What exactly do anthropocentric climate-change deniers believe is the reason a decently-sized majority of the world's...

>who is in a position that both benefits from raising industrial taxes and stressing their own economy, AND has the power and influence to do so on a GLOBAL SCALE?
globalists and leftists who desire bigger nanny states

I'm only going to respond to at least somewhat intelligent posts, I'm curious about the more rational deniers and not the retards

Governments fund climate change studies to justify more climate change policies. Those policies then help friends of the government. It's one of the oldest political tricks and both sides use it. Their logic is consistent, but it rests upon a false foundation.

>like what exactly is the supposed benefit of creating some mass conspiracy and overstating the effects of pollution, which are already bad enough as it is?

Money. Also (for more unhinged types), control over the populace. If everyone had to take a train or bus, individual mobility decreases.

>globalists
who specifically? this is a non-specific group of people only loosely connected by economic ideology

>leftists
never heard that before. why would socialists want bigger nanny states and to fuck up the working class? and again: who specifically?

drroyspencer.com/
wattsupwiththat.com/about-wuwt/faqs/

Okay, fine. Go read the manifestos of people who have been exposing this fraud for half of their lives. They will use nice language and they won't call you faggot [spoiler]even though that's what they're thinking[/spoiler]

>friends of the government.
who?

you're telling me virtually all of the world's mega-corporations which rely on fossil fuels in one way or another aren't friends of the government?

>who specifically?
soros, rothschilds, obama, hillary, the UN, the illuminati, etc.

literally anyone who makes more money off people being closer to cattle than humans

>never heard that before. why would socialists want bigger nanny states and to fuck up the working class? and again: who specifically?
bigger nanny states = more control over the people = less variance from the socialist norm

couldn't find any pages which addressed my question on those sites, do you have a specific link?

the first site just kind of gives me the vibe that he thinks most scientists are misinformed but aren't under any sort of political pressure or pushing an agenda. they're just incompetent at research and jump to the wrong conclusions... is that correct?

you know the best way to get an answer to something of the form
'why does x think something'

is to go ask x

why dont you make this thread on /pol/ and they'll explain it to you?

figured the shitposting:honest replies ratio would be much smaller here

there's very little shitposting on /pol/

here i'll even make the thread for you

The resistance against environmentalism comes from the simple objective fact that the only response to it involves lowering people's standards of living, and even if it's not put on those terms that's what it comes down to.
Unless you make nuclear fusion power a thing.

>world's mega-corporations
Do you really think large multinationals are going to be paying any carbon taxes? Corporations are not people, they are psychopathic entities. Individuals are being taxed, primarily the middle class in the first world.

You sounds fairly young and naive. Read more history and investigate peak oil theory and fossil fuel depletion in general. World is running down fast, there will be massive changes through the 21st century and a very large depopulation of humans is a given without abundant fossil fuels.

Obviously very powerful entities are trying to get control of the collapse or risk losing everything, all their power, through uncontrolled anarchy. This is the primary driver behind global governance, to maintain control, maintain civilization itself. It has nothing to do with "saving earth", get over that first of all.

“The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself.“
– Club of Rome,
premier environmental think-tank,
consultants to the United Nations

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the
industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about?”
– Maurice Strong,
founder of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP)

so its a "evil villains trying to take over the world with an extremely contrived and slow-acting plan" kind of thing for you?

>Individuals are being taxed, primarily the middle class in the first world.
because it will cost $5 to manufacture a shitty piece of plastic instead of $1? or is there some other reasoning behind this odd statement?

>thermodynamics vs statistics
tough choice

It can't be a real issue if the US isn't invading China and India to put an end to their pollution.

You know that the world depends on oil, right? You also know that gasoline was $4/gallon in the US at one point, right?

Oil, is needed to plant, fertilize (and fertilizer is made of oil), reap, process, and transport food. When gas prices went up, food prices went up.

This isn't about a useless doodad being now $5. This is about most of the country not being able to do anything about the price of necessities.

Al Gore may have laughed when gas hit $4, and perhaps bought another hybrid SUV, but the poor and middle class hurt.

so rather than using the existing industrial infrastructure to develop alternative and sustainable and non-polluting methods of production and energy generation, we should just wait it out until the petrol runs out and then have civilization collapse?

