Nobel Laureate in Physics; "Global Warming is Pseudoscience"

>0.8°C isn't a significant increase in global temperature.
What a moron.

quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pauling.html

and this guy is the only one that has two, user.
go get some vitamin C.

You know, even if it was pseudoscience, who cares? What's the result of treating it as if it weren't, more pollution reduction?

I mean, the public at large has pretty much always sided against the polluters from the dawn of the Industrial Revolution onward, during that time, national capitals were seeing literally feet of soot laid down on them for days at a time making them practically unlivable.

As a result of those efforts we have a drastically cleaner environment and a ton of new pollution mitigating technologies as well as new, cleaner and more efficient, energy sources and production methods, many of which we might have otherwise ignored... And given the trend of production since then, all without a single drawback to the economy.

So why fight pollution control efforts now? They've been nothing but a positive win-win for nearly all of recorded history.

...

Ad veracundum

It's not. There have been similar variances in the past, pre-industrialization.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

One of the professors at my uni is a biochemist working on genetically engineering yeast(?) To make phytase to put in animal feed. You see, most animals can't process the amounts of phosphorus in their feed, so it just gets what out, trickles into the groundwater leading to algal blooms in Lake Erie.

Whenever he tries to get grant money from larger groups he's always asked "that's nice and all, but how will this help alleviate poverty in southern California?".

What you have to understand, user, is that the majority of people "believing" on climate change are fucking morons who see "climate change" as a weapon to enforce political and economic aims entirely unrelated to the encironment. The sheer fact that hippies didn't vote for Trump in droves out of hope that he'd destroy China is proof of that. China puts more garbage into the air and water than the rest of the world combined and yet Americans are lectured on how eating meat is literally melting the icecaps as we speak.

The simple fact, user, is that the people who "believe" in climate change don't actually care about the environment.

But certainly not over the course of 150 years.

Also it's important to keep in mind that on the scale of a human life the climate system of our planet has a very high inertia.
The oceans are massive and due to the high heat capacity of water so far they haven't heated up a lot.
However, they gradually will follow up, so even if we stopped all emissions right now the point of equillibrium will still be higher than the +0.8°C we observe today.

>I'm an average Joe with barely a high school diploma and I haven't read a book since I graduated ten years ago.

>Yesterday it snowed outside and my church preacher told me global warming is a hoax so I came here to tell all you liberal college brainwashed idiots that you're stupid.

Thinks the argument would be stronger if made by a taxi-driver.

>tfw progeria

>The simple fact, user, is that the people who "believe" in climate change don't actually care about the environment.
About a simple to prove as attempting to prove Trump supporters aren't racist - but what difference does it make?

The end result of the policies put forth is pollution reduction.

Efforts in pollution reduction have always been a minor burden on the profiteers of industry at the top, but it's never been anything but a boon for both industry as whole and technology and society as a whole for all time... So why fight it now?

Temp is going down globally.

It's not.
The climate of the earth naturally oscillates on the scale of ~15 years, that's why you need to look at at least ~30 years of data.

China is leaps and bounds ahead of anyone else in cutting pollution and renewable energy research. Mostly because the smog is so bad that they need to wear masks to go outside and people are dying from it. Meanwhile in the states Trump countless of times makes attacks against renewable energy and efforts to make the US become China 2.0.

False

>Efforts in pollution reduction have always been a minor burden on the profiteers of industry at the top, but it's never been anything but a boon for both industry as whole and technology and society as a whole for all time... So why fight it now?

Because globalization wasn't a thing still back in the 19th and early 20th century. You couldn't just close your factory and build one in Mexico, India, or China, because those places were very, VERY far away, with no way to transport material to and from in an effective manner. It would have taken YEARS to build a factory in these countries, and months after to deliver material to and from these places. And, the main market for all these goods were the same factory workers that were in those domestic factories in the US and EU. That's one of Henry Ford's principles.

Nowadays, air travel and computer telecommunication have made globalization a million times easier for the entrepreneur and capital globalist. If you try to slap regulations on a business in the US or EU, they'll just say "ok sure", close their factory, and build a new one in India/China/Mexico in a few months, and continue business as normal. They probably would have done this anyway eventually, but now you gave them an excuse to use to the public.

Reducing pollution through taxation and regulation is a idiotic idea these days. The world is too interconnected now. You want to reduce pollution? Don't punish companies, incentivize them to produce technologies and careers that advance green technology.

Would easily be done by cutting fossil fuel subsidies and transfering them over to renewable energy research. Woops look who's in charge of the US and says drill baby drill climate change is a hoax, oh well there goes your strategy.

Who cares at this point. Global Warming was a thing to care about 20-30 years ago.
Now if mankind was to disappear, we would still get the great extinction event.
Guess what? we'll have both.

nice try CEI

>Woops look who's in charge of the US and says drill baby drill climate change is a hoax, oh well there goes your strategy.

We already provide renewable energies plenty of subsidies. Too bad that industry is just as infected with greedy kikes who scam people with their latest "green technology!!!!!!" is sad state about humanity.

