Humans are affecting the climate

Don't confuse the purpose of my post. What good does it do to spread misinformation?

If he's not expecting that from you, then why would he have to hold himself up to that standard?

Fuck you that wont help and you know it
Needs to be a civilization wide change

If you really want to do something about climate change you have to go after those affecting it the most.

Genocide the following areas: Indian Subcontinent, Eastern third of China, all of Indonesia and Nigeria.

With those regions destroyed and their abysmal sanitation and manufacturing gone there will be far less pollution entering the atmosphere and our waters.

>under what circumstances pumping said gases into the atmosphere does NOT increase global temperature
When environment has a mitigating effect. Increased forestation and ocean algae can offset the increases.

No, what I really need to do is attack the constant misinformation that's spread amongst deniers, or else no action will be taken whatsoever.

So you're saying that it does, in fact, increase temperature, but that the Earth can "handle" it? This is just a tacit admission that I am correct. By the way, if you actually want to claim that the Earth can absorb all that carbon, then I'm happy to humor you. What models do you have that suggest this? Every model I've seen shows significant increase in temperature due to human behavior.

Humans will be gone long before that happens. We aren't the best survivors on this planet.

"In this case, the five major emitters—the United States, European Union, China, Russian Federation, and Japan— together contributed two-thirds of the world's historic CO2 emissions"

There's a linear correlation between ocean algae and CO2 concentrations? Doubt it.

How do you know he is a hypocrite? He might get his electricity from hydro.

the true redpill is acknowledging climate change is real, human driven, and should be accelerated because it will result in the southern hemisphere becoming a desert, a new ice age in the northern hemisphere, and massive flooding worldwide leading to billions of brownoids starving and drowning leaving the aryan man free to ascend to the stars

It could also lead to crop failure, which would unpredictably cause starvation in random locations.

fucking based

Lost of white rural farmland is going to experience droughts. And coastal floading means lots of urban trash will move out of their containment zone.
Not only that, but it's obvious the effects of global warming will be used to justify more migration.

Thats a hell of a claim. Got a source? It seems odd that one hemisphere will behave that much differently.

Be the change the world needs and kys.

And thats all Im gonna say to your shitty post

Attached: 86C88CFC-F91D-43C8-8FAD-016D5D447014.gif (743x800, 1.95M)

burtrutan.com/downloads/EngrCritiqueCAGW-v4o3.pdf

>comparing cavemen burning a wood fire occasionally to our current globalized industrial civilization

>Says who? Who can definitively say that we aren't risking the one precious planet we have that can support life? Why would you ever take such a moronic gamble?

The BBC? Scientifically Earth reset's itself every couple of thousand years with a purge.
The real question is why is this consequential?

Attached: 1528203892606.jpg (704x800, 342K)

CO2 is .04% of the atmosphere. That is 1/2500. Man made CO2 is 3% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere. That is 1/33. So, 1/33 * 1/2500 is 1/82,500 parts of the atmosphere. In addition, CO2 is only responsible for about 1% of the greenhouse effect. The globe has warmed by 1.5 degrees, supposedly. so, the CO2 is responsible for about 3% of 1.5 degrees, and mankind is responsible for 1% of that. So, man made CO2 is responsible for .0045 degrees of temperature rise. You never took any math beyond potato, did you?

This image alone explains why the author of this pdf is moronic. There are three primary variables that influence global temperature, but his graphic only accounts for one. Yes, if you only use 1 variable in your regression model, you won't get a statistically significant result. This is literally undergraduate tier stuff. I closed it after I saw this extreme stupidity.

Attached: ByAmgxG.png (926x762, 393K)

Holy fuck you are retarded.

The real issue is China. Realistically, their military is growing at a fast rate. If we slack on our fossil fuels, they will overtake us militarily and eventually conquer the world. But, of course, no one can actually say that.

>CO2 is .04% of the atmosphere
sure, so what?

>Man made CO2 is 3% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere.
Completely untrue. Mankind makes up 3% of the CO2 flux, not the same thing.

