He believes in man-made climate change

Human activity most definitely has an effect on climate, anyone claiming otherwise doesn't understand elementary school tier science; CO2 traps heat and warms the atmosphere.

not to mention they may disguise these investments as something benefiting society when really it is what goldman sachs paid them to do during their campaigns.

As opposed to the oil company getting more money, in which case all of it goes back to society right?

both are bad people, m8. oil companies are overtly bad, politicians are covertly.

...

Why does people pollute nature?
From the kid on the street throwing some candy wrapper to the big company polluting the river.

Must be because we're not farmers anymore, used to live off the land but now everything is so easy accessible.

Nice try,

Op clearly shows a vegan hipster Muslim apologist tree hugger

>Why do people pollute nature?
Tragedy of the Commons.

>look, if I analyze something without the context and cause, I can be a poet too!

why is Veeky Forums so full of climate change deniers?!

...

when will /pol/ brainlets stop invading Veeky Forums?

>using the CO2 warming example
CO2 does shit compared to all the methane we shit out into the air.
If anything it hurts the ocean

>even Dennis Meadows has become depressed and predicts the end of industrial civilisation
We are fucked, lad.

>oil companies shill in laws that do nothing to them but destroy small research companies and other companies
>governments force taxes on every company they can to benefit their own pockets
>al gore shills his movie to become famous and get attention
>journalists make click bait articles to shill in every tiny discovery they can because hipsters eat that shit up
90% of scientists only believe in climate change period. A naturally ocurring phenomenon that
Regardless of wether or not is man made at the given moment, will eventually happen anyways.
Its not the end of the world, why does america need to pay the price rn when most pollutants come from India and China?
Coal should be stopped first anyways not oil companies.

>90% of scientists only believe in climate change period. A naturally ocurring phenomenon t
But that's wrong faggot. The current consensus is that it is largely anthropogenic

I want /pol/ to leave

...

>whichever is more likely is true
fucking idiot

It isnt, its full of expert rusemen.

To get whores and booze, for the biggest part.

Former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO), then representing the Clinton-Gore administration as U.S undersecretary of state for global issues, addressing the same Rio Climate Summit audience, agreed: “We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” (Wirth now heads the U.N. Foundation which lobbies for hundreds of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to help underdeveloped countries fight climate change.)

Also speaking at the Rio conference, Deputy Assistant of State Richard Benedick,said: “A global warming treaty [Kyoto] must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced] greenhouse effect.”

In 1988, former Canadian Minister of the Environment, told editors and reporters of the Calgary Herald: “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

In 1996, former Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev emphasized the importance of using climate alarmism to advance socialist Marxist objectives: “The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order.”

IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer, speaking in November 2010, advised that: “…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth…”

ARE YOU TIRED OF SEEING GARBAGE /pol/ THREADS LIKE THIS? IF SO GO TO THIS THREAD AND TELL HIRO TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

>Scientists claim X
>Politicians say dumb shit while promoting X
>Therefore X is wrong
What the fuck?

Also:
>IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer, speaking in November 2010, advised that: “…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth…”
That never happened. At BEST, it looks like a horrible, mistranslated quote-mine of what he actually said, regurgitated by bloggers who don't give a shit about facts when fiction sounds better. Seriously, this shit is "NASA is hiding aliens" tier - if there WAS some massive international conspiracy, why would the leaders admit it it in hints to newspapers?

>Edenhofer
Sorry buddy, but your attempt to rewrite the past won't work. The translation (free from human biases) is right here:
translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.nzz.ch/klimapolitik-verteilt-das-weltvermoegen-neu-1.8373227&prev=search

What does it say?
"Climate policy distributes the world wealth newly"

>>Scientists claim X
>>Politicians say dumb shit while promoting X
>>herefore X is wrong
> Because government funded 'science' has nothing to do with government desires for more power.
And you think that politicians and scientists are unrelated? Even though 97% of climate 'science' is funded by governments? And the U.N. types who are run by, you guess it, politicians and other politicos? Don't be naive. The U.N. is demanding $100,000,000,000 a year. And I'm supposed to pretend that this has nothing to do with money? Because politicians are so honest? Is that it?

>Seriously, this shit is "NASA is hiding aliens" tier - if there WAS some massive international conspiracy,
>Scientist are pure an innocent and everyone of them knows what going on and would risk their funding and employment if they weren't absolutely certain that Climate 'Science' is a purely honest enterprise.

A consensus of Tobacco Company paid scientists said that tobacco is safe. So give tobacco companies your money.
A consensus of Government paid scientists say that we'll die without more government carbon taxes. So give government your (tax) money.

