T-the world is doomed we are all going to di-

do you have any evidence for this?

and? thats how the earth works global sameness isn't a thing

Excellent. When we're feasting on our pet dogs and cats at least we'll be able to breathe easily

Are you dense?

Rad Libs like to use muh climate as an excuse to promote electoralism ("the planet is literally DYING we have to support [neolib party name]"). I blame Matt Christman from the chapo trap house podcast for this. He's been pushing this line for at least a year.

funny thing here this guy actually gets it.

No it's not.

Oh hey it's you.
You do this in every thread.
No one is going to google basic shit for you dude.

it's used to get people to vote, aimed at retarded millennial and gullible people who have been buying this exact same bullshit for decades despite all of supposedly meant to be dead from global warming/climate change 3 times over.
not fucking around, go look it up, climate change scientist have told us at least 3 times now that we'd all be dead if we didn't do something and yet here we still are….i think the first "tipping point" was back in the 50's or 60's if i remember correctly…regardless this whole we're all going to die unless you start using {insert ecofriendly product here} and {doing x,y,z,}…. it's a multi-trillion dollar global industry, they are doing no different than the tobacco scientist of the 1950's did… there should never have been climate change scientist or tobacco scientist, there is a incentive there to push certain results.

BASED XI

Attached: Xi_ActivateIt.png (680x460, 237.21K)

The tobacco companies were the ones behind the tobacco scientists.
Who is behind the global warming scientists? Solar companies? lol
If anything, the fossil fuel companies would have more incentive to pay off lying scientists to deny global warming - and they did!

I'm not well versed on this, but from what I understand the problem is not how hot the climate is going to get, but how fast this change occurs. Even some nightmare scenario like 6 C temperature rise wouldn't necessarily be an issue if it happened through out, say, 500 or 600 years. But if you hike even 2-3 degrees in a century shit gets really unpredictable, because ecosystems and species don't have time to adjust to that.

oh hey its you
making claims with no sources

People getting paid off by the government to continue their work. They create hysteria to justify continuing work and justify more government grants

...

reported for shitposting

Is the first world not ending or is it not a good thing?

do you know how scientific research is funded in American universities? are you retarded?

Universal Healthcare by 2020
Tuition-free education by 2025
100% Renewable by 2030
Communism by 2050

Thats not how communism works.

If anything those liberal policies will delay communism

Based, eternally based Xi. I really can't wait until the west is in complete ruin and all the petty booj western "leftists" are bowing to actual communists/socialists.

Interesting conspiracy theory.
Except, why is the government funding them if the government never actually uses the hysteria to do anything? The Paris Agreement was literally nothing, and so are all the other government responses to climate change. What's the point? Your conspiracy has no payoff, it's just a cycle of fearmongering->grant money with no base to support it.

Too bad it's full of mudslimes, pajeets, trannies, and full blown liberal tards. No individual rights remain in that place… although, it seems as though none ever did.

This.

Attached: 1550084348206.png (1200x1035, 1.54M)

thats how these people get paid there is no conspiracy about it

are you implying the government is a rational actor?
If Al Gore got elected I'm sure it'd be used to justify way more than what politicians already use it for
What are you talking about? Just about every radlib supports climate change conspiracy

And still whiter than your mongrel ass
Really makes me think

Dumb-fucking-yank: the post.

Attached: 5e3430e7206cf70d4050accbc982b5be0788a1a131544993779c27a953256f84.jpg (844x546, 83.96K)

Attached: d0e39b824c4787b9f77a1f88c8f1a2b3929912c2154677ded571fd423986fe96.jpeg (1584x864 302.94 KB, 228.33K)

It requires a conspiracy between the government and the universities, even if the researchers remain in the dark while they do their dirty work. In order for climate researchers to be faking their data for grant money the government has to be incentivizing the faked data in the first place.

I'm implying it does things for reasons and that it never lets a good crisis go to waste. If your conspiracy theory were true, we would expect the government to take advantage of it. Yet, it's not.
Are you implying the government is a chaos dragon that is funding climate hysteria for the lulz?

Doubtful. Politicians are all talk on climate change.

I'm saying that they aren't DOING anything with their conspiracy. If they're behind a conspiracy, where's the payoff? You've described a cycle of fearmongering->grant money but you haven't explained what the economic basis for this actually is. You have a chicken and egg problem that you need to explain for your conspiracy theory to make any sense.

...

The first world is not ending.

How is the first world not dying?

Based and xijingpilled

Attached: chinese-characteristics.jpg (420x420, 29.84K)

it doesn't have to work like that, they were educated in a pseudo science with an implicit bias built in, the universities require the grants to keep the programs running.

look at it like this, climate change science departments and the grant train was created before we even knew if climate change was a man made problem or not, at this point billions of dollars in the various programs offered to students and grants that IF climate change WASN'T caused by man all of this would vanish, the people who paid for those educations would be out of the job, decades of their lives wasted, all of that student loan money, grant money, hell even industry.

you do know most research labs in America are actually privately funded by corporations right? they aren't government grants in the first place, they are grants by companies that want to be able to patent new tech, so they create grants for types of studies they would think would be beneficial to their companies…you're leaving industry and corporations out of the equation and being the lefty tard you are I'm sure you're well aware of how corporations have infiltrated our government and how the greasing of palms works there.