My takeaway from the last thread was that there isn't enough credible skepticism of climate science from within the community itself. The so-called consensus actually hinders acceptance of climate science conclusions because it polarizes the discussion into a camp that trusts the climate scientists and a camp that doesn't, especially since most people, like myself, don't have the knowledge or inclination to test climate science claims on our own. Climate scientists would build trust by demonstrating that they are a functional scientific community, for example by attacking each other's hypotheses until an exceptional standard of rigor has been obtained. Instead, we have the consensus.

Some possible explanations for the mismatch between the scientific consensus and public opinion include, a) the climate science community is bad at communicating the high level of rigor with which they have established AGW and the familiarity of its mechanisms to the layperson, b) they have not in fact achieved a high level of rigor in their proof of AGW, or c) they are shamelessly shilling for funding shekels at the whim of their globalist paymasters.

Either the explainers are bad at their jobs, the scientists are bad at their jobs, or they are all corrupt.

its teh globul conspiracy to obtain muh tax
moneys for they lavish lifestyles

excellent explanation, exactly what I was wondering about.

I don't claim to know very much about the science behind climate change as a layperson but tend to take occam's razor and ignore the stuff which is just totally ridiculous, on both sides (e.g. "its tha jooz" and "the world is literally going to catch on fire unless we elect hillary oh ma gaaad"). misinformation and general ignorance in science from both parties seem a lot more plausible than some massive global conspiracy.

Some combination of the Jews/globalists wanting to use global warming as a pretext for immigration and world government (t. /pol/), and climate scientists all being brainlets who couldn't handle string theory (t. Lubos Motl)

There is a fervor that approaches religious belief.

I remember the change in dinosaur extinction hypothesis. A meteorite? Well, you do have a dark K-T boundary of a thin, dark layer found all over the globe. It is rich in iridium, which is rare on Earth, but more common in meteorites. And you don't have fossils of dinosaurs found above this layer.

Alvarez and Alvarez were outside the community for more than a decade. There was a thirty year journey to reach consensus.

Now there are those that would challenge the Alvarez hypothesis, or aspects of it. Chicxulub, that six mile wide meteorite that hit the Yucatan 66 million years ago? It may have hit hundreds of thousands of years too early. Volcanism, which predated meteor impact still has its proponents with the evidence of a two kilometer thick basalt feature in India. Chicxulub may have been the start, but a combination of multiple impacts and volcanism may be to blame.

The point is that scientists may initially reject the outliers. It takes time and evidence to build a consensus, but that consensus may change in time with new evidence.

You do not have scientists pointing to the Yucatan and yelling that it is a fact that this killed the dinosaurs because they may look as silly as those that yelled that miasma was responsible for disease.

The dinosaur extinction hypothesis has at best a marginal impact on anybody's day to day life. AGW, if we are actually going to do anything about it, affects the daily lives of 99% of humans. The higher the impact, the higher standards need to be, for both scientific rigor and clarity of communication.

Evolution is probably a suitable analogue, if not too impactful.

>The dinosaur extinction hypothesis has at best a marginal impact on anybody's day to day life.
wrong

if dinosaurs aren't actually extinct they present a much greater threat to humanity than having a few warmer days per year

kek

We'd dominate them the same way we dominate all other forms of life on this planet.

I'll break down all their reasoning here

government:
the reason they want to convince us that climate change is real:
so that they can implement a carbon tax on us

climatologists:
the reason they want to convince us that climate change is real:
so that they can continue to get funding for climatologist research. as soon as they admit it's not real, all their funding goes away and they're out of work

liberals:
the reason they want to convince us that climate change is real:
because they are against business (or capitalism in general). if they convince us it's real, it will result in regulation against the fossil fuel industry and destroy them (which is what they want)

The motivation was (and is) the dismantling of highly paid industrial labor in developed countries, and consequently the dismantling of any worker's movements or solidarity.

youtube.com/watch?v=SpDimHnFohE

>what exactly is the supposed benefit
For the scientists themselves, funding and importance, obviously. Climatology would be a tiny niche field hardly anyone heard of without global warming alarmism. It's not a "supposed benefit", it's an obvious and huge one. Their careers have benefitted enormously from declaring that their field has discovered a looming disaster which only they are qualified to tell us how to stop, regardless of whether it's true.

