We all know, Earth is past the “Point of no return” when it comes to climate change. In 2016, we reached 405.1 PPM of CO2 in the atmosphere,which is set to raise the global temperature 2 degrees Celsius by 2035, or sooner. All scientists agree this is the point where CO2 levels are so high it throws the whole balance of the climate cycle into MAD chaos; making it more difficult to predict climate changes, causing sea levels to rise, glaciers to melt, severe tropical storms, drought and flooding. The worst part is scientist have been warning against our self-destructive behavior since 1992, and as a society we have done little to help!
We also know that movies (aka – Hollywood) mimics reality, so the horrible truths in this world can be slowly socialized into acceptable practices. There are now two movies which I believe are bringing a new reality to the forefront as part of a ‘climate change culling’ as initiated by the Government. The first movie is “The Happening” (2008) and the second is “Bird Box” (2018). Both movies speak to a “wind-like presence” that causes people to kill themselves. It seems ‘coincidental’ the movies were released 10 years apart, as we are now on the verge of killing off Earth itself.
The Government already has the technology to vaporize a deadly poison (like Ricin) and then weaponize it by attaching it to a timed explosive device. We also know LSD can cause massive hallucinations, which if given in an overdosing amount can cause people to kill themselves. You put these two technologies together and you have a VERY deadly WMD. What if the Government know this? What if the Government plans to use these technologies as a ‘culling’ to thin the herd that is society; to “save” humanity? What if the Government has already starting testing? How many of us out there have had people we know die unexpectedly, for no reason at all? What if underground ‘bunkers’ have already been built to save the ‘chosen’ (leaders of the world, ultra-wealthy, professions, physicians, engineers, etc.) Thus leaving the rest of us on our own. Finally, the real question here is, what will be the first city, or small town the Government will deploy this WMD to? OR really is this why Trump has befriended Putin and we are pulling out of Syria? Is that where it will be tested? The greater good of the Earth holds in the balance and the Government knows something must be done to save it. It is only a matter of time before the culling begins.
What are you implying? The government has our best interests at heart. Take your meds weirdo.
Chase Myers
Climate change can do the culling all by itself. Rising food prices and water scarcity will trigger wars of massive scale, as well as make it much harder to grow populations given decreased resources. In the first world, however, you'll be just fine. Shit's just going to get expensive and you won't be able to afford as much. Rest assured that as an American, you will not be facing food or water shortages anytime soon. You might get drafted, though.
Like so many things it is a self solving problem or potentially nothing. The areas that are predicted to be absolutely fucking purged by climate change are the ones that are overpopulated and overpolluted. The developed and prosperous countries of the world are mostly found in the north and south, away from the worst affected regions (and many parts of them may actually become more pleasant places to live as a result of higher average temperatures). As long as these wealthy nations can resist the calls that they destroy themselves in an attempt to save the damned and lesser nations they'll come through in a potentially better situation than they're in now. That's one hell of an 'if', of course, but it's better than nothing.
The largest problem is going to be that most cities are located along coastlines and lower elevation ground, but when you look at the majority of city dwellers out there we might be better off after they are … removed from the equation.
Austin Taylor
Shut the fuck up, you enormous piece of shit. As a society we did little to help? Fuck you. The biggest producers of CO2 are the industries. The biggest water wastes come from the industries. Who owns the industries? The jews. So don't tell me that I'm at fault because my shower time is a little bit longer than they tell me to be or because I use a motor car, because it isn't.
Angel Rodriguez
This is actually a bad thing. Because if it were the case that the first world were suffering because of the third world we might get off our ass and do something about it.
And here we have the crux of the problem. There won't be a debate or calls of pity from the third world. They will simply immigrate en masse to the first world. Because unless the first world completely unifies and agrees to kill any outsider on sight all it takes is one nation to open the floodgates.
Yes, we do. Please read the scientific literature on the subject. I can answer a few questions for youse guys, as a service for the yoots.
Jaxson Morris
The same (((scientific literature))) that says that all 37 genders are equal, that race doesn't exist but Whites are genetically inferior and that fucking children is okay?
Lincoln Kelly
Why not a series of nuclear depth charges detonated at continental fault lines to make the Arabian peninsula and all its filth sink back into the Tethys? Is that even possible?
