Arctic ice loss driven by natural swings, not just mankind: study

...

The definition of insanity. They never change.

The summary is
>"Internal variability dominates the Arctic summer circulation trend and may be responsible for about 30–50% of the overall decline in September sea ice since 1979."

Which if referring to specifically Sept 2016 is not saying much seen as we know that last year low was partly consequence of a heat anomaly.

Also behind a paywall.

I found it outside a paywall if you're interested.

Usually if something is paywalled you can find it easily by just googling the paper title.
atmos.washington.edu/~david/Ding_etal_2016_submitted.pdf

>And co2 is a killer! (except for plants of course)
Oh shit, the scicucks have been exposed. /pol/ should do a mass protest where they breath from co2 tanks to prove how benign it is.

CO2, it's got what plant's crave!

but china is all about CO2 reduction remember?

the US is the sole cause of all CO2 production on the planet!

...

nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2017/nasa-noaa-satellites-see-winter-storm-madness-march-to-the-east

You're not fooling anyone.

Newsflash! It snows in winter! In other news, water is wet! Ignore everything because it snowed! That's it boys, that just about wraps up this whole climate change scam, pack it up, we can all go home now, congratulations! (((Climate Scientists))) Blown the fuck out! REKT! praise kek, hahaha cucks. WARMIST BTFO! Hahaha climate priests religion!

Am I doing it right?

Just conveniently ignore all that pesky thing those (((scientists))) call evidence, it's not real! Fraud!

Expedition 50 Flight Engineer Thomas Pesquet of the European Space Agency photographed the Rocky Mountains from his vantage point in low Earth orbit aboard the International Space Station. He shared the image with his social media followers on Jan. 9, 2017, writing, "the Rocky mountains are a step too high – even for the clouds to cross."

its fucking march dude, like its normally warm this type of year anyway yet theres a fucking blizzard and you fuckheads are still talking about global warming

Gore told a German audience in 2008 that “the entire North polarized cap will disappear in five years.” It’s still there, and some scientists reported the Arctic ice cap getting larger a few years later.

>its fucking october dude, like its normally cold this type of year anyway yet there's a fucking heatwave and you fuckheads are still talking about global cooling
>like
>dude
>this type of year
>can't type a sentence without using "fucking" as an adjective
Like totally man, you tell em! like DUDE it's FUCKING MARCH! I mean COME ON man, like seriously! Get with the program man! dude, come on man like seriously dude. We won, it snowed in march! warmist BTFO XD Al gore said something and wuz wrong XD BTFO!

Yes, wow one "abnormal" season in one year completely disproves all the scientific evidence, nice going! Yep, let's just completely forget the year after year of abnormally warm summers, year after year of glacial retreat, year after year of sea ice decline, year after year of rising ocean temperatures and acidity, record droughts. Like I said, you win, pack up your bags and go home! We know it's a hoax now timmy, there, now you can leave the thread, the adults need to get back to discussing big people things. Bye now!

Like, WOAH oh my ... ahaha! can you *pthhhhhh* believe it? what's happening - get this - what's happening in the real world has no... ahahahahaha... ohoho... e...effect on (whew) on the matter because *sniff* of these (((data charts))) that mr GOLDenstein told me to b...b...bel...believe!
*glomps*

You have to go back my friend, sorry! Veeky Forums is going to build a wall and is going to pay for it!

...

I don't even have an opinion on this, it's just amusing triggering people

...

if Veeky Forums built a wall you SJWtards would be kicked out with your 2 digit IQs lmao

(real scientists don't get triggered)

43% of the time, they agree, 95% of the time

There is a wall here friend. A wall of ignorance, and it wasn't built by those questioning fraudulent science.
It was built by those promoting fraudulent science. Whatever their motives might be.

