So global warming is real and all that but is it really worth freaking out about...

I'm not exactly a climate change denier but it seems pretty obvious to me that alarmists are fucking retarded.

Back when earth day first became a national holiday a group of intellectuals from all realms of academia came together and compiled a list of the most provocative claims about the future of our civilization. Including but not limited to:

>Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”

> “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” Paul Ehrlich confidently declared in the April 1970 Mademoiselle. “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”

> “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” declared Denis Hayes, the chief organizer for Earth Day, in the Spring 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness.

If you're interested in reading more of this dog shit

fee.org/articles/18-spectacularly-wrong-prophecies-from-the-first-earth-day/

The cost of solar is about to go negative in 5-10 years and currently your panels will pay for themselves in four.

I'm not too worried. Unfortunately the manufacturing process isn't the cleanest.

>people with the most extreme viewpoints are dumb
Imagine that.

To be fair, we've massively increased our agricultural output of our farmland in response to those statements. You should be arguing that those alarmist statements helped us advert catastrophe.

>Imagine that
Imagine if these extreme viewpoints were the mainstream. Sure, that's a bit of an exaggeration but governments are taking extreme measures based off of the advice of people who hold similarly extreme viewpoints (albeit not quite as retarded).

>The cost of solar is about to go negative in 5-10 years and currently your panels will pay for themselves in four.
Yeah, solar is gonna be huge real soon. Unlike oil and coal, it just keeps getting cheaper, which means that for the people who OWN all that oil and coal the best decision will be to sell out, which will crash the price to lower than the cost of extraction - thus dooming the industry to niche applications.

As a sociopath, I don't think we should overreact to global warming. The evidence suggests that it will bring about a mass-extinction event, but I am skeptical that this will be significant enough to bring down first world countries. I think we will band together and pull through, but most third world countries will be completely obliterated. Especially if we become oil independent or in other ways remove ourselves from those other third world countries.

>implying that alarmist statements increased agricultural output rather than increased demand for food as a result of a growing population

forgot my pic

We've increased our yields without increasing farmlands.

The thing with people who support eugenics or welcome the apocalypse is they always assume that they would survive

1st world countries rely on their natural resources or land. If the land become an arid desert and is unfarmable, or worse, too hot to support human life then the the only countries with real power will be those in position near the poles. Canada will be the rulers of the new world order. Now if you excuse me I need to transfer all my USD to CAD.

Don't you have some infidels to slay or something?

neither demand nor alarmism actually helped

what did help was Haber inventing a way to extract nitrogen from the air which allowed for large scale fertilisation and massive crop yield increase

Q: What will be the new narrative when the glacial rebound begins?
A: Climate Change 2.0

>governments are taking extreme measures
Governments are doing N O T H I N G and
>advice of people who hold similarly extreme viewpoints
Do you mean consensus?

And even if I was wrong about both of the previous statements, still stands.

In Australia we had a scientist called Tim Flannery who was ringing the alarm bell around the late 90's/early 00's... He said outrageous stuff that was proven to be outright lies within a few years, he predicted that our dams would be completely dry by now and so on... The guy won 'Australian of the Year', a fairly large prize, received millions in funding, was on the news constantly, and advised governments directly leading to them introducing laws regarding climate change....
He was the mainstream.
He has never had to explain his lies that have been proven wrong by time.

140 IQ from any online test
excellent memory
great spatiolateralized creativity and problem solving
visual acuteness of a 7 year old boy
think outside the box on a daily basis
5'11 own a home gym
BSc and theoretically a PhD if i applied myself (smart but lazy)
hobby is watching aikido instructional videos and practicing wing chun
frequently hike and walk trails in the mountains
can start a fire with a match and wood

think i'd do ok bud

Okay, were they lies, or was he just wrong? I'm not trying to be an apologist for the guy, I'm just asking that even though he was wrong, how much damage did he do?

>Governments are doing N O T H I N G
You clearly know nothing about environmental regulation and the bureaucratic cluster fuck that is the EPA. Billions in subsidies to solar energy firms have not created a single practical solar panel. All they've accomplished is furthering government involvement in the economy through cronyism.

how the hell did they calculate the global temperature in 1850

>have not created a single practical solar panel
I literally make solar panels. They are very practical. The efficiency rises every month, and the savings on your energy bill will pay for your panels in four years or less. Companies like musk's solar city even offer financing options for them.

You're an idiot and you don't know anything about what you're talking about.

They drill out rods of ice at the pole and there is gas pockets of old atmosphere in the ice from those timeframes and they use that as a base

>theoretically a PhD if i applied myself

and you're a pathetic faggot who works in a dead end industry. The only reason solar panels are marginally affordable is because they are heavily subsidized by the government. These subsidizes have been going on for literally decades but despite this the companies who receive them still haven't been able to sustain themselves.

This is sorta worthless unless it goes back to... about 900-1000, since Little Ice Age is a thing.