For the bureaucrats and politicians funding them, power and money, obviously. Any excuse to control and blame people can be used to advance some over others. Just to give a simple example, this is a world where you can short stocks, so the power to destroy productive industry is the power to make money for yourself.

For environmentalists and anti-humanists in general, it's an excuse to attack industry.

For nuclear enthusiasts, it's an excuse to push the option that, by its inherent qualities, is the dirtiest and most dangerous (why does nuclear appear "the cleanest" in practice? because no release of its wastes is acceptable, so it's either prevented or covered up. that doesn't change the fact that it makes the worst waste produced by any option, and the release of waste could be prevented with any option), and actually does pose a realistic threat to the survival of the human species through proliferation of weapon material.

>overstating the effects of pollution, which are already bad enough as it is
AGW isn't about "overstating the effects of pollution", it's about redefining pollution. CO2 from combustion wouldn't normally be considered a pollutant, any more than water vapor is.

Industry was making excellent progress in reducing emissions to only water vapor and CO2. Naturally, some excuse had to be made to say even this isn't good enough, or the whole power structure trying to limit industry would crumble, with everyone involved losing their jobs and/or sense of righteousness.

shits fake yo

It's a sort of collective Machiavellianism.

>implying Machiavelli wasn't absolutely correct in everything he said.

I bet you think McCarthy didn't expose actual communists too?

Isn't machiavellianism akin to psychopathy?
>do whatever you can to get what you want regardless of the consequences

it's akin to understanding reality, and that in the end, the ability to inflict violence is the base of all power.

Money. And, there is a lot of group think among left-wing dominated academic establishment that limits oppoding views.

This is a great article that covers this in great depth. altright.com/2016/10/29/pseudo-science-and-bias-in-the-academic-establishment/

But, in the end, science is not a democracy.

The IPCC is wrong to assert their claim because they misuse GCMs. Tjey make a guess about cloud forcing feedback and then try to predict global temp. Because their models are wrong, the keep making wrong predictions.

They even reset the prediction clock each time they release an assessment report, besides hiding the MWP.

As far as conspiracy, it is no longer a theory, but a fact. Climate-gate proved it.

What are their models missing? Simple: cosmic ray force that most likely creates a lot of white clouds

And how'd that work out for Robespierre? Like it or not, you have to give people an incentive to follow your leadership other than sheer terror, not least because it motivates people to cooperate instead of turning on each other. To bring up yet another historical example, do you think the infamous Byzantine courts were a model of efficient government?

read the price you lazy fuck, he believed in a republic, and talks about incentive numerous times. People don't like him because he speaks from an objective view, not an ideological muh feelz one.

What if all of those factors are true but it's still a real problem?
Everyone is pointing out that some people benefit from government responses to climate change - fine. But that's not evidence that the science is wrong.

It doesn't matter because what's being done isn't a real solution. If you're not going to march soldiers into China to shutdown their factories, you're not doing anything about carbon emissions.

The science is wrong. This explains it all.
sciencebits.com/OnClimateSensitivity

See my post above also.

>if you don't take the most extreme measures to tackle this issue you're part of the problem
Hello... *sigh* hello again /pol/.

>what is tragedy of the commons

FUCK YOU

That may well be true but it's hardly relevant to whether the science is real or not.

>the science is wrong
>site shows calculations deriving the climate sensitivity

No it doesn't - did you read a single word of it?

Right-wingers:
the reason they want to convince us that climate change is not real:
so that they can protect they're oil assets (etc.) into the future regardless of it's negative impact

the common thread in all far-right ideology is greed the desire to not be held accountable for their actions

>Australia is evironmentally conscious.
Australia's primary industries are coal and iron mining. Our government is basically owned by mineral companies.

>They decided to implement a green tax, but realized it did nothing but make them miserable by taxing them more.
That is not even close to what happened.
We have been told months ago t

That's probably the most fucking retarded analysis I have ever read in my life.

It's only as stupid as

>Climate scientists would build trust by demonstrating that they are a functional scientific community, for example by attacking each other's hypotheses until an exceptional standard of rigor has been obtained. Instead, we have the consensus.
What? The consensus is a direct consequence of scientists "attacking each other's hypotheses until an exceptional standard of rigor has been obtained". What makes you think that hasn't happened?

What's retarded about it? I'm asking for a friend.