Owen Torres
>>>Zig Forums
Juan Russell
You realize there is a large divide between the "soft" and "hard" sciences, right? No, it's not the same scientific literature. They aren't even published in the same journals. And I'm not aware of any actual scientific literature saying there's 37 genders. That's just a tumblr thing. Again, no scientific body holds that to be the case. This is why you should read some actual scientific journals and get an education.
Jaxon Perry
There are actually conservative solutions to climate change. You don't actually have to live a pre-industrial life. That would defeat the whole purpose of implementing policy to prevent a lowering of living standards from happening. Eh, technically you in the first world will still be able to lead the life you lead. Climate change affects mostly poor nations, though things are going to get expensive for everyone. Don't think of climate change as "catastrophic" as some leftist propagandists have made it out to be. It's not really that. Think of it as "expensive", which is what it really is. There are free market solutions as well as other policies that can help. But that's beyond the point. Science is not politics. Anthropogenic global warming is a real thing, and so is the resulting climate change. What you do with that information is your business. You can do nothing. That's certainly an option (which might be considered the only viable one in some circles), but it doesn't change the facts. I'm not the most versed in politics, so stick to the facts, and maybe we can have a nice discussion. Again, you can choose to do nothing with this information. That's beyond the realm of science.
Jonathan Evans
Is not nearly as conclusive as you make it out to be and frequently contradicts itself. Even using the most conservative of the IPCC's estimates for temperature rise, the reality has consistently been more mild than what was projected. Further, even a cursory glance at the economic models used to predict climate change shows that they're effectively useless as predictors. There are so many free variables involved, and the range of acceptable values for each so high, that you can get the model to report whatever conclusions you want it to report and still have it be valid. When you look at the way detractors are treated in the climate community, it's clear that there's nothing scientific about the subject, it's just an end-of-the-world doomsaying cult. For instance, there's a report of a researcher who published a paper suggesting that muh climate change isn't responsible for increased intensity of tropical storms. Mind you, he still believed in rising temperatures, muh CO2 and advocated for a carbon tax and all of that gay shit, the only thing his research suggested was that maybe the climate change boogieman wasn't responsible for hurricanes. And for this minor deviation from the scriptures, the man was eviscerated by his peers, put on probation, and very nearly lost his job. The fact that you and other climate change shills turn to "scientific consensus" as your prime argument–an appeal to authority and popularity, from apparent scientists of all people–only makes this comparison clearer. And from scientists especially, this is rich–nearly all of the major discoveries in history are marked by a small number of detracting voices calling out the "scientific consensus" of the day. Gregor Mendell, Copernicus, Louis Pasteur, Charles Darwin, Robert Hooke, Watson and Crick, take your goddamn pick. All of them were the "climate deniers" of their day and age.
But let's assume all of this is bullshit. Let's pretend global warming isn't a fearmongering tactic to get dumb NPCs to accept higher taxes and give the federal government even more power over things that aren't its business. Even making that very generous concession, the proposed solutions are retarded. Carbon taxes don't fix anything, the UN proposals don't fix anything, and increased regulations don't fix anything. Deregulating the market and letting the Kuznets curve do its thing is the only viable solution to the non-problem of climate change. Jesus fucking Christ do some reading that isn't coming from good goy sources. mises.org/wire/william-nordhaus-vs-un-climate-change-policy
I'm glad you typed all that out, it was far more succinctly put than I could have managed.
Nolan Butler
Please point out where you think this is the case. Before we go on any further, this one I think is a pretty bold claim.
Jason Richardson
Well put. But!
Nolan Rivera
You also did not read my previous post. I'm not here to talk about the politics, just the facts. If your solution is market deregulation and new technologies, then it's not that weird. It's a pretty common thought, and I assume there is some validity to it. However, it doesn't change the fact that global warming is real and is resulting in climate change. Name him and cite the paper. I can't just take you at your word.
The singular of goyim is goy, goyfam.
Jonathan Ramirez
Climate science is a soft science. I'd even go as far as to say it's a social science as its implications are purely political and nothing else.