>CO2 is only responsible for about 1% of the greenhouse effect
completely false

Yes I was expecting this answer eventually. This is a common myth spread amongst deniers, and the best way to explain to you why it's wrong is to use a bathtub analogy.

Let's imagine that there is a bathtub that is full to the brim with water. The faucet is on, and the water is draining out at the same rate that it's coming in. The water level is in equilibrium. The water represents carbon.

Now imagine I took a glass of water and poured it into the bathtub. Remember, the bathtub was already filled to the brim with water. This means that the bathtub now overflows, even though the amount of water I added was far less than the total amount in the tub.

Or, in scientific words, what matters isn't the total carbon at play, but the rate of carbon flux. Next myth please.

>If you want to respond to any part of this post make it this: It can be proven in a simple, high school physics lab that greenhouse gases increase atmospheric temperature.
You fucking midwit...

It can also be PROVEN in ANY high school physics lab that CO2 is a WEAK GHG and that the MAXIMUM forcing for a doubling of preindustrial CO2 levels is ONLY +1.2C, a figure REPEATED in EVERY UN IPCC report.

The ONLY way you can get a forcing greater than +1.2C is through a LARGE positive feedback from SOME OTHER mechanism. AGW theory rests ENTIRELY on the idea that WATER VAPOR will amplify any warming due to CO2.

The problem with this? You CANNOT prove a positive water vapor feedback in a high school physics class or even with the most powerful supercomputers. That's because atmospheric H2O is NOTHING like CO2. CO2 is well mixed and stable, while H2O is short lived and extremely chaotic. H2O can take the form of heat trapping humidity, clouds which trap heat, clouds which REFLECT heat, rain, and snow which increases albedo. We CANNOT model the behavior of water vapor with any accuracy beyond TEN DAYS, which is weather forecasting. That means we can only go with observation.

What does observation say? Pic related. Our observations are consistent with CO2 acting ALONE or with a WEAK H2O feedback suggesting a MAXIMUM forcing of +1.2C to +2C. None of the "bad things" that are predicted by the IPCC occur without about 4-5C of warming. In fact, the changes brought on by 1-2C of warming are largely positive.

SCIENCE IS OBSERVATION, AND OBSERVATION TRUMPS THEORY. The theory of a strong positive H2O feedback AGW has been FALSIFIED by observation.

Attached: climate models suck.jpg (500x375, 89K)

Why the fuck are you climate alarmist focusing on greenhouse emissions and not on the fucking fact that there are solid plastic islands floating around our oceans?
The fact that modern agriculture pump and dumps most of its wastes straight to the fucking waters and kills its natural life, turning it into a bog?
The fact that you retards want your fresh fucking avocados, oranges, bananas and whatnot during the fucking winter, to supply your bourgeosie lifestyle, yet demand taxation on meat products, which the lower classes depend upon?
The fact that you push more centralised living, that you want to cut the rural man out of his place and force him into the choking grasp of a meat grinder, that is our cities.
The fact you fuckwits demand taxation on flying, yet can't wrap your head around the fact that our global trade market depends upon these taxing supply chains.
The fact you want your brand new iPhone, electric car or other useless gimmicky device that you'll throw away for a newer, shinier one in a few years time. The fact that these very products rely on the raping and pillaging of the land, but since you aren't there to see it, hear from it or ever notice it, it is fine.
The fact you want to strain our economy, living spaces and local travel more, by bringing in more people outside of the western world.

You just want to feel you're doing something, yet aren't willing to sacrifice your little champagne socialist, middle class lifestyle one bit.
You expect the average guy to take the fall

Any conversation about climate change and the role mankind has in it that does not point the finger squarely at places like China, Africa and India is pure political jiggery-pokery and at best a bad-faith argument.

China puts out more general pollution in a few months then the US does in a year. Regulation and controls are nonexistant outside of developed nations, despite the constant pearl-clutching about the end of the world and the need for immediate action. If it's so serious, so end-of-the-world important, why are we still tiptoeing around accusing the worst polluters of the worst offenses?

