We all know that climate change is happening. Several deniers in multitudes of previous threads have been constantly BTFO.
However what do you guys think of scientists march for climate change? Should scientists really take to the street and march for a particular policy?
Other urls found in this thread:
dailymail.co.uk
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
>the "debate" is over
this is quite literally not how science works
you don't just get to say 'muh theory is unquestionable'
>However what do you guys think of scientists march for climate change? Should scientists really take to the street and march for a particular policy?
I hate politics with utmost vigour but this seems to be neccesary. The consequences of not making immedeate change in climate policy will be disasterous and scientists should step in.
>you don't just get to say 'muh theory is unquestionable'
>he doesn't understand normal/revolutionary science distinction
Get off my board pleb.
>However what do you guys think of scientists march for climate change?
It is a good idea, but it might make the Trump voter set convinced that scientists are all shills for the Jews/Globalists/whatever.
>The debate over flat earth is not over!
>The debate over aether is not over!
>The debate over evolution is not over!
>this is quite literally not how science works
yeah and nah
obviously there is no such thing as 'set in stone', but then again, if you were to claim that the Maxwell equations are bullshit, people would just meet you with a heavy load of skepticism.
> but it might make the Trump voter set convinced that scientists are all shills for the Jews/Globalists/whatever.
They already are...
kek
What about HBD bloggers? They are Real Scientists and are redpilled about the non-whites and how they are Jewish tools.
>for a particular policy
why do you faggots keep pushing these retarded conspiracy perspectives?
>no, they're not really marching for (((climate))) (((((((change))))))) awareness, they're marching to push carbon taxes!!!!!!
>the "debate" is over!
>ScienceDebate.org is the fiscal sponsor of the March for Science
I must admit, I'm kind of scratching my head here.
I don't even know what HBD stands for, translate from Retarded Redneck into English for me please.
"Science Debate" seems to refer to a presidential debate on science, not scientific debate.
>climate change
part of the atural cycle of the earth. you cant change it, and we are at an abnormally cold period of the earth.
can we do more for the environment? sure.
the #1 problem facing earth is the third world + india/china. america and europe arent dumpong raw sewage into the ocean and calcifying the seas. they arent deforesting or causing animals to go extint
suggesting anything but destroying africa+india+china is purely to score gudboi points, virtue signal, and get govt funding
>b-bit the science community isnt corrupt! muh 97% agree!!!
educate yourself, modern academia and research is a fucking joke, only normies give it any clout
I'm glad that there are public demonstrations to stand up for Science but I doubt most people there will be scientists.
>the #1 problem facing earth is the third world + india/china. america and europe arent dumpong raw sewage into the ocean and calcifying the seas. they arent deforesting or causing animals to go extint
Regardless of whether climate change is true or not, even assuming that it is, this is an important point.
Climate change (for all political parties) has become massively artificially inflated as _the_ issue so they can ignore issues that are both impossible to deny and would require seriously reigning back production and profit levels to fix, because 21st century (first world at least) culture can't tolerate the idea of an economy not endlessly expanding
>because 21st century (first world at least) culture can't tolerate the idea of an economy not endlessly expanding
not to mention a culture that's not endlessly consuming. I can't remember where I read this statistic from but the US is something like 5% of the world population and accounts for 30% of all resource consumption. Anyone who thinks we can sustain this forever is a complete moron or deep in denial. But why bother having a supported working class when you can just outsource it to child labor in a third world country so you can keep consuming as much as possible while still being able to make your biannual vacations to Hawaii? Easier to just fuel your outragism...
it isn't a theory lad
>educate yourself, modern academia and research is a fucking joke, only normies give it any clout
t. /pol/tard with no actual understanding of science academia or climate research.
pic related (you)
>the science is SETTLED
>we KNOW whats going on
oh really? i guess chemical injections into the atmosphere are in order or some other macro engineering effort to sequester carbon from the atmosphere.