The IPCC's own predictions have consistently failed to ber realized, like I just said. Beyond that, it doesn't take all that much digging to show that the "scientific consensus" (as shitty an argument as that is) is nowhere near as monolithic as you suggest. There are more than a few published papers that go against the climate change narrative, and you only have to do a quick web search to get a plethora of articles debunking the "97%" meme, showing that most of the studies included in that factoid aren't even climate scientists, and the compiler just tailored his data to spit out the factoid he wanted. Much like what the IPCC and UN do, funnily enough.
Mises.org is anti-neocon, anti-leftist, anti-immigration, and one of its senior fellows wrote an article saying how much he hated jews because 90% of them are commies. You can disagree with lolbergism if you want but to call lolbergs good goys simply isn't true.
I read it three years ago. I'm not going to spend an hour trawling the internet to find the name and prove a minor point to some anonymous faggot, if you're that interested you can do that yourself. And if you're going to assume everyone who contradicts you is lying this conversation will go nowhere.
Michael Taylor
It's not, but keep trying. No. It doesn't have to have any political implications. Now, if you don't like the solutions that might be viable, then that's fine, but it doesn't change the facts. In either case, the public has been misled about the effects of climate change. We're not looking at recreating Venus.
Yes, those have large margins of error, and have seriously fallen bellow the real numbers several times. This does not invalidate the scientific literature itself. The IPCC is not the only scientific body conducting climate research. But I never mentioned the scientific consensus. Cite them. You seem to think in talking points. Not once have I mentioned this precisely because it's irrelevant. Then we'll go ahead and discount what you said. If you contradict me with a claim, then you need to back up that claim. I can't just give you the pass. That's not how this works. If I claim that the guy you're talking about engaged in unethical practices and fudged data, would you believe me without evidence? Of course not, and neither should you.
Justin Perez
But let's go from talking to actual citations, shall we. The idea that atmospheric composition affects temperature is not a new idea. articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1897PASP....9...14A/0000014.000.html It's actually more than 100 years old. So what does affect global temperature and climate as a result? 1. Insolation (solar activity, Milankovitchcycle, etc) 2. Concentration of aerosols (natural or anthropogenic) 3. Concentration of CO2 (methane breaks down into CO2)
Previously this wasn't the big topic that it is today, mostly because it pertained to research relating to Earth's past such as glaciations and so on. The science itself, however stands on very solid ground. But don't take my word for it, or any one scientis's word for it. Go look up on Research Gate (which is thankfully free), and try to find any article published in the last ten years rejecting climate change. You'll find that it's hard to do, and for every one you find, you'll find about 100 articles more that are far more cited than the one article. This is no longer a measure of consensus. It's a measure of how likely research is able to get through peer-review. As more data gathers, it becomes harder to be plain out wrong.
No one's saying the climate isn't changing, I just don't agree that CO2 is the massive contributing factor they say it is or that the rapid and devastating changes being implied are going to be anywhere near as rapid or devastating as implied. That's the politicised bit.
William Davis
And (((liberals))) are surely trying their best to mudden the threshold between them.
Gavin Jones
It doesn't matter whether you agree or not. CO2's absorption mechanism is well understood and has been for more than 100 years. It isn't only applicable to climate science. In this you are correct. This is mostly media hype. We're not recreating Venus, as I've already mentioned. Yes, and unfortunately it means that many conservatives choose to ignore the science because they don't like the available solutions instead of coming up with their own. There isn't only one way to deal with this, if we choose to deal with it at all. As someone already mentioned, free market deregulation and the steady march of technology could very well be good enough. I'm not going to say I agree or disagree, but it is an answer.
Christopher Russell
It doesn't matter. You don't get published with shoddy research on climate science, or else any retard could make a paper and we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Luke Sullivan
Wrong. Scientific evidence holds that to be the case. The "body" of the (((current scientific consensus))) had no qualms at all to fire and slander the very discoverer of the genetic code for expressing an opinion in agreement with said evidence.
I am personally not anywhere near being an anthropogenic climate change skeptic, because the greenhouse effect is real and there's a sound theoretical thermodynamic model behind it, but "science" that DEMANDS trillions of shekel every year for "further research" and most importantly social change is bad science and you must be a BigBang/Rick&Morty-tier science-fan to take seriously.
Thomas Barnes
Now only left-lining retards are allowed to.