Why does the developed world need to shave deeper and deeper to allow other, uncaring nations to pollute more, and with zero ramifications? Why are all the scientists, who are all in agreement, not pointing to the death-world levels of toxins rotting the ecosystems of asia and africa? We're all accountable, yes, but we're ALL accountable. If nobody gets a pass, then fucking nobody gets a pass.

To repeat, discussions that don't point fingers to the worst pollution producers are either being made from ignorance, bad faith, or with a direct political bias, and should be immediately discarded. That your chart uses exclusively right-leaning political figures to make your derisive point puts you firmly in the third category.

Attached: 1505823195858.png (633x560, 539K)

>China puts out more general pollution in a few months then the US does in a year.
On point.
Emission regulations+free trade with shitholes=idiocy

Not the topic of the thread. Of course shithole countries are the worst causers of climate change. This thread is for the brainlet deniers of the obviously true science.

The main problem is "free" countries let any shitskin single mother pollute the environment driving their fat ass around in pursuit of their own worthless goals with no benefit whatsoever to society.

>"hurr durr u brainlet denier"
>t. Doesn't Understand AGW Theory & Has Never Read An IPCC Report

I'd love to see the reports. Kudos to you for telling me something I've never heard before and might actually be feasible.

1. Not an alarmist
2. Just because there are other issues does not mean the question of determining the truth value of if humans are affecting the climate or not is not a valid pursuit. I didn't read the rest of your post.

>Any conversation about climate change and the role mankind has in it that does not point the finger squarely at places like China, Africa and India is pure political jiggery-pokery and at best a bad-faith argument.
I can agree with that, however most conversations with randoms involve some kind of simpleton claiming humans can't affect it at all, let alone which nations are doing the affecting. I'm here to educate those people. Once every agrees that humans can change the climate, then we can go after China, et al.

This.
AGW is a distraction from the real issues.

>"Contributed Historic"

No longer and haven't in a long time for the US and Western Europe

If you cared about the truth you'd be bitching at your side for exaggerating so damn much. we're already past the concentration of CO2 where it stops really increasing in opacity.

Even if every Westerner would accept this, it wouldn't fix anything.
People are too comfortable.
Too god damn lazy.
If you actually are an anarcho-commie of some sorts, you should realise how complacent people are in their middle-class, burgeoise lifestyle.
Why do you think the EU demands its member states, especially the nordic ones, to cut down on their greenhouse gas emissions, yet the biggest offenders such as France and Germany (surprise) do effectively nothing?
How the EU will happily accept free trade from China, with no regards to their polluting way of produce?

If we have the ability to affect the climate, then what's the issue? If things get bad, we can just use our climate controlling to change it. If we don't have the ability to affect the climate, then why worry about it?
>we do have the ability to, and it's getting bad so we need to change it
Who is it bad for? I live in Western New York, near the Great Lakes. I am not affected by hurricanes or the sea level rising. I am in no danger of experiencing a drought. My winters are getting more mild each year; my driveway only had to be plowed a dozen times this season. The growing season is getting longer. Soon, in addition apples, corn, and potatoes, other crops will be able to be grown locally. The way I see if climate change, if real and caused by humans, is only helping me.
>but it hurts other people
So? It seems like the people it's hurting fall into one of two categories:
>people living on the coast, so liberals trying to genocide me
>people living in the south west deserts, so mexican invaders trying to replace me
Tell me why I shouldn't support climate change if it's real and caused by humans (it isn't).

But the tub isn't filled to the brim, retard. The Earth has had far higher levels of atmospheric carbon before and was never in equilibrium. Only a closed system can have equilibrium. You know what was actually bleeding off excess carbon? The fucking ozone hole you idiot hippies demanded we stop using CFCs for. You talk about misinformation, yet you're full of it.

