HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

...

But why break this news right now of all times, just as the president is getting ready to cut down environmental regulations?
Something smells fishy here.

The post-industrial societies did not rise to power on the backs of wind and solar power. And until those sources of energy are comparable to fossil fuels or nuclear, you condemn the third world to a life of poverty. Wealthy nations can afford the reduced productivity of these inconsistent forms of energy, but not the poor nations. Your comic is trash

Poverty is far more a manifestation of those nations poor political structures and severe health issues related to rampant over breeding and terrible farming practices. Quite a lot of the third world has no power supply of any type. Your argument is moot.

Furthermore, most of the third world is at the equator which has consistent sunshine, and an installed solar panel will just keep generating electricity until it breaks down whereas an engine has to be fuelled and maintained.

In fact, solar panels became cheaper than diesel generators in rural India a couple of years back, for instance.

poverty is far more a symptom of the philosophical and cultural inadequacy of those nations

That opinion is far more a symptom of your racism than your rationality.

While those are all factors that contribute to a nation's wealth, you cannot expect a nation to grow without a reliable source of energy. Can you point to a country that was not corrupt and had a poor source of energy, but still grew?

How are those third world countries going to produce the solar panels? I can only imagine how expensive it would cost. And I think you're understating solar panel longjevity. Do you think masses of solar panels would last long in rural Ecuador?

Got a source on that India fact? We're they subsidized?

*overstating

>The Mail on Sunday can reveal
>The Mail on Sunday today reveals

Anthropomorphistic namefagging?

Actually, the problem is that they're not building their own. India had a promising looking home-grown solar panel industry creating jobs, until various US-based credit companies started offering incredibly cheap finance in exchange for buying US-made solar panels. This article may be a little out of date though.
>thehindubusinessline.com/economy/us-cheap-credit-is-ruining-indian-solar-panel-industry-cse/article3795888.ece

I can't find the exact article I read as it was a few years ago, but another study was recently published
>cseindia.org/userfiles/Policy-Brief-Solar-Rooftop-Replacing-Diesel-Generators-in-Residential-Societies.pdf

And I'd think they aren't building their own because they can't afford it or they have other more valuable things to spend their money on.
Thanks

m.spiegel.de/international/germany/a-920288.html
Look up "energy poverty". Granted, the German climate isn't like south America, but as a policy, this transition has not been good for the Germans

Fake news

snopes.com/2017/02/08/noaa-scientists-climate-change-data/

Germany went full retard with phasing out of their nuclear power plants in favor of renewables. Nuclear is supposed to act as a BRIDGE into renewables, renewables cannot instantly replace nuclear.

What they should have done is kept their nuclear plants, and opened a few new ones as well, while at the same time expanding wind and solar power. Offer incentives to citizens to install solar panels on their homes to offset electricity costs, like tax breaks.

Nuclear can replace fossil fuels very quickly while lowering emissions at the same time. While the transition takes place, investment in renewable can be done without an increased cost in electricity.

Why do people think the renewable energies are as effective as fossil fuels? It's not a matter of just switching from coal to solar, even if it's a slow switch. They cost more and produce less and going from fossil fuel's to renewable is definitely a downgrade

>children's views of the world: the post

You should try going into a garage with a running car and see if pollution has a real effect. Tell us how it goes.

Global warming is not related to pollution, though

>global warm
>real

Global warming is related to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, which our pollution of CO2 influences heavily.

Shut up, it's not called global warming anymore, fool! You'll ruin the charade!

Yeah it is.
Stop sniffing butts and read the papers on climate change.

Please send more carbon tax dollars, I'm late on renewing my Illuminati membership.

(((snopes)))

That's what snopes is, a website that investigates to confirm or debunk myths, legends, news, etc. If you have pertinent info, just email it to them so they will add it if it is found to be correct.

Man, deniers really love the unusually strong 1998 el nino event that climate scientists are well aware of. Funny how they claim el nino's aren't evidence of global warming like they should, but use them instead to claim that global warming isn't real. Sad to see this on a .gov website, I guess trump has gone full shill for his fossil fuel buddies.

I know you're baiting, but the terms global warming and climate change have both been used since the 1970s.

