>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.
For me the rift is that there is no proper science on it. Making models on statistical data of systems we don't know enough about to correctly frame the parameters of isn't science. It's divination on par with tarot cards and crystal balls. Had these models at least had a good track record I'd be more lenient, but they haven't even that. All in all just complete pseudoscience and politicized bullshit. Can't be any "rift between political solutions to scientific matters" when there isn't any science to speak of.
Dylan Bell
>IQ
While I don't disagree with your assesment, I'll state that without candor, one's IQ is impotent.
Eli Perry
>no metrics, therefore no rift
You're assuming that statistics require scientific metrics- government is their god- no exaggeration. Speak to them- they'll believe that government has their best interests at heart...and that governments can do science...:
Governments cannot perform science- the pursuit of truth Governments act to preserve power. So unless preserving-power requires pursuing truth, then governments cannot perform science.
Whenever governments release scientific information, be skeptical.
The whole idea that social change should be instituted based on prognostication by the scientific establishment consensus is insane in the first place. Can you think of another example where this has been done? The natural interaction between state and science is to implement what is tried and tested and known superior, which makes sense. Going the other way around like now is madness, if not only because the scientific mainstream has never been characterized in particular by being correct. In fact, that's the whole history of science, the mainstream being wrong but the scientific method correctly applied being good enough to allow a minority or individuals to prove said majority wrong. Now that you've got politics and millions of billions of monies involved, good luck getting anything useful out of it.
It really is madness. A religious attitude to science has taken hold in the populations, encouraged by corrupt states of course. We're entering a new dark age, make no mistake about it.
Juan Torres
I find it extremely funny when normies talk about climate change on earth without mentioning the sun. after being hammered by leftist rants on climate, I always ask "what do you know about the sun?" *silence* like The Energy Source and it's cycles is best left out of the equation.
I find it funny to ask them what they base their apocalyptic scenarios on, if we presume they are correct (not likely) in their projections that earth is going to get 2-3 degrees hotter over the next century. According to everything we know about geophysics the planet has been much warmer and much colder than that at several points in history, with life and humanity surviving just fine. Also always a *crickets* moment.
I have no idea where this idea comes from that the 90s or whatever is the perfect, optimal temperature for earth and humanity forever. Seems like a crazy and frustrating idea to have when we know the climate on this planet changes radically all the time.
Brody Moore
>science should dictate policy Policy is determined by the quality of the electorate...there is no (easy way) to go back..
John Brown
As an aside, in the news is AIDS (HIV) news...remember the genesis of the 'discovery' of HIV...during political strife during Regan's years... the gay community was rallying against him...and wouldn't you know it, a government workers discovered the virus that caused HIV- and the next day filed a patent for the test.
What I will say is that HIV has never been isolated- but governments spend lots of money fighting it... fighting a ghost.
Hunter Sanchez
>what about the Sun >*silence*
Hayek figured them out long ago:
"The resistance against being guided by something that is unintelligible to them is, I think, quite understandable in an intellectual. Go back to the origin of it all: Descartes of course explicitly argued only that we should not believe anything which we did not understand. But his followers immediately applied it to we should not accept any rules which we did not understand. And the intellectual has very strongly feeling that what is not comprehensible must be nonsense. And to him the rules he's required to obey are unintelligible and therefore nonsense. He defines rational almost as intelligible, and anything which is not intelligible to him is automatically irrational, and he's opposed to it."
Jacob Jenkins
>Earth's natural tempature I also find this odd- and they don't say this. But after speaking with them- and getting no where- one infers that they believe in a 'natural temperature.' And you realize this 'things are a certain way' extends to business- and as such they see business failings as a perversion of nature- as though businesses naturally last forever- and that any change is human's failings.
Henry Taylor
Climate change being bad assumes positive feedback loops.
But when a ball heats up, it dissipates heat at a higher rate. I.e. negative feedback loop
This video BTFOs every single climate model used at the moment by pointing out that by only using solar irradiance variation, CMEs and solar storms are counted as a decrease in the sun's output because of all the dust and stuff in the way and then ADDS it to the human caused side of the equation.
Jackson Kelly
Yes, that too- they'll acknowledge positive loops, but not negative- unless to say that CC is worse than we think BECAUSE of negative feedback loop hiding our effect.
Lincoln Diaz
Yes, the CC truths have been BTFO'd for years- but most people are retards- and will believe government interpretation of Science.