World 3 model is invalid to predict temperature. Global system dynamics is an invalid method to predict temperature. There are models and methods which manage to predict temperature, not one of them predicts dangerous or even notable effects from human/ecosystem interaction. So why is it that only these invalid models absolutely stuffed with reckless exponentials and wild assed assumptions about agricultural interactions are used to support the notion that we need to pay taxes on the most abundant element in the universe?
Why is it that a massive domestic propaganda campaign begun in 2012 to indoctrinate young children into this scientifically irresponsible notion?
Why is it that a smaller but more targeted domestic propaganda campaign was launched this very year to train local meteorologists to LIE to their audience?
Why does such a scientifically sound theory need such a brutal propaganda force?
It really gets the noggin joggin don't it?

My side is the right though.

>Even if every Westerner would accept this, it wouldn't fix anything.
That's probably true, but that doesn't change the fact that I get trigged when people spread obvious lies.

>The earth has existed for billions of years and still hasn't found equilibrium

Attached: raf,750x1000,075,t,fafafa_ca443f4786.jpg (750x1000, 42K)

>If we have the ability to affect the climate, then what's the issue?
Because we are currently only able to change it in one direction.

>I'M RIGHT, YOU'RE RETARDED!
nice discussion

I WAS EXACTLY TALKING ABOUT HOW HUMANS ARE AFFECTING THE CLIMATE YOU DIPSHIT.
You retards focus on fucking greenhouse emissions, with no knowledge of how our oceans, rivers, forests, etc. are dying due to trivial and disgusting consumer culture.
And no fucking politician will risk their life of riches or their corporate buddies.
And the corporate buddies will not risk their profits.
And the consumer will not risk his chances of getting a brand new spanking fucking iPhone.

Leftists still can't present a climate model that has predictive validity.
>Believe us or you're anti science!

>Why the fuck are you climate alarmist focusing on greenhouse emissions and not on the fucking fact that there are solid plastic islands floating around our oceans?
Bacteria that can digest nylon evolved a hundred years after we created nylon. Plastics are made of hydrocarbons; the same type of molecules that organic material is made out of. Take a look at a plastic molecule, then take a look at cellulose; tree bark. Bacteria can digest tree bark no problem. It's not a matter of if, but when will plastics no longer be immune to digestion, and unlike wood that lasts a while before it rots, plastics are small, simple molecules, that will go fast.

>It's a closed system because there's an atmosphere and old
You have no idea what equilibrium actually is, do you? Ever hear of entropy?

SO IT IS NOT ABOUT ANY FUCKING CHANGE TO YOU, IT IS ABOUT YOUR BLOATED FUCKING EGO.

You are fucking worthless.

He's a trained liar unwittingly working on behalf of the Club of Rome to justify a mass culling via malnutrition. Same as holodomor. It's a particular type of Saturnalian's favorite type of murder, sloooow starvation.

Climate Change isn't immigrating into my country and raping little girls so I dont' give a shit.
We have more pressing concerns.

Go back to r*ddit and THEN kys

I'll give a shit when you come up with a solution that doesn't involve taxes.

I'd rather we'd unironically launch a global EMP and let most of humanity die out.
Including me.

No, he's saying I'm on the left. I'm saying I'm on the right.

>no knowledge of how our oceans, rivers, forests, etc. are dying
Again, this only have a major impact on the climate. It is merely a red herring.

Ego? No. It's about the fact that I get trigged when lies are spread.

You haven't told me why it's bad yet. We know from fossils that hundreds of millions of years ago the Earth's atmosphere had a significantly higher CO2 percent, and all it did was let plants grow bigger and everywhere, which in turn let animals grow bigger and everywhere. There's a reason why every satellite photo of the Earth shows green in every nook and cranny. Plants need light, air, and little else to grow. If we keep feeding them, they'll keep growing, and as long as they keep growing we'll be fine.

With faggots like you on your his planet I hope it is real

My solution is for the government to give prizes to people who make advances in the relevant technology that would help.