Here's one such example from 1975 entitled "Understanding Climate Change" by the National Academy of Sciences:
archive.org/stream/understandingcli00unit/understandingcli00unit_djvu.txt

As far as the whole John Bates thing goes, here's a brief summary of it: Bates worked at NOAA, he during his tenure made several autistic requirements to manage data. His work was slow and he was demoted by Karl, the lead author of the 2015 paper, in 2012, he was likely very butthurt due to this and held a grudge.
He claims that they rushed the 2015 paper and that it was meant to influence the Paris talks in 2015, which is blatantly false considering the paper went through the normal review process at Science, being submitted in 2014, and under review for nearly 4 months. The results of the paper have been replicated by other studies as well, such as BEST, 2017:
advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/1/e1601207

Here, have it from Bates himself in his AP interview:
bigstory.ap.org/article/3fc5d49a349344f1967aadc4950e1a91/major-global-warming-study-again-questioned-again-defended
>However Bates, who acknowledges that Earth is warming from man-made carbon dioxide emissions, said in the interview that there was "no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious."
>"It's really a story of not disclosing what you did," Bates said in the interview. "It's not trumped up data in any way shape or form."
>Still, after Bates' blog post, the House Science Committee , a British tabloid newspaper and others who reject mainstream climate science accused NOAA of playing "fast and loose" with land and water temperature data.

If Bates had such serious concerns though, why would he go to the Daily Mail, to David Rose, who has a long history of writing false climate science stories?

Trump has been full shill since before he started running. I knew this from the start, all you need to do is look at his history. As soon as he started appointing climate science deniers to his cabinet it was all over. He is controlled by them and their special interest masters.

>global warming
It's called climate change, goy,

No, for the last time, the two words have different meanings.

Global Warming - the overall trend of the average temperature of the Earth warming, looking at all the global temperature data.

Climate change = the changes in climate due to the warming trend, meaning the changes in precipitation, changes in the arctic / Antarctica, changes in the jet stream, changes in thermohaline circulation, changes in storm intensity and frequency, changes in sea ice, glaciers and in general changes in weather patterns over decades / centuries.

As for your petty conspiracies that climate change is the "new word" for "global warming" because it sounds better, how about you go do a quick search on google scholar, looking at literature from the 1970s-1990s and search for the terms climate change and global warming.

Here, I'll help you:
scholar.google.com/scholar?q=climate change&hl=en&as_sdt=0,19&as_ylo=1970&as_yhi=2000

scholar.google.com/scholar?q=global warming&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0,19&as_ylo=1970&as_yhi=2000

See a pattern? No? That's because both terms have been used for a long time in the earth science community.

>snopes
lmao

>dailymail

You don't need snopes to debunk this Bates story bullshit, or Rose's TDM article. Bates himself directly contradicts that entire House Science and Technology statement. Their own fucking whistleblower destroys their case, see

>not an argument
kek

>dude shitting in a field is just as valid as building a civilization

>strawman

They've cited breitbart too. The house science committee has been a joke for a while. The previous head of the committee called evolution a "lie straight from the pit of hell."

India has developed civilisation you fucking retard, not to mention sanitation in India is a socioeconomic issue. The wealthy and educated Indians aren't dropping their pants wherever they please. You seriously need to stop letting memes define your worldview ans develop a critical thinking apparatus.

> The wealthy and educated Indians aren't dropping their pants wherever they please.
Of course not. They only do it in the designated shitting streets.

How does it feel to get btfo so hard you resort to meme posting? Go shitpost about chemtrails or something you scientifically illiterate brainlet :^)

Since when a dude shitting in a field = India?

There's a great read about this whole situation from Science Magazine:
sciencemag.org/news/2017/02/how-culture-clash-noaa-led-flap-over-high-profile-warming-pause-study
Quote from Bates:
>"That’s where I came down after a lot of soul searching. I knew people would misuse this. But you can't control other people,” he says.
Well great job man, you "knew people would misuse this," well no fucking shit, look at OP's picture. Despite the study being solid, you've now just given more misinformation and doubt to the denier folk, who will consistently use this as a talking point for years, despite it being nothing. Great Job.

Think about it like this, no one will remember Bates saying that the study was valid, or that there was no manipulation of data or anything, all people, the policy-makers that is, will remember is the initial quotes and lies from articles like those on TDM and Breitbart. That's what will stick with them, not the facts of the situation.

>It's another Engineers ruin everything with their autism episode
Now it all makes sense.

>The new furor underscores a long-running tension within NCEI, one that has generally pitted research scientists trying to publish new advances against engineers seeking to ensure everything follows standard protocols, say several scientists who have worked at the center.
>Thomas Peterson, a principal scientist at NCEI who was involved in developing the new surface temperature estimates before retiring in 2015, says he spent several years pressing the agency to let its scientists publish parts of the new data analysis. But he says he met resistance from some who argued that even though the older approach was less accurate, it had gone through the quality control checks for operational data. The new study “wasn’t rushed. It was delayed for a long time. It would have been out years ago except for all this processing that John [Bates] pushed.”