>iposteditagainlol.dll
every time you post it.
every time I tell you that CO2 isn't the limiting factor for plant growth in environments outside of greenhouses. if CO2 WERE the limiting factor, fertilizer would have negligible effects (since more nitrate and phosphate won't help if the plant is starving for carbon).
can't reason a guy out of a position he didn't reason himself into.

>still thinking that more snow = more cold
>still can't tell the difference between cloud cover and snow accumulation in satellite imagery
news flash, genius, clouds and precipitation actually DECLINE when the air is really really cold, since cold air can't hold much moisture. have you ever noticed how it only really snows when it's sorta cold? on bitterly cold days, when it's -20 F, you don't see snow at all in most cases.
increased precipitation is actually a predicted consequence of warming, since warmer tropical waters put more water into the atmosphere through evaporation. if the planet were cooling, we'd be seeing LESS snow falling during winter, but the snow that did fall would stay on the ground longer.

literally copied and pasted from NewsMax.
fun fact: the quote comes not from Al Gore, but from Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), who attributed it to Gore. the fact that "polar ice cap" is written as "polarized cap" is kind of a dead giveaway. what kind of brainlet types "polarized cap" and thinks "yup, that's an accurate term" anyway?

>triggered /pol/acks
oh dear

>Actual Climate Change Pronouncements by Scientists
literally only 1 out of the 10 has any basis in any actual climate change pronouncement by a scientist whatsoever
(care to guess which one?)

>Global warming policy institute
Denier think tank from the UK that does no scientific research, essentially the UK's equivalent of the Heartland Institute, or the George C. Marshall.
>Judith Curry
Curry is a contrarian, but she doesn't deny anthropogenic climate change.
>Piers Forster
He also does not deny anthropogenic climate change, and the quote is again cherrypicked, he has contributed on the IPCC reports by the way.

False. Nice image though, ripped straight from your favorite climate denial sites. How about you link to the actual study, I can do just that:
pbl.nl/sites/default/files/cms/publicaties/pbl-2015-climate-science-survey-questions-and-responses_01731.pdf

Many of those surveyed had no peer reviewed published climate science papers, and many weren't even published or published less than two papers (17% respondents). 21.1% described their depth of climate change at 21%. 11.3% said they were engineers, 9% statistics, 8.7% geologists, 8.8% remote sensing, not climate scientists. 388 of the respondents (20% of the sample) have 0-3 published papers relating to climate change. So no, many of those surveyed aren't experts nor were they climate scientists. Surprise that the consensus increases with expertise in the subject.

Another article on the survey:
ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2015/08/04/pbl-survey-shows-strong-scientific-consensus-that-global-warming-is-largely-driven-by-greenhouse-gases/

Seems you're the one that often gets "triggered" pal, with the amount of times you have sperged out and posted the same images over and over again in these threads.

Pictures tell more than "climate models" ever could. They tell the truth.
The thing you're most afraid of.

climate change alarmists have been disregarding the natural aspect until now

it raises an important point - if the processes involved are beyond human control, then it makes little sense for humans to try to stop or mitigate the warming/change occurring

furthermore, there is no credible path to actually mitigate the warming. we've heard these alarm bells for years, and yet the warming continues; not only that, it's accelerating (pic related);

theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/mar/10/earths-oceans-are-warming-13-faster-than-thought-and-accelerating

Finally, we're on the eve of World War 3, which will bring "climate change" on a level that dwarfs any of these current estimates

>two secret Soviet programs, "Mercury" and "Volcano", aimed at developing a "tectonic weapon" that could set off earthquakes from great distance

>US Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen, said..."Others are engaging even in an eco-type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tectonic_weapon#Reports

etc.

