Who's with me ?

not a 'scientific' question, but a political one, or a moral one, or both w/e

>stay cancer
>get deleted
pick 2 and pick your nose

How else do you deal with people who are demonstrably working against the improvement of the world ?

>how else do you address this off topic shit?
by telling shitposting clowns to hang themselves in the garage?

you are not good at what you think you are trying to do

You should join the jail with the rest of the deniers.
Now fuck off.

>fight global warming they say
>ban light bulbs
>ban cars
>ban or restrict some companies, but no others
Yep, totally not a lobby tool. Global warming is a real thing.

I don't deny its existence, but I can't come to accept that 'something has to be done'. It seems so arbitrary in nature, humans have survived thus far, who's to say that we won't because of this shit?

It seems like a coerced way into a certain niche market for climate change preventative products.

This is funny how they always put burden of global warming on end consurmers

> global warming is real
> let me ignore tons of evidence that show a significant increase on the average temperature that goes back centuries ago and the tons of polar ice caps that melt that is well documented and published.

I don't get you. Why do you want global warming ?

>join the jail
top lel, still pretending this is a thread about 'science'

>Now fuck off.
oh no, what ever will I do?
a would be shit-stirrer thinks 'fuck off' will make someone enraged or fearful

try harder, failure

How is that increased temperature related to human activities?

If there were literally billions of humans with advanced machinery, chemistry and global markets for thousands of years I would agree. The state of humanity today is wildly off from historical trends.

Supposing it's a real menace,how many years do we have left until it becomes unbearable or too late?

Whelp, maybe I believe on the sinusoidal model of evolution. From my understanding, two main things happen, either a complete plateau on the proverbial graph until an external force is applied. Then there is the affected projection, which rebounds into a wave form.

Who knows, I don't honestly reply to these kinds of threads, but it's late for me and I can't sleep.

lel
this faggot jackass failed to 'get' by 1 and deleted his shit
warosu.org/sci/thread/S8155410#p8155556

can it get anymore relevant to 'science' in this shit thread?

The only scientific consensus we have is that climate models aren’t working:

notrickszone.com/2016/06/20/paging-attorneys-general-2016-scientific-consensus-climate-models-arent-working/

the new religion

Do you seriously think our increased industrial wastes and excess CO2 emmission doesn't cause an increase in the temperature ?

Even if you believe that natural global warming isn't real, you should be smart enough to understand that the human factor raises the natural temperature levels above normal, which means man-made global warming.

Nobody is denying that the CO2 and other waste emissions cause an increase in temperature. It's just that the increase is negligible and comparable to a dozen volcanic eruptions.

Climate however is getting warmer, but the reasons are different.

Sup, I am aware of both the pendulum like natural variation in global temperatures over millennia, as well as the man made contribution, however I don’t understand why people care so much.

Why the fuck do people care so much?

>for every person who denies global warming we will raise the temperature of the earth .05 of a degree.

>BURN THE UNBELIEVERS
>wow you dont want to burn the unbelievers? i mean BLAH BLAH Co2 BLAH Global warming BLAH Industrial waste

>Jail all who disagrees with me

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial

I believe it was sarcastic.

How did the Vikings manage to melt the Greenland glaciers?

>GLOBAL WARMING
Problematic, its called climate change, bigot. The Police have been notified.

What about free speech and shiet?

Nah. Better if people are allowed to argue with each other so they don't put focus on what generates money for us.

Climate change is definitely real, but it's so politicized that I don't even care anymore.

Let the world burn, I don't give a flying fuck, I have no children anyway.

You really think it is possible to define something like
>improvement of the world
in a way that everyone agrees with. No of course it's not possible.

Because if people care so much about it, then it means they care less about other, more important stuff, like tracking and intercepting our path to the bank.

Some estimations believe we'll have widespread crops failures within a decade since average temperature is actually rising and crops can't handle it.