Hudson Evans
You're not helping, gyros. Putting echoes around everything instead of addressing arguments makes you look like a retard.
This only helps support the argument that climate science is an echo chamber-laden cult, and that gatekeepers prevent detractors from being heard.
Camden Moore
The mechanism isn't a single isolated one that represents the entirety of temperature fluctuation on this planet. And I don't think they've proven causality at all between the temperature on Earth and CO2 production.
Liam Ortiz
The solution would be to dump about 1 billion cubic meters more CO2 in the atmosphere.
I am addressing that your (((arguments))) are politically charged new age mumbling and not actual science. If Al Gore and his academic circlejerk's models were anywhere near being right I would be typing this under the sea.
>my (((arguments))) Read my post again nigger, I'm not the climate change shill.
Andrew Powell
And the chances to get your research peer reviewed are (((totally not related to the author's political orientations))).
Asher Flores
Why the fuck do even streloks fall for this shitty scare mongering? How about you stop and think for two seconds, dipshit? So sandniggers will have more deserts and your locality will grow more wine and bell peppers than before. Big fucking deal The moment they get serious, we'll just de-salinise sea water and use it to water our fields. Even far inland – if we can transport fucking oil from Caucasus all the way to Germany, we can transport water from the Baltic Sea to anywhere in Europe. floods have happened for all of human history and people just lived with it. If you're so scared, just go live on a hill. will only affect coastal areas, the majority of the landmass won't be affected.
The only danger are rapefugees using the situation to "flee" to countries with large gibs, and for that, the cure is a large amount of weaponry.
Jaxon Evans
There are conservative climate scientists. Plenty of them. This denial seems only prevalent on American internet circles for some reason.
So because there are no papers arguing against evolution, this means that it's an echo chamber as well? You do realize that's a stupid thing to state, right? No, the reason things don't get through peer review is because there are mistakes, or outright contradict other well-known facts. If you're so adamant that it's ideologically-based, produce a letter of rejection on an anti-climate change paper. They state the reasons why the paper was rejected.
You are correct. The other two factors are insolation and aerosols. As solar activity has actually gone down in the recent decades, we have to assume that it's either aerosols or CO2. We haven't massively decreased dust particles or other such things in the air, nor has there been a natural occurrence that does this. So we have to assume it's not aerosols. But we have had a dramatic increase in CO2. What do you think is the culprit here for recent warming?
It doesn't matter what you think. It's a fact that CO2 absorption is a real thing, and it's a fact that a greater concentration of it results in more absorption. If you disagree, then would you please also try to disprove whole fields of physics, since climate science isn't the only thing reliant on this fact.
No. That would definitely make the problem worse.
Al Gore is not a climatologist, and as such isn't a source for any studies on climate change. This is a strawman.
No, they're not related. There are liberal and conservative climatologists, and their research intersects with other fields of study across different countries and disciplines. Unless you're implying there's a 100-year old liberal conspiracy to create climate change out of thin air (kek), this is so unlikely that it's not even worth considering.
Psychology is not comparable to climate science. One is based on concrete numbers and measurable results across multiple disciplines unrelated to climate science, the other is not.
Okay, you're fucking retarded and not worth talking to. You're literally implying that vast portions of well known scientific facts with relations other than climate change are made up just because they support it. Nice job.
Oliver Carter
It pretty much is, yes, pic related. The difference is that evolution can be demonstrated as whole with a simple look at existing organisms and the fossil record and that natural selection is a pretty "fascist" theory that does not particularly help fortify the leftist narrative of (((modern academia))). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism and as a matter of fact forces the Academia to make some extreme philosophical acrobatics to discredit the process with buzzphrases like "teleonomy" and "all extant organisms are equally evolved".
It's not. It's just a scientific fact. >en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism Bullshit discredited by other scientists that actually had research behind them. Those aren't buzzwords. And all organisms are equally involved in the sense that all organisms right now are modern animals that fit into their niche. This is a tautology. As if to say "the newest models of cars are all the latest models."
Ethan Jackson
Yeah, none of those are true. And I'm just going to ignore you because conspiratorial thinking has no room in a scientific debate. If you have a problem with the facts, please cite them and why you think they're wrong.
Caleb Adams
That "sense" does not make sense because is downright wrong.