Also see below for another article by one of the author of the PBL survey in response to climate change deniers skewing the survey's results:
ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2015/04/12/responses-to-the-climate-science-survey/

>It showed that there is widespread agreement regarding a dominant influence of anthropogenic greenhouse gases on recent global warming. This agreement is stronger among respondents with more peer-reviewed publications.
>Results from most groups were very close to the IPCC range (1.5-4.5 °C) mentioned in the fifth assessment report (AR5) – except those tagged as ‘unconvinced’ which strongly deviated from the other groups, and to a lesser extent the group of respondents with three or less publications. For all subgroups the ‘best estimate’ was slightly lower than the ‘best estimate’ reported in AR4 (i.e. 3 °C). AR5 provided no best estimate.
>As with the attribution questions (see the ES&T article), there appears to be a trend in responses going from the group with fewest publications to those with most. The more publications about climate change respondents report to have written, the larger fraction of them agree with the IPCC position that the sun hardly played a role in recent global warming, since the solar output decreased slightly over that period.

Great, so you can't actually respond to a single thing I said, nice to know you're inept.

If you were more capable of conversation than a brick wall, perhaps I'd respond to you more often.

You seem to be very triggered because your insults have no effect on me. Maybe it's time to go enjoy a cup of tea, and have your mom tuck you in for the night? Just a suggestion.

You know pal, when your shit thread got deleted twice before, you were probably told to play nice and keep the and crap where it belonged. Of course you didn't listen.

Stop changing the subject, if you want to actually discuss the scientific paper, which I'm sure you didn't lead (see link I provided above)
Also
>Finally, we're on the eve of World War 3
This has nothing to do with the thread topic, it's the same garbage you derailed your last two failed threads with.
>Calls others "climate change alarmists"
>Posts guardian article showing warming is accelerating and is cause for concern
>yet warming continues
You going to continue to contradict yourself?

Basically your entire argument is "We can't do anything so let's just keep on burnin' them fossil fuels like the good ol' boys said ta!"

Also, FYI, that "tectonic weapon" is equivalent to Reagan's "Star Wars" program; ie hypothetical fiction. Literally /x/-tier fanfiction.

blah blah, ad hom, can't respond to the debunking of your garbage images. Stop responding to me if you don't want a discussion.

Except China's emissions are declining thanks to renewable energy. Matter in fact global climate emissions have been flat for 3 years. Renewables, energy efficiency, and energy storage are spreading and getting cheaper.

I've never had a thread deleted off Veeky Forums, not once.

Wrong again. You're skilled at being wrong again. It must be your thing. At least you're good at something.

climate memes belong to this is a science board

Yes, I'm sure it's a coincidence that you posted this same thread with the same article and the same image THREE TIMES today. Of course the first time you posted it you said something on the lines of "LEFTIST BTFO!" in the OP, then the second time it was a rant against the mods deleting your original thread because you got asshurt.

Needless to say, the threads were deleted and deservedly because it literally devolved into you not talking about the article in question once, but going on a tirade defending /pol/ crossposting on Veeky Forums

>Internal variability dominates the Arctic summer circulation trend and may be responsible for about 30–50% of the overall decline in September sea ice since 1979.

>30%-50% is natural

I fucking hate science reporting. """"""Journalist""""""" holocaust when?

Keep telling yourself this is a "science" board.

I'll believe that when I start seeing unprejudiced science here. I won't hold my breath. To many ulterior motives.

go away /x/tard. climate meme roleplaying belongs to your fumb tinfoil board

I design swings for a living and I can tell you you're wrong. Pic related

>Attitude polarization, also known as belief polarization and polarization effect, is a phenomenon in which a disagreement becomes more extreme as the different parties consider evidence on the issue. It is one of the effects of confirmation bias: the tendency of people to search for and interpret evidence selectively, to reinforce their current beliefs or attitudes. When people encounter ambiguous evidence, this bias can potentially result in each of them interpreting it as in support of their existing attitudes, widening rather than narrowing the disagreement between them.
>The effect is observed with issues that activate emotions, such as political "hot button" issues. For most issues, new evidence does not produce a polarization effect. For those issues where polarization is found, mere thinking about the issue, without contemplating new evidence, produces the effect. Social comparison processes have also been invoked as an explanation for the effect, which is increased by settings in which people repeat and validate each other's statements. This apparent tendency is of interest not only to psychologists, but also to sociologists and philosophers.