You're terrifyingly naive, concerning human behavior. Why do you give the absurd false choice that either "Climate Change is True!" or there's a "Vast Conspiracy?"
By you're ridiculous argument, every time a scientific theory, that almost all scientists believed in, is proven false; then the only possible explanation for all scientists behaving badly is a "vast conspiracy." Yes, that's how ridiculous you are. Scientists are human and fallible. Deal with it. And here's a nice discussion which goes into human behavior biases that affect decisions, especially the decisions of people you call 'scientists."

youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=3QmkHr0W5Vk

Fuck off. This thread was entertaining the first 4 times.

>What does it say?
>"Climate policy distributes the world wealth newly"
It says a hell of a lot more than just that:

>Basically, it is a big mistake to discuss climate policy separated from the big issues of globalization. The climate summit in Cancún end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we do not have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves under our feet - and we may accumulate only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we are to keep the 2 ° C target. 11 000 to 400 - there is no way around the fact that a large part of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil.

>De facto, the expropriation of the lands with the natural resources. This leads to an entirely different development than the one that has been initiated with development policy.

>First of all, we have industrialized countries the atmosphere of the world community quasi expropriated. But one must say clearly: We distribute by the climate policy de facto the world assets to. That the owners of coal and oil which are not enthusiastic, is obvious. One has to free himself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has to do with environmental policy, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole, almost nothing.

This is pretty obviously about the economic impacts of extracting vs not extracting fossil fuels and how avoiding CO2 emissions is going to impact developing nations, rather than "give me all your money". Picking short quotes out of of context is just being deceptive.

>Because government funded 'science' has nothing to do with government desires for more power.
And everybody's in on it, even in the places that have no motive to go along with the US. Right.

>Even though 97% of climate 'science' is funded by governments?
"Governments", not just "The Government", There's a big difference there.

>The U.N. is demanding $100,000,000,000 a year. And I'm supposed to pretend that this has nothing to do with money?
Do you have an actual source on that? Because I highly doubt that they're asking for people to just hand them money. Also; what would it matter if they did? It's not like anyone actually takes orders from them from the UN - they only publish recommendations (which are often ignored).

>Because politicians are so honest? Is that it?
I'm not trusting the politicians. I'm trusting the climatologists, who have a pretty good track record for honesty. Also if anything, most governments seems to be leaning on their climatologists to make LESS alarming reports, not more. Look at Australia's treatment of the CIRSO, or the US's witch-hunts against the NOAA. That's not exactly "please shout doom louder".
If you have an example of a government pushing scientists to trump up AGW I'd love to see it, because that's sure not how it looks to me.

>A consensus of...
What the hell kind of argument is that? "Someone lied to us before, so we should believe them now because everyone else might be lying?". What the fuck?
The bribed tobacco scientists were a tiny minority, who had a clear conflict of interest and disproportionate political control, and used that to spread doubt on opposing research. The allegedly "bribed" climatologists are a vast majority, who have a small minority using political pressure to try and spread doubt on THEM.

>You're terrifyingly naive, concerning human behavior.
You're the one assuming >90% of all climatologists have been paid off, with no direct evidence. That's not scepticism, that's just naive contrarianism.

>Why do you give the absurd false choice that either "Climate Change is True!" or there's a "Vast Conspiracy?"
Well, because the evidence we have clearly shows it's true, and it would take a vast conspiracy to forge all of it.

>By you're ridiculous argument, every time a scientific theory, that almost all scientists believed in, is proven false; then the only possible explanation for all scientists behaving badly is a "vast conspiracy."
Okay, when I'm saying it's true it don't mean that in some deep, philosophical sense. I just mean it's the best explanation we have for the data we have. Once upon a time I would have called Phlogiston theory true, and I'm fine with that.

>Video
That's nice, but no.

>He gives the middle east more power
>while shilling for oil companies

>he thinks what started it matters more than whether or not the problem is being exacerbated

>humans are unnatural
This is a religious meme, stop.

>humans are unnatural
>This is a religious meme, stop.
What? That's how we define the words "natural" and "unnatural".

It's almost as if you didn't read my post.

>al gore shills his movie to become famous and get attention
Al Gore was vice president of the united states and narrowly lost the closest and most divisive presidential election in the country's history. I think most people knew who the fuck he was

> people remember presidential losers and vice presidents
:^)

>in nature, climate is the only thing that is stable
>any fluctuations must be man made

>Being intentionally retarded
I feel bad for you

...