>far right ideology is derived from a want to be devoid of responsibility
>we're the good guys, the other side is evil

That is literally the most petulant form of thought.

You're right, I shouldn't think of them as the "bad guys". Maybe they just have a different notion of what responsibility means.

He's not part of the community because colleges are leftist indoctrination facilities.

Yes, and i have run parts of it through ms excel to check.

It is very clear that IPCC and others have filled the gap of knowledge of cosmic forces with wild guesses about cloud recipes due to temp changes. And this is exactly why they keep getting temp predictions wrong

Besides, issues like immigration are a far greater concern to the right than climate change. Most of this climate denial shit comes from the small but wealthy corporate faction of the right.

I'd also like to note that 3rd world immigration to developed nations is a disaster to the environment when you calculate their massive resource consumption increase simply by moving. The Sierra club/ Bernie Sanders, and many other environmentalists were vehemently anti immigration until massive amounts of sketchy donations changed their opinions.

t.right wing but acknowledge climate change

>Bernie anti immigration
When?

Are you the guy from the previous thread that posted about cosmic rays, and then proceeded to get BTFO by your own sources?
pnas.org/content/112/11/3253
> We find no measurable evidence of a causal effect linking CR to the overall 20th-century warming trend
science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6316/1119
>Furthermore, in the present-day atmosphere, cosmic ray intensity cannot meaningfully affect climate via nucleation.
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009GL037946/abstract
>In our simulations, changes in CCN from changes in cosmic rays during a solar cycle are two orders of magnitude too small to account for the observed changes in cloud properties; consequently, we conclude that the hypothesized effect is too small to play a significant role in current climate change

>And this is exactly why they keep getting temp predictions wrong
The only people getting predictions consistently wrong are the climate contrarians:
youtube.com/watch?v=tPSIvu0gQ90

Holy shit, five years ago this dude was basically an intelligent version of trump. Running for the Dem nomination meant he had to pander.

youtube.com/watch?v=vf-k6qOfXz0

>government:
>so that they can implement a carbon tax on us
Goverments don't NEED to manufacture a massive international conspiricy to raise taxes. That's a thing they can always do anyway.
Also, politicians aren't necessarily incentivised to raise taxes - they won't get the extra money themselves, but they will piss off the public who votes for them and the industries that lobby them.
Plus, this is in obvious contradiction to reality. Look how keen vmost governments are to talk about AGW. Didn't they accomplish SO much stuff at Paris?

>climatologists
>
so that they can continue to get funding for climatologist research. as soon as they admit it's not real, all their funding goes away and they're out of work
Except that doesn't happen.
Look at Judith Curry - she retired after a highly successful career as a climatologist.
Plus, all the fame in science goes to those who break the consensus - if AGW was disproved tomorrow, the names of the researchers who did it would go down in history.

>liberals
>because they are against business (or capitalism in general).
For fuck's sake. Look up "Liberal" in a dictionary.

>altright.com
Yeah, no.

>The IPCC is wrong .. they keep making wrong predictions.
The IPCC doesn't make predictions at all. That's not their job.

>They even reset the prediction clock
What clock?

> hiding the MWP.
They don't hide the MWP, it just doesn't tend to show up in global temperature trends because it was a regional event.

>As far as conspiracy, it is no longer a theory, but a fact. Climate-gate proved it.
The climategate that's been utterly discredited by every reputable group that investigated it?

>What are their models missing? Simple: cosmic ray force that most likely creates a lot of white clouds
They're not missing it - every major recent study showed that cosmic rays has negligible effect on the climate. IIRC, the atmosphere isn't short enough on nucleation sites for them to matter.

>who specifically?
DA JEWS
Btw the holocaust didn't happen but it totally should have :^)

I don't want to get personal but my parents moved from the 3rd world to the 1st world and it was hard as fuck for them. My dad had to deal with working for racists and shit and he built a small business from the ground up. So when I see these pol faggots say shit like "immigrants contribute nothing and only come to mooch off of white people" I get pissed. I'd like to see them last a fucking day in the life of an immigrant.

>Yes, and i have run parts of it through ms excel to check.
Cool, when are you getting published?

Can't you read? He confirmed it in microsoft excel

Now you're just taking it personal. Also, there's a very legitimate argument that if the elite from 3rd wold nations didn't move to developed nations, their former nations would be far more successful than they are today.