That's a very nice description of yourself. At least you're aware of your shortcomings.

Always nice to see you incapable of responding in any meaningful way when you are presented with evidence that doesn't confirm your biases.

Projection much?

By the way still awaiting a response to these
Since you originally posted that pie chart, and I presented evidence from the actual study itself, as well as several articles by the author of the study, surely you will respond to them, no?

>Pictures tell more than "climate models" ever could.
yeah, screw actually studying how a complex system works; let's just look at a picture and see how it makes us feel.
>2017
>being this retarded

>climate change alarmists have been disregarding the natural aspect until now
[citation fucking needed]
>there is no credible path to actually mitigate the warming
Stage 4, nice.

zozzle

Yes, you definitely project a lot. No argument with that.

Another non-response. You're like a little child that parrots what the person he's arguing with says over and over again until the person just gives up and leaves.
youtube.com/watch?v=YClAMYTEuZ0
video related: you

That's the difference between you and me, I'm not afraid of anything climate change deniers have to say, I will research your articles, your images, whatever you post and learn the facts, you instead just shy away from them, distract and deflect instead of investigating. It's really just sad honestly to see someone this inept. Every single response is essentially a glorified "NO U!"

When "scientists" resort to terms like "retarded", I know I've won the argument.
Thanks.

No one "wins" arguments with people like you, they just give up and move on with their day because they realize it's futile arguing with a child.

>waaah he called me a mean name
>surely this means my claims are without flaw
would you rather I call you stupid in a more contemporary technical fashion? or will you get equally triggered over that?
also, Danth's Law applies.

>That's the difference between you and me, I'm not afraid of anything climate change deniers have to say, I will research your articles, your images, whatever you post and learn the facts, you instead just shy away from them, distract and deflect instead of investigating. It's really just sad honestly to see someone this inept. Every single response is essentially a glorified "NO U!"

It's you or I... or is basic grade school grammar outside of your field of knowledge? Maybe if you cleared out a little bit of the false science cluttering your mind, you might be able to express yourself at a seventh grade level.

...

>basic grade school grammar
I really hope this is a troll
because "between you and me" is actually the correct usage

deniers: not just bad at science, but actually bad at everything

I didn't even know that, but I had to look it up:
>In standard English, it's grammatically correct to say 'between you and me' and incorrect to say 'between you and I'. The reason for this is that a preposition such as between should be followed by an objective pronoun (such as me, him, her, and us) rather than a subjective pronoun (such as I, he, she, and we).

kek, this guy keeps blowing himself the fuck out.

Well I see that the lack of response indicates the guy left the thread out of embarrassment. Goodnight lads, it was fun.

>That's the difference between you and me

You and I are going to the store. [Correct]

He'll come to the store with you and I. [Incorrect]

Nice try... but you failed again. Don't you ever get tired of failing?

there's no /x/ involved in what I wrote. the climate change debate does involve political aspects, including tectonic weapons. those are a matter of public record, see the quote by American Secretary of Defense William Perry.

and it's the main point too; we hear alarmists warning of x cm rise in 50 years? get the fuck out of here, you don't have 50 months

>>there is no credible path to actually mitigate the warming

>Stage 4, nice.

not an argument. what I wrote is true. we've been hearing warnings from scientists and others for years; the climate continues to change, and it's accelerating

one of us is in denial all right..