150 years isn't worth anything in this kind of measurement either.

wat

> has home gym
> convinced he will survive the apocalypse

Every form of energy is heavily subsidized, including fossil fuel. Did you simply ignore that or are you just hilariously uninformed in what you're trying to argue about?

www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html
>The documents show that Dr. Soon, in correspondence with his corporate funders, described many of his scientific papers as “deliverables” that he completed in exchange for their money.
>Dr. Soon also received at least $230,000 from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation. (Mr. Koch’s fortune derives partly from oil refining.) However, other companies and industry groups that once supported Dr. Soon, including Exxon Mobil and the American Petroleum Institute, appear to have eliminated their grants to him in recent years.
>allegedly accepted $1.2 million over the past 14 years from energy companies

Who's more full of shit? Climate change deniers or climate change alarmists?
I keep hearing climate change alarmists are lying because there's money in alternative energies. But which side is really more corrupted by money?

educate yourself retard
they are called ice cores

I'd say this debate over global warming is heating up.

I hadn't heard of this but it seems odd to me that a trait reflecting temperature could possibly be preserved in ice of all things. Why does it not work past 150 years? There are glaciers older than that right?

They measure the carbon dioxide and methane content among other things in the trapped air bubbles and construct a model
They dont actually measure the temperature of the ice you fucking tool

these are the same kinds of people that say global warming is a hoax because it still snows outside

>But which side is really more corrupted by money?
Probably the side that has more money and is in danger of losing it.

I know right?! If there was no ice 150 years ago then clearly the temperature was warmer in the past. If anything the earth is getting colder as there's more ice core samples being drilled out today than 150 years ago.

It's ok to be against global warming, but still be pro oil and coal...

Of course we will use those less and less as fuel, but what about synthetic work for medicines that require hydrocarbons present in oil? ...or synthesis of carbon nanotubes with pure carbon? ...or solvents needed for QA/QC that are distilled from oil?

I think the coal and oil industry need to evolve with respect to who they are supplying, not what they are providing.

I honestly want to kill myself
Neither trump, nor Clinton are doing anything to help fix the environment so we dont die.

Fuck why cant we all just fund musk's, mars program so we can have a way out.

the US probably isn't even in the top ten contributors to pollution you moron

>probably
try google you child, we discuss actual data that exists in science

good point
cdn.zmescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Plastic-Debris-Entering-World-Oceans-Million-Metric-Tons-Per-Year_chartbuilder.png

If you had any sense of foresight. It's showing no signs of stopping and has tremendous momentum, it's going to keep going long after we decide it's a problem.

That was actually a reasonable statement. The effects of the green revolution wouldn't be seen until a few decades later.

idiot, mars is worse than a million more years of global warming x10 the current levels on earth

You can date and generate paleo-environmental reconstructions from rocks and ice samples. It's relatively easy to understand but harder in practice..... Result repetitions create a set model however, so you might do a dozen samples of each piece but it's very accurate.

It isn't a problem and it won't become a problem.

If you want to feel guilty about something then try particulate air pollution instead. But I guess it's hard to care about an issue with solutions instead of whining like a bitch about the boogeyman and asking your politicians to be your parents and fix the problem through some magic nonexistent blue sky solution.

Is this a pasta?

...

>The heat already kills oldmen.
>Some first world countries recomend drinking water often now; it's easy to get dehydrated.
>It's obvious that the global temperature has increased.

>It's not a problem.
If merica doesn't suffer the same consequences due to the Niño fenomena, mericans will always say the same: what global warming?

Actually Mars pretty cold

>heatstroke and dehydration didn't exist before the industrial era, we didn't even need to drink water before global warming happened!

It's obviously not a real problem when your arguments for it are so obviously fallacious.

so how bad is global warming going to be? Should we worry?

>yfw the greatet asset of humans is banding together
>yfw Chads with great social skill will still survive you not because they are smarter than you but because they can gather people that make them survive

It is because governments aren't really doing anything to stop it

youtu.be/eNx9tvCrvv8

Your counterargument contains the fallacy, friend.

no

It's because oil/coal/natural gas companies are spending billions on misinformation, propaganda, and lobbying to keep them in power. Their efforts will have diminishing returns however. Eventually they'll have to jump ship and join the alternative energy business. At which point they will have already cornered the market on alternative energy. Unless they're to be held accountable for the damages they've caused that is.

thats completely fucking bullshit
The only thing oil/natural gas(coal is fucking ded btw) are lobbying against is nuclear

The thing holding "alternative" energy back is the fact its a gigantic scam

>muh oil

What the fuck is the scam behind generating power from the sun?

Explain to me how relying on natural processes that take less than a few million years is a fucking scam.

>its a gigantic scam
thx for your detailed input on the flaws of solar, wind, nuclear, and other alternatives.

They don't generate enough power.

>technology doesn't improve

the scam is people who are making money from government incentives towards unprofitable "renewable" energy sources

but oil doesn't generate any power at all. It merely releases stored energy.

nuclear does generate quite a bit less than good heaven-infused oil, i guess you've got me there

test

Global warming is real and negligible. I do think that the solution is to increase cleanliness, formality, Christianity, Mathematics, and science. The problem is not difficult.