You ready for billions of refugees? Massive problems like these are very potential and might occur in the near future

Either it is true or it isn't. All I'm saying is just learn to think

>who would be benefitting from this.

> globe is heating up
> which means refugees ?
I don't know how you came to that conclusion but it's never gonna happen. Governments don't have obligations to take responsibility of other governments.
Also AGWtards have been hyping up about the global warming for over 25 years and everything stays the same.

>Governments don't have obligations to take responsibility of other governments.

What are "trade agreements"?

> A free-trade area is the region encompassing a trade bloc whose member countries have signed a free trade agreement (FTA). Such agreements involve cooperation between at least two countries to reduce trade barriers – import quotas and tariffs – and to increase trade of goods and services with each other.
Where is the refugee obligation statement ?

Have you ever even tried reading an international trade agreement? If so then you would find that 99.9 % is smoke and mirrors. The devil is in the details.

that sounds like a hard to sell bullshit. If you never agreed to something specific like taking refugees or responsibility of the other countries population and welfare at the cost of your own, thats the end of the story. Otherwise they should have included that in the agreement.

because global warming won't be the end of civilization, if anything it'll flood banking cities like
L O N D O N and NYC. nothing bad will happen
O
N
D
O
N

International trade agreements are usually negotiated without any transparency. So most people don't get any access to even see what's in there.

And almost everyone allowed to read agreements before they are voted through have a strong economic incentive to either ignore or stfu about it.

>thought policing

No, you're retarded.
If climate change/global warming/any other theory cannot hold up to criticism than they should be discarded in favor of better models. If they can hold up to criticism and do so consistently than criticism does them very little harm and those who continuously criticize a strongly indicated and consistently true event are idiots anyways and will continue to repeat the same ancient arguments in spite of any evidence to the contrary and all rebuttals. Jailing critics simply lends them credibility, it indicates that their argument poses some kind of serious threat, as if getting rid of weak theories in favor of superior ones was somehow a bad thing.

Whats wrong with thought policing ? We put people in jail for doing the wrong things, why not do the same if what you think is proven wrong by scientific evidence ? Putting them into jail will stop to spread the wrong ideas.

That's hardly what this amount of focus on the debate is about. It is clearly doing a work removing focus from other things.

For example things mentioned here

You clearly have no idea of how science works, do you?

What the fuck? You do know that science isn't right 100% of the time, right?

It beats the alternative where people with no scientific knowledge have an input on such vital matters that effect basically everyone.

>Ideas can't spread in jail.
Do you have brain damage?

ideas spreading in jail is fine, since they don't have any impact on people daily lives.

How do you throw someone 'to jail'? Wouldn't it be more effective to throw someone 'into jail'?

I am so with you. The 'debate' is over.

user I want you to think very hard about your logic here.

Jail is filled with people who commit various crimes and do various times. Even if you put people in jail for having inappropriate ideas/beliefs for life you still have to consider that those ideas/beliefs will spread to those who won't be spending the rest of their life in jail.

They will get out and spread those ideas regardless of not be the originator. And once those ideas/beliefs spreads to the internet it's over.

It's the same flawed thought process that Trump demonstrated when he mentioned about banning muslims from coming to the U.S..

Banning or jailing a person does not stop an idea/belief from spreading. This is not a tangible disease you can halt the progress of spreading by enforcing herd immunity protocols or wide spread vaccines.

It is an abstract concept that is resistant to almost any kind of natural force. We literally have concepts/ ideas/ beliefs/ traditions/ religions that have outlasted their respective origin populations for thousands of years. You think jail is going to fuck stop that?

>Liberals think blacks/muslims that rape or rob or murder should be let off scot free
>But god damn those "global warming" deniers who won't allow us to build more renewable power!(read: Coal power plants)

We got rid of the Nazis we can get rid of climate change deniers.
OP's idea is excellent. Climate change denial is going to destroy the planet therefore it is in the best interests of humanity to take away their freedom of speech.