It's bad because we are reaching unprecedented levels and you're risking the ecosystem of the one planet we have. You don't know exactly what will happen--no one will. Err on the side of caution. Mass extinction events have happened before and they can happen again.

In school a geography teacher said he attended a conference where the biggest lie would told where rain dancing worked. Question the data less 0.00000000000000001 of earth history is recorded.

>I'd love to see the reports. Kudos to you for telling me something I've never heard before and might actually be feasible.
Hmmm...not the response I'm used to here. My apologies for the "fucking midwit" comment and the tone of the post. I usually find I have to beat AGW posters over the head.

For the record, I believe we should carefully (and honestly!) monitor the climate while working on technologies that will allow us to transition from fossil fuels in an affordable manner in the long term. I would put my money on thorium reactors with equal research into EVs and cracking atmospheric CO2 to synthesize hydrocarbons. (If we could do the latter there's a good chance sticking with the ICE would be better for vehicles.)

But I do not support any form of carbon taxes, carbon caps, carbon penalties, or subsidized "renewable" spending outside of pure R&D. None of that stuff will actually impact global GHG emissions. It only enriches greedy politicians and their cronies, and only in western countries which puts the west at a greater disadvantage versus mass polluting China/India.

I would say we're looking at 40-50 years before we can deploy tech that will truly impact GHG emissions, and 100 years from bringing net emissions to zero. I also think those are OK goals because I just don't see a >2C rise by 2100 in the data gathered to date.

>me me me me, i get triggered
>not about my ego though
How is the fact that the global consumer culture is the biggest factor in destroying our climate a red herring, exactly?
Oh yeah, because that doesn't sell to the retarded millenial who sips Starbucks, browses Twitter with his brand new phone, while eating his avocado toast in the middle of the fucking winter.
It's all about moral posing.
All of it.

Your solution isn't the government's fucking job, and it's unwise. If a valid technology arises it must survive the market to remain valid.

I'm all for cleaning up the Earth. I'm also for dispelling misinformation. The topic of this particular discussion is the truth value of co2 as a vector for increasing global temperatures. If you want to talk about trash, go make your own thread.

Go fuck yourself.

>But I do not support any form of carbon taxes, carbon caps, carbon penalties, or subsidized "renewable" spending outside of pure R&D
I wouldn't even have the government funding R&D. Obama did that and it was a disaster. Just have a government bounty and let the free market compete for it. see

Not every outcome of a free market is good for society, that's why the words "market failure" exists. Protecting the environment is absolutely a valid function of government, or else you would be drinking lead water, dumbass.

An okay answer I guess, but let's look at this from a different angle; a game theory standpoint. If things continue the way they are, the chances of my descendants surviving is slim. We're being outbred by savages, and they're invading our countries. It might not be my kids, or my grandkids, but eventually the 3rd worlders will outnumber civilization with enough of a ratio to just kill us off. Meanwhile if climate change is real and eventually causes human extinction or at least civilization collapse, we all lose equally. If my options are lose and the other guy wins, or lose and everyone loses, why should I choose to help the other guy? Heck, when you consider how ingrained the international money system is in the world, the only chance of any of my descendants (or any humans really) living free of usury might be a complete collapse. I'm willing to roll the dice on long term climate change being better for my descendants than living in the future as it's going to be now.

Holy fuck are you me???

IMHO the absolute best way to spur R&D is to set a series of goals/milestones with rewards. First corp. to 1 gets A, first corp to 2 gets B, etc. I would probably make the reward something like a free tax year for the entire corporation, possibly even including their employees. No cash outlay by the government, and the "lost" tax revenue would be more than made up by taxes on the new economic activity following the innovations.

Setting up a pure government bounty would work to.

Fuck user, I'm really sorry I was a dick at first.

>It's bad because we are reaching unprecedented levels
But we're objectively not. Do you honestly think plant life won't adjust to increased food levels the same as animals and the same as they did before? Do you think we're not still in an ice age? Do you think without human input there would be no warming? You're bill nye tier stupid here.

Who pays for those rewards?