[email protected]

Explain to me why you have quotes around renewable.

because theres nothing renewable about it
Uses lots of rare materials that have finite supply limits

Do you know where silicon comes from?

And are you implying that coal, natural gas, or oil don't use lots of rare materials with finite supply limits?

get a load of this loser

underrated

The sun provides way more energy that we would ever need

The problem has always been one of conversion efficiency. As technology improves it will become viable. It's a simple concept.

>scientist's try to solve energy problems with fusion reactor
>world's largest fusion reactor literally hanging in plain sight freely available to everyone
>no way to tap into it efficiently

If you were to build a fusion reactor to generate electricity, what would be the best way to tap into it? Why not then just employ that method to harnessing solar energy?

Believe it or not, distance from the power source is very important. We would not be getting energy from light from a fusion generator, but infrared heat. Now try powering your car with just the heat from the sun.

Solar energy is spread out too far to be easily collected.

Look up at the sun and hold your hand out.

Now light a match and hold it under your hand. Which is going to burn you quicker?

If you have a fusion reactor you can run a hell of a heat pump with it and turn a super good turbine with it. If you want to collect solar energy with turbine you need a thousand turbines just to equal that one, and they all cost just about the same. And we don't even have the materials we need to make them with a good EROEI. Come back to solar panels and wind mills in twenty more years of composite and semi conductor research.

I'd still rather have fusion, that's a lot of rare materials for a LOT of spread out collectors. I'd rather have one super good collector than a hundred thousand crappy ones.

It's what happens when politicians, looking for an excuse to expand their power, sunk their teeth into climate science. They fund the scientists screaming "DOOM!" less the government gets more power. And it doesn't help that some of the scientists have their ideological agenda.

youtube.com/watch?v=EeBeq0i03bg

I don't think it's distance from the sun isn't the problem. The moon 253° F and it's roughly the same distance.
If you wanted to make a fusion powered heatpump put one on the moon and beam the energy back via microwave laser like those crazy Japs planned to do with sattelites with solar panels. Hot side of the moon is 253° F cold side is -243° F. Build 2 plants, one on each pole and not only do you have infinite power but you have a stepping stone to Mars for when Earth becomes too fucked up.

Put your tinfoil fedora back on.

Charge separation through photon capture (what solar panels do) IS the most efficient way. It is not practical to do that to man-made fusion reactors because of the mechanical challenges associated with constructing them in the first place.

Fuck you and your tinfoil hat reference.

Wealth redistribution has nothing to do with the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

"You never let a serious crisis go to waste."-Rahm Emanuel

They want socialism and climate change is their excuse to implement it. If there is global warming, leaving these fuckers in charge would make the problem worse because they have incentive not to solve the problem. If the problem is solved, then who would let them redistribute the wealth.

There are real solutions to the problem of excess CO2 in the atmosphere that doesn't involve invoking the spirit of Karl Marx. Why else do you think leftists hates nuclear power and condemn the environmentalists who support it and lumping their with climate change "deniers"

theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/dec/16/new-form-climate-denialism-dont-celebrate-yet-cop-21

You'd figure that out if you weren't so hellbent on being a good little libtard and following regressive left dogma.

> believes in global warming
> doesn't believe in politics
you're the one who has a tinfoil hat lmao.

Forgot religion, which is what AGW is, a new age variety, bigger and better than sky fairies of old. Scientist priests churning out irrefutable "data", carbon tithe which cuts right to chase, the element of life and of course the new heretic, a denier. God, this world is horrible and we are all filthy ignorant monkeys. Everyone wants to be a God.

I live in a cold country, some global warming would be nice. I'll let you know when to stop.

Not him. I've always supported nuclear energy, but it isn't the only solution to the problem. Carbon taxes also work well and you can do it without an increase in total taxes. Just increase carbon taxes while decreasing income taxes and it still works at decreasing emissions.

>believes in a massive conspiracy involving hundreds of government agencies around the world.
>doesn't believe that he wears a tinfoil hat

Even oil companies like Exxon and Shell believe in human induced climate change. They have their own climate scientists and do they're own research. But they seem to be more focused on natural gas as being the solution as opposed to nuclear and other alternative energy.

>doesn't believe in politics
top kek

In order to counterargue, you had to assume that I
- support socialism
- said anything about wealth redistribution
- don't support nuclear
Thorium is good, and I fully support it, but you're fucking stupid if you think that solar and wind power are worthless just because nuclear is also good.

>they seem to be more focused on natural gas as being the solution as opposed to nuclear and other alternative energy.
I wouldn't necessarily say that they think that natural gas is the solution, but more that it's a temporary way to make more money before alternatives take off and people don't need to make monthly payments to large companies for electricity.

Like this.

So is this like that scene in Prometheus when the AI dude holds up the hologram earth?