A cyanobacterio genus that has existed since the oxygen catastrophe is by no means as "modern" as a bird simply solely for still existing.
Invasive species exist for a reason. Norwegian Rats certainly seem to fit better other species' niches, especially when it comes to places like Australia that had been an isolate refuge for evolutionarily outdated designs like marsupials.
The problem is you don't understand the theory, not the theory itself.
It is the latest iteration of the organism. As such, it's as modern as any other organism. More complex != more evolved.
This is completely in line with the theory of evolution. An external organism came in and took over a previous organism's niche. This is natural selection. Go take a class and come back when you aren't retarded. This is middle school science.
Owen Stewart
Sure thing Al Gore, I'll be sure to send you more money right away
Samuel Watson
Good job demonstrating you have not the slightest clue how taxonomy works.
Just because old designs still work and have no reason to be removed that does not make them "modern". I gave you a very specific example too.
There are genera of organisms that have existed for tens if not hundreds of millions of years with minor physiological changes and then there are genera that have only existed for a couple of million years. Rate of mutation is a better "measure of evolution" than simply counting years of existence.
Jeremiah Baker
Yes. And the theory of evolution demonstrates that more evolved organisms have a strong tendency to outniche less evolved ones, that why ectothermic vertebrates largely replaced endotherms and why amphibians are globally endangered. Same reason we don't have therapsids and anapsids walking around lately.
Yes. Because having evolved under higher selective pressure it was more evolved and therefore more competitive. How hard is that for your egalitarian mind to grasp?
And apparently ruminating what your middle school teacher blackmailed you for participation trophies is all you can recite on the subject.
Landon Wilson
As previously stated, Al Gore is not a climatologist or any kind of scientist, and as such, irrelevant.
Again, you don't understand anything and are making the same mistakes I previously pointed out. Re-read my post until you aren't retarded.
There is no such thing. Kill yourself.
Sebastian Rodriguez
Whatever helps you sleep at night, amoeba-boy.
Nathan Hughes
(An) answer is to bring manufacturing back from China, to Western countries that give a shit about environmental regulations and don't just dump all their shit into the sea/sky. Of course this would require more protectionist trade policies as well, for the obvious reason that everyone manufactures shit in China because it's cheap, and it's cheap because the Chinese don't give a fuck about the environment.
We used to buy a lot of Honeywell stuff from Canada, you can tell that it's no longer manufactured there anymore.
Lucas Adams
>doing something that would actually hurt (((their))) pockets instead of just blaming plant-food dumping White people for all the planet's problem BAD GOY!
But dude, are you implying that Apple should just make 800$ less profit on every electronic, manufactured by child slaves and ship them over here afterwards of course with giant container ships where each pollute the air moreso than 10k 70 year old diesel cars? Are you some kind of Fascist-Communist?
I have assessed the issue. As stated, I reject the assertion you take for granted.
Don't carry water for the enemy.
Jonathan Campbell
...
Dominic Clark
You keep getting your science info from tabloids. Stop doing this and you'll stop being confused.
You say this, but what exactly seems to be wrong or contradictory with current views on climate change?
I mean that's not a solution. That's just how you deal with problems stemming from it.
You don't understand the issue. Yes, we are coming out of an ice age. The problem is that in the time that solar activity has actually gone down, temperatures have gone up. The current model is the explanation for why this is happening.
I distinctly remember none of that being published in a reputable scientific journal. Stop looking at CNN for your science news. Check sources and read the literature.
Josiah Cooper
SHTF scenario finally realized, and I get to justify my years of prepping. This is a positive outcome. Things continue as usual and humanity adapts to a changing world, as we've always done. Things continue as usual and humanity doesn't need to adapt.
The real question is, why should I care about climate change?
Ian Garcia
Modern Academia is a glorified tabloid.
Henry Lewis
In case you haven't noticed, this topic has been rehashed to death for decades. You actually seem excited about the prospect of recapitulating "global warming argument #374298" where everyone goes through a choreographed argument reciting previously multitudinously discussed points. No one is going to convince the opposition at this point. In fact, we've gone through this in this very thread.
Allow me to reform you original retort:
How would that discussion unfold? Would either position learn anything new or sway their opponent? No. Same thing here.