You people do realize the current level of co2 in the atmosphere is 426ppm right? I do believe that over time human causes might play into "climate change". I just don't see the collective human race accomplishing anything near that within the next 500 years. Using resources at twice or even three times the current levels.
Within the next hundred we'll probably be off fossil fuels anyway, if we all don't blow each other up first.
It's a non issue that's is wasting a lot of time and effort. I'd rather we focused on preventing the asteroid that's heading straight for us eventually, than this.

holy shit this kind of autism is a little unsettling.
he's doubling down on his objectively incorrect """correction""" by citing a completely unrelated example. in "between X and Y", X and Y are objects, not subjects. therefore, you should be using object pronouns.
when in doubt, try using third-person pronouns; most people have a little better intuitive sense with those. which sounds right: "between he and she" or "between him and her"?

are you the same guy who threw a shit fit in the last thread because I don't capitalize sentences when talking to him, and because someone else wrote:
>(I capitalize.)
and put the period inside the parentheses? (that too is according to convention, by the way.)
I mean, how many people can there be on Veeky Forums who check all those boxes?
>climate denier
>tries to win arguments by correcting minor errors in grammar and style
>doesn't know basic rules of grammar and style

>not an argument.
Hitchens's Razor applies.
deniers are so dead-set against any corrective action, even once they've conceded that climate change is happening they immediately claim that there's nothing we can do about it (stage 4).
and then when they're presented with the multiple feasible approaches to mitigating climate change and ocean acidification, they move on to stage 5, which is "oh, it's too late now, we'd have had to start twenty years ago".
>what I wrote is true.
Not An Argument™

btw, literally no evidence that a working tectonic weapon was ever designed, tested, or deployed. if there's public record that they exist, cite the document. put up or shut up.
yeesh, and you call US "alarmists".

Here, watch me do something you're incapable of. He wasn't entirely wrong, just technically wrong. His grammar was acceptable in most circles. Sorry I was wrong. There easy.

You should try that sometime, apologizing. It's liberating. I'm not perfect, and neither are you.

You know, climate change deniers don't really think it never happens, they just think that it's a naturally ocurring process, that human interference doesn't really change the outcome, or the speed of the process.

And they're right.

...

>multiple feasible approaches to mitigating climate change

then why is it not mitigated? why is it, in fact, accelerating?

how "feasible" is your approach if it's not working?

>literally no evidence that a working tectonic weapon was ever designed, tested, or deployed.

>what are classified programs

I trust the US Secretary of Defense was telling the truth.

>then why is it not mitigated? why is it, in fact, accelerating?

>Climate deniers REEEE and prevent anyone from doing anything about climate change because muh oil profits
>No serious action is taken, so nothing changes
>Climate deniers use this as "proof" that nothing can be done

Are you for real?

Hello fellow anons. Havent been here in years. Think I have related information.
Have you ever heard of William Happer? This physicist went on one of Stefan Moleneux's shows a few months ago. He changed my opinion. I'll post the link below.

youtube.com/watch?v=WCU6bzRypZ4

And yet they fight tooth and nail to force everyone to do nothing about the biggest threat to humanity, next to nuclear war.

And we don't even need to reach a catastrophe scenario. Extreme weather and seasonal flooding will drive mass migration of the 1/3rd of the human population living near the ocean. The current migrant crisis will be a footnote compared to that.

Increased drought and unusual weather events will dramatically reduce crop yields and disrupt ecosystems we rely on for food.

This shit has the potential to cause the unraveling of human society. And all you want to do is sit back and wring your hands over "well we can't really say it's caused by humans" and no nothing.

it's a far greater picture than that. see industrializing nations like China and India, etc. they're not concerned with the oil lobby, but they also refuse to cap their emissions.

even to the extent you are correct that the oil lobby has blocked action, you're just explaining why I'm right. if there is no political will in the United States, for example, because the oil lobby has blocked action, and Republicans set to control both houses of congress and the Presidency until 2019, then in what world of yours do you see feasible action on climate change anytime soon?

Take a moment to think about the absurdity of oil and gas companies paying online shill armies to vociferously deny climate change... on an online mongolian horse archery imageboard.

