet was boiling, whole planet was frozen.
>Shout hubris at people about big rock
That’ll fix shit, fer sure.
We can’t even terraform shit here. Faggots spraying heavy metals on all of us to test stratospheric refraction potentials. Wasting money that could be used for something not totally beyond our capacity to cunt roll. Buying into science that can’t be measured, cause faggots who falsify shit say so. This bullshit is big brother’s dream. An unmeasurable, completely subjective hole down which one can throw away an entire national treasury and claim more must be done, cause, can’t measure success, while achieving dick all.
Fuck that globalist bullshit, it’s all an NWO plot. More conservatives live on the land, outside of hives, and due to more frequent interactions with reality, can recognize bullshit much better that cityfags.

Attached: C1ADE8FD-0D66-45DB-B758-827531834797.png (770x1008, 610K)

discord
==========_
.gg/ZSxxyzB
Come redpill these retards.