Solar and wind is a fucking meme tech that creates a huge amount of carbon footprint just from mining the rare earth metals, steel manufacturing, transportation, and installation. It takes decades just to recuperate the energy and carbon savings from these technologies, and that's ignoring the fact that they will break down and require maintenance, quite frequently I add.

No politician, especially "liberal" climate change advocates, even mentions nuclear power, without fear of looking like some Chernobyl doomsayer, when nuclear has been proven to provide the MOST energy with the smallest impact on the environment. The amount of nuclear waste is minuscule compared to the billions of tons of carbon we spew everyday in air. We could easily power this entire country with just a few nuclear plants.

Until a democrat/liberal even mentions nuclear power, I will continue voting against them, just because I'd rather have a functioning economy, rather than some bullshit liberal pet-peeve green project to make them "feel-good" about themselves.

>Falling for the meme
You Do realize the CCP funds those as a propaganda effort, right? You are literally falling for cheap propaganda m8o.

At the point we're at, we might as well ignore global warming and move to other planets before this one is fucked.
Of course this is just delaying the problem until we can interstellar.

Maybe "down" was the wrong choice. But it isn't behaving abnormally as suggested. It is stable.

Ah yes, good ol' nuclear energy, let's see what the dictator in charge has to say about nuclear energy? youtu.be/IHAUy9NoPfY
Oh... Oh dear.

Great argument. Really activated my almonds.

Where in my post did I ever mention Trump was an advocate for nuclear energy?

If you're going to vote against someone because they're against nuclear energy why are you supporting he who must not be named when he also is against them?

Because, like I mentioned dumbass, I'd rather have a functioning economy than idiotic carbon tax policies and wasteful spending on """green""" pet-peeve projects.

Any evidence of this """functioning""" economy under cheeto bandito? Everything I've read on economics surrounding him say it's a nightmare.

>he believes the 97% meme without understanding how that figure was even calculated

>Everything I've read on economics surrounding him say it's a nightmare.

Same economists that said NAFTA was great for the middle-class worker?
Same economists that said NASDAQ would reach 27,000 after 2000?
Same economists who said housing market would never die in 2008?
Same economists who have been proven to be less reliable than a coin flip?

Thanks, but no thanks. I'll take my chances with orange racist man.

So then how can you claim something is good for the economy without proof? You're saying he would be good for the economy without evidence of any kind? Take your religion back to .

Real or not I'd rather people have some boogeyman that keeps them from contaminating and polluting as much as possible

>stable
It's not.
data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

>trusting anything economists
>ever
There was a quote in one of my economics books I read: "If airplane pilots were economists, Amtrak would still be profitable"

>It's another autist that still hasn't been banned yet keeps making climate change bait threads every single day.

Did you get butthurt when you got BTFO in all the previous threads and just stopped responding?

This is just embarrassing. I don't expect president to be an expert in nuclear engineering, but I at least him to have a basic comprehension of the differences between Nuclear weapons and nuclear energy. SAD!

Actually forget that graph.
I posted that because you can see the acceleration, but climate change is accelerating anyways right now becuase emissions are increasing globally.

However, I didn't just pull the part about the oceans out of my ass.
If I remember orrectly the oceans' average temperature has only increased by ~0.08°C compared to pre-industrialization.
Since warmer oceans mean more water vapor and since water vapor is a greenhouse gas this means that the point of equillibrium for the current levels of greenhouse gases has not been reached yet.

Feel free to fact check me.

*snip*
>during the summer months.
*snip*

TAKE THAT GLOBAL WARMING BELIEVERS

Do /they/ ever tell the truth?

If global warming is not science, then why post it in Veeky Forums? Please post this in /pol/

you did not watch a 32 minute video in 6 minutes
stop shilling here, this is a no shill zone

They being one politician?

The video is a year and a half old. You tarded bro? It's cool, there are plenty o' tards out there living kickass lives. My president? Yeah he's a tard so don't worry about it.

/they/ who misquoted him

>give 10 people 10 thermometers and ask them to get average temperature of the room
>they all get different answers
>use this as evidence to dismiss years of weather logging data
>completely forgot they were suppose to average those answers

This old guy seems a little off his rocker.

Fucking /b/tards come in science threads claiming because you saw snow once global warming is a hoax. Don't listen to Al gore listen to scientists

>Scientists speak in confusing long words that make my head hurt and nothing they say makes sense. Why should I believe any of this.
Healthy skepticism

>Please tell me how to feel about this and make sure the explanation is simple enough that I can understand it.
Unhealthy skepticism

No I wouldn't disagree with you on that point. But it means nothing as far as anthropogenic climate change is concerned or how to put a stop to it, for the simple reason that CO2 levels follow increases in temp and the oceans are the biggest sink of CO2; ergo Co2 will rise exponentially no matter what we do that is if there is a net runaway warming. The graph you showed is not extensive enough and doesn't prove that the climate is unstable and the readings may be based on data that was gathered incorrectly somehow.

; _;

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

smbc is actually fucking hilarious

NOBELS DISEASE