Why do many corporations seem to have a death wish for the environmental?

>They need to get their moneys worth out of those old oil fields
Oh, I think Shell Oil have made a handsome profit over the years on their oil fields

>because human impact on climate change is a meme

Yeah, check India, they didn't destroyed their rivers and their shit.

>climate change has happened all the time in earth's history, why do you think we have shit like ice ages
Accurate
>Implying that humanity hasn't heavily accelerated the change, which is something undesired
Inaccurate

Hell, it's really the agricultural industry doing a real number on the environment. Fuck cows

ITT: Everyone argues their feelings regarding climate change, nobody can solve a single PDE let alone understand the incredibly complex models that climatologists have that show that AGW is real.

The hydrogen fuel switch actually came a year after Russian shot a Dutch civilian airplane down.

And they say the Dutch King is a major shareholder in Shell. So they might be doing it to spite Russia.

>climate change that took hundreds of thousands of years is now occurring within the course of decades.

> because human impact on climate change is a meme

really makes me ponder

>What is the Little Ice Age?
Climate changes all the time. Only the weak and poor suffer from it, not us first worlders. Stop worrying, and let's blast off into space and shit

>why do corporations not care about something that will hurt their profits

Really jogs the noggin

1/3 of all CO2 man has emitted, was released in roughly the last 20 years. In that time, global temperature has not changed.

That's called failing to reject the null hypothesis. AGW "consensus" (which is based on fraudulent papers like Doran and Cook) defeated, back to the drawing board. End of discussion.

When your stupid models don't include the wind, volcanoes, ocean oscillations, milankovitch cycles, el nino or even the Sun (yes, climate models do not include THE SUN), you're a fucking idiot. It makes complete sense that all the models fail over and over and over and can't even retrodict, let alone predict.

And no, the average of the models is not reality. An average of 100 wrong interpretations of the climate is just another wrong interpretation.

It's fucking UNREAL that anyone can look at this and not see it as a money-making scheme. This is about new taxes and control over the very air you breathe. Government power and tax creep proves this more than any other trend in the history of mankind, let alone just in the area of climate change.

>anyone who advocates for it is part of a money-making scheme
>anyone who is against it (and benefits financially for doing so) is obviously being completely objective and not part of some money-making scheme at all

hmmmmm

>>climate change that took hundreds of thousands of years is now occurring within the course of decades.

There's literally zero proof that's true. Do you think ice cores gives you daily values for temperatures in the pre-cambrian you ignorant little boy?

Beyond 30,000 years, the resolution drops drastically. Just because you connect dots does not mean the line you draw between them represents reality. There could have been massive swings in temperature across thousands, hundreds or even tens of years and you would have no way of knowing it.

Saying the current rate of change is different from the historical average is a statement with ZERO basis in fact. There is no proof for it.

Over a recent 20 year period, Exxon Mobil put 20 million dollars toward climate change research. Over the same period, the US government put 80 billion.

That's a 4000 fold difference.

The money is on the alarmist side. This is not up for debate.

And I actually have investments in green tech, fwiw.

Pollution != Climate change

t. Brainlet

They're smart enough to know man-made climate change is a myth. Why aren't you?

>(((Exxon)))

exxonknew.org/timeline/

No one is arguing the planet will be rendered uninhabitable by greenhouse gases.
However there will be significant real costs associated with climate change. We are not being more proactive in dealing with these changes.

>When your stupid models don't include the wind, volcanoes, ocean oscillations, milankovitch cycles, el nino or even the Sun
What factors does the climate model actually include?

Clearly, how they define the model is going to affect the results, but people seem to equate 'scientific model' as some term that means '100% legit science', without realizing this is where bias can easily be injected into the experiment.

It's a scam for economic control

Wowee didn't know there were so many scientists/meteorologists/environmentalists on this board.

Fuck off you liberal idiot. The issue of climate change is being propagandised by left wing political parties to try to convince their moronic constituants that they are the party of science while they drain funding from science

>while they drain funding from science

if you really cared about the climate you would stop eating meat but we all know that isnt going to happen