Firstly the notion of China as a nation that doesn't give two shits about emissions is a 15 year old meme. They are starting cap and trade and have been investing huge amounts in noncarbon energy. They have 36 operating nuclear reactors and are building more. Surprisingly China has become the voice of reason on climate with the US spinning off into oblivion.

India and other developing countries are different because they have to balance international pressure to curb emissions with the knowledge that increasing their energy per capita can have a direct effect on the quality of life of their citizens.

Feasible action on climate will happen when the Republican party stops doing everything they can to stop it.

Look at the Paris agreement. The intent of that conference was to come out with a real commitments and verifiable action on climate change. But the Republican congress flatly refused to accept any binding agreements on climate. This torpedoed the entire conference, and what came out of it was a weak, loose agreement.

So they tried again in Marrakech, with the World Meteorological Organization presenting a current assessment of the climate. On the second day of the conference, Trump was elected. All talks basically stopped there. Trump's election raised the question of whether or not it would be possible to carry forward a global effort to deal with the problem of environmental catastrophe if the leader of the most powerful country in the world would pull out of the agreement completely. As this was his stated goal of the president-elect who believes climate change is a hoax and whose policy is to maximize the use of fossil fuels, end environmental regulations and dismantle the EPA.

Food wont be a problem for quite a while. As an American, I can comfortably state we live in excess. Tons of food is wasted a year.
My great uncle owns a rice farm in Arkansas. It's unimaginable how far that single farm stretches. That is just one persons farm. We have more politicians involved in farming than actual farmers. If we needed more, we would have more.
As for the "lack of water" argument, we just watch California "borrow" water for years. I think we could stop watering our lawn, which use more water than farming, to "lend" it to these emergency farmers.
The possibility of "Interstellar" happening are highly unlikely. You should worry about your waistline instead of food shortages,

The paper says roughly 30-50% are from natural shifts. That leaves the other 50-70% manmade influenced.

Either way, the change is coming and building a better infrastructure that promotes self-sufficiency of a country is better compared to simply depending on oil/coal as its hazardous to health.

t the /pol/tard who spent months shrieking "CTR" at anyone who made him upset

they are investing in noncarbon energy, but they've only pledged to cap emissions by 2030. that's a long way away.

also, note that a "voice" of reason is just that. talk is cheap.

>Feasible action on climate will happen when the Republican party stops doing everything they can to stop it.

well, again, you're looking at 2021 before another Democrat is possibly in the White House. meanwhile, the earth continues to warm

>The intent of that conference was to come out with a real commitments and verifiable action on climate change.

"verifiable action" is not entirely accurate either. you're talking about nations self-reporting. figures are manipulated all the time, especially in highly centralized, controlled economies like China

you keep blaming Republicans but that is just one variable in this equation

I agree with much of your explanation, but it still gets you to the same place - no feasible action for the foreseeable future.

I don't browse pol, and I literally hold the opposite views on climate science. You are just attacking me because you need to make rent and it's part of your playbook.

How much do you think the Earth is going to warm in 5 years?

I think ww3 will come before then, honest answer

how much will the world warm in ww3? lots

youtube.com/watch?v=iXuc7SAyk2s

cool beans! Glad the media is sharing this...
Slightly off topic here, but we should probably take our nukes out of Turkey. Might slow down that "countdown."

Basically proves that a majority of the recent warming is manmade.

What is this supposed to prove?

Supermarket shelves stuffed to the rafters with assorted derivatives of high fructose corn syrup is the illusion of food security.

That these guys don't have any actual arguments and are just here to shitpost.

Not him, but I can see where they're coming from. There are people in this thread that are unironically saying that looking at a picture that shows snow is the "truth" that debunks the theory of climate change. Believe it or not, there IS a threshold to how much bullshit a scientist is willing to tolerate and respond to. If some people are simply ignoring a theory by pointing at a picture, what should the other person do? Reason with him?