Lucas Ortiz
the militarys black budget programs already have the technology to control the weather the question is weather or not they will expose it to the public
positive feedback loop, we are in a fragile equilibrium
Benjamin Garcia
Ironically, the image on the left is more likely to be a high CO2 environment as plants tend to thrive, it is Oxygen to them.
There is a Yin/Yang between plants, CO2, Oxygen and people. Literally all we have to do is plant more trees.
Leo Cooper
>Ironically, the image on the left is more likely to be a high CO2 environment as plants tend to thrive, it is Oxygen to them.
Yes yes. CC alarmists will actually cause the world's poor to die...
Matthew Cooper
Shut up you plebbitor buffoon, grown ups are talking.
Kayden Ramirez
>Earth is fragile Nothing funnier than listening to plebbitors
Isaac Howard
this climate change bullshit completely ruined any credibility the environmental movement had. in return polluters can now point to the absurdity of this climate change bullshit to justify removing actual sensible regulation so they can pollute even more
you guys need to get your heads of the clouds and come back to the ground level. stop trying to scare us with magic molecules of death, stop advocating for a fucking communist revolution. go after the egregious polluters, go after toxic chemicals in food, go after dumping in the rivers and oceans, go after litter. i can get behind that
Ethan Sanders
You’re only looking at the CO2 part of the equation. Yes if everything stayed the same then more CO2 would grow more plants. But the massive droughts and heat waves caused by AGW will cause desertification.
Ethan Gray
Now I hear they've found a cure for this never recorded ghost as well, which is impressive I guess. Meanwhile what do you think it was all about? Just general immunodeficiency from terrible lifestyle?
Eli Jackson
>this climate change bullshit completely ruined any credibility the environmental movement had. in return polluters can now point to the absurdity of this climate change bullshit to justify removing actual sensible regulation so they can pollute even more Yes. >you guys need to get your heads of the clouds and come back to the ground level. stop trying to scare us with magic molecules of death, stop advocating for a fucking communist revolution. go after the egregious polluters, go after toxic chemicals in food, go after dumping in the rivers and oceans, go after litter. i can get behind that 100 agree
Oliver Gomez
>muh droughts How far back do your records go? 300 years? That's laughable.
Lucas Fisher
How do you know this? Do you have little earth in your laboratory to test out your crazy hypothesis on? And even if you're right, so what? It's only reasonable to expect having to adapt ourselves to a changing climate. The climate has always changed radically according to all real geophysical research. The idea that you're going to be able to create some sort of stasis around our current climate is ludicrous. There's just been an ice age which we're at the tail end of.
Parker Martinez
“adapting” to losing large amounts of arable land means killing off billions of people until we reach sustainable population numbers. If you think that’s preferable to cutting carbon emissions then alright.
Jaxon Cook
Who exactly are these so called “scientists”? I’ve only ever seen or heard that faggot Al Gore and other leftist faggot talking heads promoting this climate doomsday cult. How is it that every 10 years since the 1920’s this doomsday cult has made a prediction about the sky falling and every single time (((they))) are BYFO? Explain yourself faggot!
Cameron Walker
Pro tip: eliminating African and Asian populations would do more for carbon emissions than anything else you could possibly do.
Ian Stewart
First off I'd like to see any real and substantial indication to that cutting carbon emissions will change the climate. No one has been able to do so until now, and seeing how the predictive models fail so spectacularly I'm holding off on jumping on your bandwagon for that one.
But yes, I'll admit I don't care too much about the people who would be affected by growing deserts. They're reproducing unsustainably at light speed already, so I wish your climate pseudoscience was real.
Angel Gutierrez
I'm not an expert on it, however I find Kerry Mullus's explanation helpful. He suggests that the retroviruses one absorbs (that become part of their DNA), in gay people, become a huge load on their system- and that this makes them vulnerable to infections ON WHICH AIDS DIAGNOSIS ARE MADE! Yes- AIDS diagnoses largely rely on what diseases you have.
>terrible lifestyle Immune system requires a lot of energy. And consider the above.
Mullis discovered PCR- used to determine amount of certain DNA someone has- and, to his horror, has been used to help push AIDS.
Oh you mean the famous 95% of less than 1,000 scientists that where polled, non of which where climate scientists. Yeah that bullshit has been debunked more times than bigfoot. You’re gonna have to do better than that.
Juan Wright
Interesting.
Mason Richardson
You want me to recommend books or something fag? More carbon means the earth gets hotter, heat causes problems, preventing carbon from entering the atmosphere would prevent that.