I made my initial rejection of the assertion known to counter OP's blanket assertion of his faith as fact.
Regardless of the existence of climate change, it is more than evident that the actions humanity has taken have greatly disrupted the ecosystem. We are currently in one of the largest extinction periods this planet has ever known as a direct result from pollution and development. Is that not enough to encourage environmentalism?
Earth's climate changes by itself, we're too small to significantly affect it. Earth isn't going to get hotter, it's going to get colder. There will be another ice age, though not sure if it's going to be as bad as the last one. Plus, the earth's climate was warmer during the middle ages according to scientific research.
Dominic Adams
Pollution was an unavoidable part of human development and is what has allowed us to enjoy this immensely high standard of living. There's no need to "encourage environmentalism" through policy change, as once people reach a certain level of wealth, they begin to value the benefits of a cleaner environment more than the benefits of industrializing, and the level of pollution goes down through market forces. This is the only viable solution to muh pollution, because it's the only one that doesn't fly directly in the face of the incentives.
That "somehow" is technological progress, increase to life expectancy and overall better quality of life.
If you don't prioritize those over your "carbon footprint" you are free to live in a cave like the dirty marxist hippie OP is.
Kayden Rogers
The problems is that adaptation may mean more war, bigger expenses for the same or lowered standard of living and so on.
It's not that you should care. It's that you should accept facts as they are instead of trying to dream up conspiracies. If it doesn't affect how you live, then so be it. There is no standard reason to care about relativity, but since it isn't a politicized theory, you don't hear anyone here bitching about it when they have no expertise on the matter.
You have no idea, as you're obviously uneducated.
The difference is that climate change has independently verifiable evidence and mechanisms known outside of climate science, and predictions for well over 100 years. One is a verifiable fact, the other is not.
This is a political question. It has no bearings on fact. As Ausanon already pointed out, he doesn't care, so he does nothing. This is as valid a choice as any other. It all depends on your value system. It, however, doesn't change the facts.
This is all wrong. The medieval warm period was a localized event, not a global phenomenon.
Drink some cyanide. A small portion will not affect you.
Not according to literally every scientific paper on the subject in the last 20 years.
Tyler Hughes
You tried this again on the very same thread and had your ass handed over to you, amoeba-boy.
Henry Garcia
That's a bad thing? We're already living beyond our means, so a forced restructuring of our economy and expectations, while painful in the short-term, is necessary. I haven't done that in this thread. Perhaps keep your shitflinging to the Greek.
Luis Stewart
Assertion rejected that your faith is somehow fact based, "unlike those other religions".
Charles Torres
Man made climate change is a myth, and the notion that the planet's temperature rising a few celcius will lead to some sort of apocalypse is fucking stupid and wrong. I know this because unlike listening to modern "scientists" like the word of God, i'm not a historically illiterate retard and am aware that back during the Roman empire there were vineyards in the british isles, and the world didn't fucking end. It's almost as if the planets' temperature rising is counteracted by water vaporizing further, leading to increased moisture in the air which leads to more clouds and rain, which makes plants grow faster and in places where they weren't before, creating less carbonmonoxide and more oxygen in the air.
Andrew Sullivan
Climate change is real, but not man made. The Earth's axis rotates 1 degree every 72 years. That's whats called Procession. Watch Carl Munck's The Code. polite sage.
Jonathan Watson
First, that's retarded, and second, it's heretical. The whole point of faith is that you don't have evidence. It is why faith and doubt are two sides of the same coin. Those looking for evidence of God do not have faith. And those looking to create science out of faith, do not have evidence.
Brandon Cook
Technological progress doesn't need to always entail using gross amounts of resources. In fact, most investments are now in developing ways for using resources efficiently. Otherwise, you'll end up with shitholes like China, where over-development has actually harmed the quality of life.
Of course it has huge implications. It means that we'll have to put even more resources into simple things like agriculture, waste disposal, and disease control.
Jayden Robinson
Agreed but polluting and near-irreversible environmental degradation are pretty much proven inevitable before industrialization achieves a degree of well being where the populous starts giving essential fucks about conservation. See:
Even soulless chinks have started rapid reforestation at this point.