/ppl/ is mostly coddled children.

>smart trump
Not really. He's saying that he doesn't want to let anymore in because the employment rates for young high school graduates is so shit. He's not calling for more or less control.

>carry an entire country on your back
>move to better place
Which one would you choose?

>doesn't want to let anyone in for whatever reason
>not calling for more or less control
It's clearly implied

He said he didn't want open borders. We already have controlled borders.

Now you're bringing individuality into a collective argument. My point stands, if the aristocracy abandons their peasants, it's going to be a shithole, there's no way around this.

Quoting the unemployment stats is a clear indication that the current immigration level is too high

My dad was not an aristocrat at all, he was dirt poor just like everyone else.

San Francisco, The Netherlands, Beijing, Shanghai, Calcutta and Manhattan are all underwater due to global warming.

>instituting a CO2 tax in the western world will save the environment
>expect india and china to halt their industrial revolution with restrictive mandates because the western world is ready to be clean now
>have news websites journalists interpret nuanced academic publications and relay the unsensationalized truth to the american people

wew

>which only they are qualified to tell us how to stop
I think after collecting their funding monies they just hand that political football over to the politicians who are plenty moist to go after CO2 as a round about way to tax energy in all it's forms, electrical generation, transportation and heating which are critical to all people and thus the largest possible tax base possible is wide open for abuse.

Some of the environmental fundies are just starting to clue into this aspect and starting to question it. Probably the most damaging aspect of this enormous fraud is the labeling of CO2 as a pollutant, ridiculous and dangerous as it will get the spotlight while some seriously scary complex compounds pumped into our environment may start escaping the scrutiny they deserve.

You forgot about the Brazilians cutting down the Amazon, and over a billion in Africa making charcoal for cooking.

CO2 could be a serious problem, but not because of the greenhouse effect. The oceans are absorbing lots of CO2 and are becoming more acidic as a result. Last I checked, they didn't know why they were absorbing so much.

If you reach benefits during the first semester it's not slow acting, the slow acting it's the unaccounted side effects.

The natural conclusion of global warming being real is regulation on business, which those on the right tend to oppose. Thats why there aren't any climate change deniers on the left.

Depends on the amount of SLR, but cities like San Francisco will fare considerably better than cities like NYC, Miami, New Orleans, or Boston for example. SF is not below sea level, and most of the city is above sea level, only the lowest lying areas are vulnerable. Now, there's likely a lot of areas around san francisco bay that are vulnerable as they are low lying, but again, it depends on the rate and level of SLR we are to expect.

Where I live, NO, is already fucked, we're already below sea level, in fact they're building the levee right outside my house up another foot or so right now.

Miami is probably one of the most fucked cities though, it has minimal sea water protections in place, and they can't build levees there because the bedrock is limestone, and it's porous. Large sections of Miami Beach are flooding regularly these days due to tidal forces exacerbated by SLR. In the future the city of Miami proper will be subject to flooding as well.

All that said, probably the most vulnerable region in the world to SLR is Bangladesh, it's very low lying and low in elevation throughout, and the entire country is essentially one massive river delta. They have ~150 million people living there, many of which will be displaced.

China also has quite a number of vulnerable cities as you mentioned. The future is going to be interesting, people aren't going to migrate all at once, but migrations will increase slowly in the future, with larger migrations probably being due to crop failures and droughts and whatnot.

There aren't many worse people than people. In every topological, derivative, and algebraic sense.

When you add the decomposing corpse of religion or science, a feverish imagination takes hold and the uneducated take to non-diplomacy, rioting, and homicide.

They really, really appreciate their personal freedoms and low taxation.
They also assume that if the government gets backed by corrupt scientists, they'd tax and regulate everything, and this they can't support.

>there's very little shitposting on /pol/
The existence of DRUMPFFF BTFO XDDDDD would beg to differ

>Implying
They've been around hundreds of millions of years before hoomans. More than enough time to become sapient and develop dino-mechsuits

I don't think the public has seen the long tale of these attacks. All they see are the slimy political agents saying "YOU NEED TO AGREE WITH US OR YOU BURN AT THE STAKE," so they distrust the so-called consensus.

why are you bringing up /pol/? Is it just a boogeyman for any opinion which you disagree with?

what is /ppl/, hmmmm? a new board, perhaps??

>Every immigrant is just like your dad