Denier folk would have just used some other blatantly false bullshit. They've done it countless times before and will continue to do so.

The fact that some of them were referring to this as "climategate 2" is insane, it's almost as if they read a headline and made a bunch of assumptions without waiting to understand the facts. It just goes to show you how desperate these people are. Go look at WUWT's articles on it for example, they're hilarious reads, and then scroll down to the comments. People there are full on delusional, especially Watts himself.

OP blown out wholesale.

Potholer54 just uploaded a video on it if you guys are interested:
youtube.com/watch?v=kQph_5eZsGs

Awesome, he didn't really need to though, it's just more David Rose bullshit.

prove to me that investing my tax dollars in stricter regulation or more research will have a measurable effect on climate change.

particularly when there are more pressing environmental issues in the US that the EPA and academia could be spending its finite resources on.

ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/each-countrys-share-of-co2.html
Cutting global emissions by 17% is well within the notable range for preventing climate change.

namecalling is not a substitute for evidence or reason

Yes, a government run by Donald Trump, a well known anti-science politician. And he put other anti-science people in his cabinet as well.

That's nice, except that snopes has been caught pushing partisan (left) political positions in opposition to the facts, and its founder has been caught involved in other kinds of fraud.

Snopes started out as a couple, of no particular qualifications, who just decided to make a website about internet rumors and whether they were true or not, generally based on some very basic checking, like going to a library to look something up or calling a relevant official. Then they'd make a definitive statement on the matter as if they were the world experts on the subject.

It was pretty good when the internet was small, and they rarely tried to tackle anything controversial, they just did the hour or two of footwork most people didn't have the time or inclination for. But even in the early days, they'd occasionally do something like push a preponderant opinion among historians on a matter that just couldn't be checked.

It got worse as they made money, hired people, and expanded their operation. In their hunger for clicks, they lost focus on things that were easy to check and uncontroversial, and in their hunger for cheap labor and other benefits, they lost integrity.

Now Snopes has little to no value.

>Donald Trump, a well known anti-science politician
Yeah man. He is totally out there denying quantum mechanics and universal gravitation.

>implying Trump even knows what any of that is
Trump is not a scientist, but you can tell a lot about him by the people he surrounds himself with, the people that he put in trusted positions of power.
How are you so oblivious to the fact that he is surrounded by anti-evolution creationists and climate change deniers?

>I may believe in witches but I'm not gullible enough to believe in werewolves

twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/449525268529815552

Arguing with deniers is an exhausting process. It's somehow worse than flat-earthers.

poor baby :^(
i understand what it's like being worthless and having nothing better to do than to argue online with people who might not even hold teh opinions they espouse

>they_lie_because_they_believe_this.jpg
All of these goals are actually at odds with reducing net carbon emissions, but in the utopian mindset, all of their dreams just go together magically like in their imaginations. They just picture it all happening together, and then they talk and act like getting any part of it brings the rest of it closer.

Watch how many of these same people also wrap together acceptance of Islam and LGBTQ rights, ethnic diversity and high-trust communities, diversity quotas and competence. That's utopian thinking: imagine how nice it would be if you didn't have to choose between two things in conflict, picture them together, and just start to believe that picture. It's rubbish.

>Quite a lot of the third world has no power supply of any type.
Yeah, they don't feed themselves or manufacture for themselves. The well-organized, mechanized farms, the fertilizer factories, the antibiotic factories, vaccine labs, etc. that supply them with what they need to survive at their modern population levels are elsewhere.

They'll be the first to suffer when our most basic and inexpensive commodity products are made more expensive by rushing to deploy energy technologies before they're competitive.

here's the truth

and this

the earth was in black and white 4 years ago ?!

Here brainlet read. You can read right?

noaa.gov/stories/noaa-s-goes-16-satellite-sends-first-images-of-earth

nesdis.noaa.gov/content/goes-16-image-gallery

>read
>images
>gallery
t brainlet

The words next to the pictures. Wow, I have to explain that to you too?

>brainlet

>>brainlet
t. brainlet

They are suing the Daily Mail for 150 million
And also using them as a source for global warming fraud

its def 2017

What are you trying to say here? Both the right and left are the same image, but the image is demonstrating that GOES-16 is higher resolution, and full color while GOES-13 is lower and B&W.

Who is suing who?

>suing who
it's whom, prole

I'm not trying to say anything. I'm just using the NOAA/NASA images to show, that 1/3 of the Northern hemisphere is covered in ice right now.