The argument is that the story keeps changing to fit the political purpose of the time. The political purpose now is to prevent third world countries from developing the means to be self sufficient, or even prosperous.
While you sit on your high horses, millions of children in Africa lose any hope of a happier future. Many will just die. It's not just Africa. It's anywhere that doesn't have the infrastructure already in place, to be immune to the current globalist agenda.
It's inhumane. It's unnecessary. It's wrong. How will you feel when they start taxing you for breathing? That's coming in the near future as well.

Your "story" is a false narrative made out of thin air, starting with the global cooling meme. Please, don't make us go through this bullshit we've been through 20+ times in previous threads again.

Pointing at several pictures that have only recently become available. Interesting that we never have an actual satellite picture top down over the North and South Poles.
Considering the "dire" position humanity is in, you'd think pictures like that would be common for "scientific" study.

Oh yes... that meme made out of thin air.

Yes, it is. By the way, that Time Magazine article is a fake, and you made yourself look really stupid by posting it. Embarrassing.
science.time.com/2013/06/06/sorry-a-time-magazine-cover-did-not-predict-a-coming-ice-age/
See, that image on the left is not from 1077, it's from a story from 2007, and the text has been edited. Nice job just believing whatever you see posted on some shitty blog though, really makes you look like a dumb plebeian.

Let's start with an actual study on the published papers in climate science at the time, and what they thought was occurring with the Earth's climate. Spoilers, the vast majority did not believe it was "cooling." When you want to find out what scientists were thinking during a certain time period, you should look at the peer-reviewed published studies, not newspaper / magazine articles.
journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

Before you even bring up the newsweek article, here's an article by the author himself about the article being used by deniers.
insidescience.org/news/my-1975-cooling-world-story-doesnt-make-todays-climate-scientists-wrong

You see, you're cute little comic is just that, a shitty comic that isn't based in reality, and clearly uses the term "scientist" very loosely. If you want to know what scientists were thinking at a given time, I again suggest you take a look into the literature, not newspaper or magazine articles.

Oh, and finally, if you're the same sperg who always posts that "notrickzone" link with "278 papers" that aren't actually scientific papers, don't bother, because I'm not going to go through how wrong that garbage blog post is again.

Wow you are an optimistic one.
People in the third world are not paying the carbon taxes because they can't. The middle class of the first world is the target of carbon taxation, a weird sort of new age hybrid luxury-sin tax, because fossil fuels are evil and first world living is a luxury granted by the state not a right.

If I wanted to rule the world driving the entire population of earth into energy poverty would be the first step, starting with that annoying privileged middle class.

>He wasn't entirely wrong, just technically wrong. His grammar was acceptable in most circles.
And I wouldn't have cared except he was """"correcting"""" someone else's grammar. If you're gonna call out picayune errors, they better actually be errors or you're just looking like a moron.
>You should try that sometime, apologizing.
niBBa I'll apologize when I'm actually wrong about something, not when I hurt some user's feelings on a Jivaroan head-shrinking imageboard.

>hurr if something can be done about it why isn't anything being done about it?
because deniers have enough political clout to stop shit from getting done, like said.
there have been some advances made recently (Paris etc) but they haven't had time yet to really take effect

>William Happer
literally offered to write a pro-CO2 piece in exchange for money, fake a peer-review process, and conceal the source of the funding.
>theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/08/greenpeace-exposes-sceptics-cast-doubt-climate-science
actual corporate whore

>conflating technical feasibility with political feasibility

>hey, let's claim that climate scientists said a bunch of different shit that they never actually said
>therefore the story keeps changing!
you can """"prove"""" ANYTHING if you're willing to just make shit up!

holy shit, absolutely BTFO
is there anything more gullible than a climate change denier?

Dude....its fucking rice... there's no corn in rice...
If you look at a map of population density in America, then you would see that we have plenty of room to expand our feudal style rice farms...
Yes, it isnt ideal, but we are apparently on the brink of growing meat.