Joshua Gonzalez
That may be, but some people don't like them, so they deny the facts. Others are quite okay with the implications and give no facts. Science can't tell you what you ought to do, only what is.
Ayden Taylor
Despite how pretentious you sound, you have failed to actually provide sources for your claims. In particular, I'd like one for your claim that solar activity has "gone down" and what exactly what year you're using for your reference. From what I understand, solar activity has increased since the industrial revolution.
Most people here will not dispute that greenhouse gasses have an effect on climate. What is being contended is that there is a "runaway" warming effect. Whether this is due to the bullshit and unfounded theory that the planet's warming is allowing for a greater quantity of water vapor to accumulate in the air which in turn accelerates warming or the more reasonable one in which permafrost "caps" on methane deposits melt and cause release. I have also seen very little on how the stabilizing effects of changing global ocean currents impact this "runaway" effect.
Considering there have been much more volatile periods of Earth's history and ones with a significantly higher atmospheric CO2 concentration (the carboniferous period, to name one), it will be a tough sell to justify spending political capital on when more pressing environmental issues exist.
Again, consider using less pretentious language if you want people to take you seriously.
Oh, that's hilarious. Thank you for that. Notwithstanding, I have rejected the global warming faith as well as Jesus. I have assessed both of these faith debates and rejected their propositions.
Matthew Flores
I hope you mean that man-made climate change isn't real because climate tends to change every now and then with mini ice-ages, or periods of warming.
John Sanchez
Well yeah, of course the climate changes. No shit. But global warming is a load of crap. There's been, what, 0.6 degrees of warming over the last 200 years? CO2 doesn't seem to do jack shit, solar activity is what matters. And it just so happens that there are fuck all sunspots right now.
Thomas Hughes
We need to de-industrialize the 3rd world by force. We need to develop pure fusion bombs so we can take out their cities and industrial infrastructure, then unleash modified ebola virus on them
Jordan Cox
Just build a massive naval minefield+drone sentry network+walls around the Subsaharan part of the African continent and create an UN resolution forbidding anyone from entering or leaving lest they wish to be publically executed following a military tribunal, that should be enough to get subhuman population levels back to early 20th century levels within a few decades.
Dylan Bailey
Imagine having such a gay opinion/understanding of LSD, and unironically thinking Trump and Putin are in cahoots.
It's much simpler than your tinfoil nonsense - we're killing the planet and can't share what's left. Eventually two (or >7 billion) tigers can't share the same mountain.
No we aren't. The current extinction period is actually lower than the background extinction rate between the great mass extinctions.
Austin Howard
Possibly the one good thing to come from all this hoax and hysteria.
Any streloks remember the dotcom era, where everyone was making scads of money buying stock in any startup that had the word "web" in their business plan? I was very young but thought "WTF, this company's sole product is its stock price with no viable way to ever make money. Why are all these smart people saying this is the future of business? I must be missing something." Dotcom crash. They were wrong.
How about the rolling blackouts & brownouts in California back in the early 2000's? All the "smart" people said it was due to government dereg and overconsumption. I thought, "WTF, how is this suddenly a major problem? I must be missing something obvious that they just haven't mentioned." They were wrong. It was caused by secret manipulation of the market by Enron.
This GW shit is the same. That said, I won't argue against us building loads of nuclear fission power plants of a standardized design (and generally getting around to surpassing science and engineering from the 20th century), but "conveniently" that is completely off the table and only scams to fleece the taxpayers, like wind and solar power, are allowed.
The holocene extinction event is not shown because it's not over yet, dumbass.
Luis Gomez
Nigger you wot? We currently have technology to terraform entire fucking planets, we're not doing it because there's no point in it. If conditions on Earth are going to get shitty, you can bet your ass we will start terraforming it back to normal. It's called "fiction" for a reason you double nigger. There's a very good reason nobody's using them you quadruple fucking nigger. The reason is that they require bullshit amounts of materials sprayed - by the fucking truckload per person, it's too expensive to kill people that way, not to mention the hazardous material fallout. Nobody's gonna do that crap, they'll just use bullets.
Wow it's fucking nothing. Cosmos exists on a scale of millions of years.
Samuel Parker
You know, if you read the scale at the bottom, you'll realize it goes back all the way to 1880.