Have you been reading/listening to Scott Adams recently? Everything you've posted in this thread seems like what he's been up to.

The global stability that you think will last forever, won't. You need not look far back into history to understand what the future will be like, we don't also need to implement possible mass extinction events just to cut off our nose to spite our face. I don't believe Northern European genes will just perish without a fight. What you see as us "losing", I see as merely growing stronger through selective pressures. The weak, degenerate, race-mixing among us are removing themselves from our ranks.

>Who can definitively say that we aren't risking
The burden is on the one making the claim. You can't prove a negative. Prove to me that climate change is an urgent threat to human civilization. You cannot.

Don't worry about it brother. You can make it up to me by educating me on those IPCC reports.

Okay I may have exaggerated, however I still would disagree with making significant changes whose impacts are not fully understand.

You do.

Nope. Never heard of him.

I was responding to the hypothetical argument being made in the image. The claim "it's not urgent" implies the following
1. climate change is real
2. we are affecting the direction climate change is taking
No, I cannot prove to you without a doubt what you want me to. You're missing the point. You, similarly, cannot prove to me definitively that it is not a threat. Perhaps not an immediate threat, but a threat nonetheless. Why are playing games risking the one livable environment we have? Aren't you aware that positive feedback loops have created mass extinction events in the past? It's like you think that it's impossible for that to happen again.

Your explanation is absolutely ridiculous. It is a completely contrived scenario which is not at all analogous to the current situation. There is no climate tipping point, idiot. If there WAS, back when the atmosphere was 6,000 PPM, it would have caused an irreversible feedback loop, until our planet turned into Venus. What made the levels go down idiot? What happened to your overflowing bath tub and your positive feedback? I can't believe that you actually think you are smart. If we produce .001% of the CO2, we are responsible for .001% of the feedback. Sorry that you are so befuddled by math. The climate warms and cools naturally, and the supposed 1.5 degree increase is undoubtedly exaggerated as well. Only a moron like you would actually believe that human generated CO2 molecules are heated up to 10,000 degrees. That is how much heat each molecule would need to trap to make a 1 degree difference in temperature. Take your low IQ somewhere else, like DU or CNN. They like retards like yourself.

No, everything I said was true. Everything YOU said was false. See how easy that is? I can use the same tactics as you.

I never said anything about a tipping point, so I'm not reading the rest of your post. If we're referring to my analogy, the water overflowing would be analogous to a change in temperature, not a "tipping point" of no return. In other words, adding water (carbon) to the atmosphere changes the temperature.

How many innoecent people need to die?

I know you didn't read it, and I'm not reading yours. Every claim the warmists make is untrue. It is just a huge scam. Don't bother replying, I won't read it.

>You, similarly, cannot prove to me definitively that it is not a threat.
And the burden of proof isn't on me to do so.

Wow, water is carbon. You sound like a real scientist. I always thought water was 2 parts hydrogen, one part oxygen. And you presume to debate me. Funny stuff.

I don't read posts that assume a position I don't have because it's a waste of time.

Intellectual dishonesty is your excuse.

And it might, But, if it was just a drop of water in that tub, a drop would fall over the side, and quickly evaporate. No problem whatsoever.

The primary environmental problem the world faces is overpopulation in developing countries. All other problems are secondary.

Eco-Fascism is the one true path. Bhutan is the most advanced country on Earth, culturally speaking. If we all lived like they did we'd be much better off. >50% every country nature preserve.

Attached: 1537222710708.jpg (630x847, 61K)

Blah, blah, intellectual integrity and knowledge are my strong suits, yours is repeating what you heard on CNN and thinking it makes you smart.

>what is an analogy
you cant be serious

I'm not asking you to burden yourself with proof you bumbling, ideological simpleton. I'm asking you to stop having an opinion on it and get out of the way so that the scientists can be the ones deciding if we are at risk of some mass extinction event. I'm not going to trust some brainlet's opinion on pol with such an important topic so he can sperg out about who has the burden of proof.