Wow, so it gets cold in winter, in other news, water is wet. Let's just continually ignore the temperature anomaly in the arctic, as well as the fact that winters are still getting warmer globally on average.
Might as well bring in a snowball to the senate floor like Inhofe did a few years ago as "proof" that global warming isn't happening.

The same old response, sad. No not the same. It's been a very cold winter all over. Britain is rationing produce right now because everything is fucking freezing. Normal...

bbc.com/news/uk-38851097

bbc.com/news/uk-38666752

global waming == climate change == sometimes it's colder than it is warm

Same old response, sad. No not the same. It's been a very warm summer all over. Britain is rationing water right now because everything is fucking boiling. Normal...

Yep, nothing to see here guys, it's completely normal!

==manipulated and fraudulent "science"

...whose days are numbered. Do you really be on the wrong side of this when the truth is finally allowed to be spoken? That day is coming, quickly.

Yeah, totally manipulated, just like everything John Bates said about manipulation right? Did you even read the thread?

Do I need to spell shit out for you?
sciencemag.org/news/2017/02/how-culture-clash-noaa-led-flap-over-high-profile-warming-pause-study
bigstory.ap.org/article/3fc5d49a349344f1967aadc4950e1a91/major-global-warming-study-again-questioned-again-defended
Read the links:

>However Bates, who acknowledges that Earth is warming from man-made carbon dioxide emissions, said in the interview that there was "no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious."
>"It's really a story of not disclosing what you did," Bates said in the interview. "It's not trumped up data in any way shape or form."
Still, after Bates' blog post, the House Science Committee , a British tabloid newspaper and others who reject mainstream climate science accused NOAA of playing "fast and loose" with land and water temperature data.
>Bates himself downplayed any suggestion of misconduct. “The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data, but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was,” he told reporter Scott Waldman. And Bates told ScienceInsider that he is wary of his critique becoming a talking point for those skeptical of human-caused climate change.
>“That’s where I came down after a lot of soul searching. I knew people would misuse this. But you can't control other people,” he says.

If this is the best evidence that you deniers have of fraud, it's fucking pathetic. Even the "whistleblower" himself says that it's not the case, hilarious. Notice how all the denier blogs jumped all over this though, they won't retract any of the bullshit that was spewed off about it though.

"Science" magazine isn't worth to call itself toilet paper. Keep reading that crap and buying it. That's a big part of where all this "climate change" bullshit comes from.
Whatever though, the truth will be allowed to be presented soon, and you can all choke on it.

I was unaware shitposting about climate change required such an vast expenditure of time. Is typing such a strenuous process for you brainlets?

My take on warming and the climate is there are factors outside of anthropogenic effects that can't be controlled which often get neglected when presenting the subject to the common people.

Go and accurately model me 5 years of natural core fluctuations with current data points. Let me know how that turns out.

Keep on dreaming, that's all you can do. You have no integrity on your side, you have no evidence, all you have is a bunch of cute little blogs and "experts," many of which aren't scientists or scientifically trained. Hilarious how you discredit Science as well, what kind of scientist are you?

Let me ask you, what scientific journals do you consider credible? According to your retarded standards, one of the top journals that most researchers would dream to get published in "isn't worth to call itself toilet paper." How do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you say shit like this?

Are you claiming that the Bates quotes themselves are fraudulent as well? Get your head out of your ass please and come back to reality.

Yeah at least don't lie to me about the reasons behind it.

When I don't get the raw scoop I assume people in-the-know are doing it for their greed.

this is a very good picture.
We can only violate our lifeground so much. It will bite us in the ass if we don't start repairing the damage.

Finally, real intelligence arrives...

Cheers user, perfect example. I'm sure you'll be attacked in a minute or two...

>If this is the best evidence that you deniers have of fraud
Oh, it isn't. There's heaps. The most damning is the "hide the decline" email. The highest profile is the scissorlift scene in "An Inconvenient Truth" (where he points at a graph of data which in reality shows CO2 levels following well behind temperature changes, and explains it as smoking-gun proof that CO2 level changes control temperature), and all the climatologists who recommended the movie for laymen despite this blatant central lie.

>Even the "whistleblower" himself says that it's not the case, hilarious.
Actually, he's pretty much contradicting himself now trying to show his loyalty to a field that has realized would ride him out on a rail for having integrity.

Next time don't alter the data.

>Fake News
>proceeds to post Fake authority
hue

>preventing
Delaying until other less regulated countries catch up to industrialization

Output could be 20% of today's for 50 years and the trend will still create a warm era in centuries.
The truth is we've been past the tipping point for a while now.