one last very basic thing, why the need for climate science, metorology dealt with that, literately nothing changed just the introduction of modeling software, there was never a need to create an entirely new discipline of "science" to deal with this in the same way things like gender studies are self supporting and shouldn't exist, that would fall under sociology even if there is a biological component to it, do sociologist not consider biology?
they will tell you that oh, climate science was needed due to time scales, which is bullshit, meteorologist had long tracked the recorded history of the weather and it's patterns…there's a lot of these fake sciences in the universities now, and that's how they do it, they get some fringe nut job who published a paper or a book, which anyone can do, give them a professorship, create a new educational program, put a few butts in the chairs, print out their degrees and call them experts in your newly formed field, now anytime you want to push your agenda or something you can just appeal to your manufactured authority….again, people trying to say there's no difference between men and women is the same pathology we see with climate science, climate science is just more nebulous and did it better.

Hurry up Gilets Jaunes, I don't want to learn Chinese.

No.

Keep dreaming.

but then you have two wh*toids saying thats not the case
youtube.com/watch?v=nYY1TjRigl8

The first world isn’t dying, it’s stagnating, and soon China will be to with their economic slowdown and all.

Lol you stupid nigger are you serious? just fuck off back to Zig Forums already, how many times have you been banned now?

data doesn't even need to be faked. There has been plenty of hysteria from correct data just presented in a horrific way.

Does it not?

thats a vulgarization of it but yes. You can see things like AOC's green new deal is pretty much what you described

No he would.

Just about every radlib's environmental policy and use it as leverage to get elected

We should just admit chinks are the real master race

What would be an example of correct data used in horrific way?

Why do people think China is doing renewables because it cares about climate change? China doesn't give a fuck about climate change tbh. China is desperately in need of energy it's energy needs are increasing exponentially every year it can get energy from Central Asia, Russia, Saudi Arabia North Africa, Iran Venezuela basically a whole lot of places where America is trying to fuck shit up in and depending on Russia for energy makes you in many ways Russia's bitch just look no matter how big your economy looks on paper look at the state of Yurop rn energy trumps everything niggas need to take the peak oil pill there is no magic tech Elon Musk type shit that will rescue this situation within the next ten years when we will start running out of energy

Seethe harder americuck, LOL.

Oh don’t forget, China imports natural gas and shale oil from America as well.
maritime-executive.com/article/china-to-import-more-oil-and-gas-from-the-u-s

I'm less interested in why China is doing it than that they're doing it in the first place.

I'm not sure I understand the purpose of this post. Why is it bad that China embraces renewable energy?

I think the person you responded to is trying to point out that the pressures that primarily motivates China to drive renewable energy sector are reducing their energy dependencies from external sources, as well as political pressures because of air pollution in cities. Considerations about the climate currently only have political weight and influence public opinion. Chinese leadership does seem to think more long term, so they could also be animated by potential problems in food production, fresh water supply and flooded cities.

This is the most Zig Forums post and largely, I don't disagree

c'mon man we would probably move to underground bunkers or something before that happens with like air filtration systems.

in 1890 you would be saying "cmon man we would probably move to other forms of energy like capturing light before the earth warms 2c"

All that socdem shit prevents actual socialism too happen, if anything it's going to make people happier by having more scraps, you see the average person is someone who is easily pleased and accepts things as long as it doesn't directly threaten their lives or makes everything much worse, if things remain the same, a little worse or a little better it's fine, all those reformist laws would make those individuals more pacific so to say, it's kind of like how porky reduced the labor day to 8 hours.

wrongkindofgreen.org

Mina-sama!

Read the Greta Thunberg series on wrongkindofgreen.org!

Phil Greaves backs it.

i am engaged in a one man protracted peoples war against phil greaves for blocking me. the only thing hes gonna back is his ass, into my dick

I mean what socdem shit is useful for is getting people to think about stuff. Kind of like "they have the wrong answers but they're asking the right questions." Not having any socdem shit at all, in the context of a country like the United States where you're raised on bourgeois and anti-communist propaganda from the crib, just means your political horizons are limited by Bush and Gore or something; but pushing it and then seeing it totally incompatible / suppressed can incidentally lead to people maybe thinking about taking this Marxist thing seriously for once. The problem there is that understanding the immortal science of Marxism-Leninism is true and correct doesn't automatically = revolution. Easier said than done.

That's kind of the weird moment we're in here in the United States, and the media / political center / etc. is kinda fritzing out a bit with talk of socialism in the major papers, because they were convinced ramping up the exploitation of workers and closing their factories down for cheap labor overseas would result in American workers becoming genius computer touchers: a country of Mark Zuckerbergs. But that didn't happen and, at the same time, Trump came onto the scene and did what Pat Buchanan failed to do, which is convince a mass base of Americans that threatening the Chinese Politburo and screwing with trade policy can turn water into wine.

Attached: 2CsVHRM.png (364x502, 244.27K)

Why is Phil Greaves so crazy that he blocks literally everybody? I commented ONCE on his posts on something completely innocuous and he blocked me.

Lol they're not asking any questions that challenge Capital

It is the same in Succdem countries

Being limited by Cornyn or Bernie is no different

Succdemcdoes not lead to this

There is no talk of socialism in major papers

Why are you so surprised