Jackson Gomez
>Interesting. What's also interesting is that governments and cronies are profiting, but prestigious scientists are suffering.
And Mullis/Duesberg don't say they know the cause- just show fallacies.
IMO the reason the AIDS hoax continues is that, if they 'start from what they know,' they'll admit huge liabilities.
Luis Johnson
I'm not pushing the 'ACC is real, and must be countered' agenda.
Ethan Carter
>More carbon means the earth gets hotter Completely unknown. >heat causes problems Hard to say. >preventing carbon from entering the atmosphere would prevent that Who knows.
The problem with having a hypothesis you can't test out is that you don't know. Guesswork is fine, have your little pet hypothesis for all I care. But don't come at my door saying you need to double my taxes and the UN to have global legislative power. Because then your little pseudoscientific musings have overstepped their boundaries a little.
Why would you presume it getting 2 degrees hotter and a ppm more CO2 in the atmosphere would increase desertification? What's your scientific basis for this? I could hypothesize it would make plants grow so well that deserts will vanish. It would be just as crazy as hypotheses go, without any real data to back it up on. But the only reason you do it is because you want your apocalyptic quasi-religion to be true.
Daniel Howard
>completely unknown
Maybe in the Middle Ages. We know the absorption spectrum of carbon dioxide. We know it absorbs infrared light and converts it to heat. More carbon dioxide thus means more heat. This can be verified experimentally by exposing containers of air versus CO2 to sunlight. The CO2 gets hotter than normal air.
Brayden Mitchell
We don't know how the climate works yet. Your idea that you can test this on a container in your lab and assume you've accounted for all the parameters of our planet is insane. Do you see how that's insane? We have no idea what mechanisms are in place here. It's not science, it's madness. Please understand.
As to how it would pan out, if we (wrongly) assume that it's going to get hotter, that's even more tenuous.
Ryder Ortiz
>insane to think we can plan the environment Relax, they already planned societies! Look how Russia worked!
Easton Reyes
I don’t know what the fuck they’re teaching in Denmark but this is how science works. We draw conclusions from experimental data. For the conclusion that CO2 increases temperature to be wrong, we would need to be wrong about CO2s absorption spectrum which we’re not, physical experiments confirming CO2 gets hot would all need to be wrong.
Xavier Martin
>experimental data No one have any experimental data on increasing the CO2 in the earth's atmosphere. It's impossible to test for.
You are obviously completely incapable of rational thought, so I give up on you now. People like you, who I'm sure has some academic credential, but who have no understanding of the scientific process are the reason why mainstream science can't be trusted anymore.
Henry Gonzalez
You don’t need to create a copy of earth and increase the CO2 concentration to prove increasing CO2 levels would increase the temperature. You can prove it from the data we have.
Isaac Anderson
>You can prove it from the data we have. No you can't.
Isaiah Brooks
You can apply the results of simplified experiments to the real world. Wind tunnel tests on models can be used to predict real world performance of vehicles, etc. For CO2 to increase without temperature increasing would require supernatural intervention.
Michael Reyes
The CO2 ppm in the atmosphere has been magnitudes higher at many times in history. Obviously some unknown mechanism changes CO2 levels on this planet. Does you laboratory test subject implement this unknown mechanism?
No?
Fuck off then.
Cooper Bell
Manmade CC is real but irrelevant. This toppic is only pushed so infront of everything else so that everyone become polarized by everything enviornmental. That's why so many retarded people suck the dick of big oil and other international conglomerates instead of advocating real enviornmental laws and protection. They have been misguided into a contrairian stance to the more relevant topics like plastic in the oceans, desertification, aluminium and other metals in the body, soil erosion and many many more only because some retarded urbanites get pushed to be as obnoxious as possible.
>and this is bad Sure. But worse than ACC being used to push more taxes- and not regulations?
Josiah Davis
>CO2 has been higher in the past Yes and it was much hotter in those time periods >some unknown mechanism controls CO2 It’s not unknown. CO2 levels went down because living organisms absorbed CO2 and put it in the earths crust. When you see white limestone formations, those are shells of sea creatures that turned CO2 into calcium carbonate for shells. Oil and coal are plants and animals that absorbed CO2 and got buried under ground.
TLDR; read a book nigga
Charles Sanchez
Half an hour of frenetically reading global warming blogs and that's what you came up with? Is this the power of the puerto rican plebbitor?
But no, there were periods with higher CO2 ppm and lower temperatures. Try again plebbit.