>oh.. uh.. lets not go that far
yeah.. thats how i know you guys are full of shit. if things were bad, the scientific community would be jumping at the myriad of engineering solutions to the problem of rising carbon levels (the ones we've had for almost 30 years). but no, (((climate researchers))) rub the backs of their necks and wring their hands when talking about anything other than more taxes or increased funding for their white mans welfare.
Nah. Undergrads and "muh science" fags. Scientists are doing science.
>I don't even know what HBD stands for
Then search it up yourself, rather than being as much of a retarded white kid as
It's all about beneficiaries.
www.syti.net/GB/SilentWeaponsGB.html
Energy is recognized as the key to all activity on earth. Natural science is the study of the sources and control of natural energy, and social science, theoretically expressed as economics, is the study of the sources and control of social energy. Both are bookkeeping systems: mathematics. Therefore, mathematics is the primary energy science. And the bookkeeper can be king if the public can be kept ignorant of the methodology of the bookkeeping.
All science is merely a means to an end. The means is knowledge. The end is control. Beyond this remains only one issue: Who will be the beneficiary?
>Some solutions are considered to be bad ideas.
>Therefore the problem doesn't exist.
i once forwarded an email to a guy and was given credit on the paper
if you dont think contemporary research practices need fixing, you are part of the problem
>We all know that climate change is happening
Like ICE AGE? Like the ones before human industrial revolution?
''Men-made Global warming'' is Liberal propaganda,it's not real science and will never be as such.All of this ''marches'' are just Soros shills.
so now that the science is settled that race-mixing produces better offspring, will you ascend beyond any sexual preferences and create the best possible future for humanity with me, Veeky Forums?
>study refers to genetically diverse population by testing for whether inbreeding has occured
>that is literally all there is to the study, race isn't mentioned
>article tacks another bit of bullshit about mixed race people on ther and adds a mixed race couple picture to pretend "diverse" was referring to mixed race
What a bunch of horseshit, but what else can you expect from the dailymail
>Like the ones before human industrial revolution?
Sure, except faster and driven by human activity.
>''Men-made Global warming'' is Liberal propaganda
There's a whole world outside of the US you know.
I've never been comfortable with the idea of a scientist march. To my mind, it puts an inherent air of superiority on the role of scientist - that just by being a scientist, my opinion is worth more than someone else's on some particular issue.
Science is a profession, an approach to problem solving. Scientists aren't special, they're just regular people with training in a particular skillset. When scientists march, it shouldn't be As A Scientist, it should be As People Who Happen To Be Scientists.
It also politicises science, which is a real cancer as it will damage the legitimacy of science and may impact funding as well
The whole climate change denate in the US is the worst thing to happen to science in a while
yeah that type of thinking is why big business rules the world and science is for nerds
A march in support of science would have been fine by me, though in general I think marching for this or that is a waste of time that could better be spent doing something useful.
Sadly, this was quickly overtaken in the planning stages by the political left and became a March for Liberal Solutions to Problems.
Guys... guys...those dudes have lab coats on, they must be scientists...
Way to call the kettle black.
We get it, you've read Kuhn. Welcome to the fucking club.
> We all know that climate change is happening.
> Which is why we have six million different climate models
> climate change
Anthropogenic GLOBAL WARMING caused by CARBON DIOXIDE emissions. This is your claim. Not "climate change." No weaselling your way out of your claim, shitlib.
There is nothing liberal about taking the little peoples hydrocarbons away with a scary future climate meme, it is technically a conservative agenda.
>there is a problem
>okay, do you have a suggestion on how to fix it without putting immense pressure on the middle class by taxing them to death and promoting a corrupt structure of carbon credits
>...
global warming refers to the global average temperature shift
climate change refers to slightly more local effects on climate as a result of global warming
>okay, do you have a suggestion on how to fix it without putting immense pressure on the middle class by taxing them to death and promoting a corrupt structure of carbon credits
no unless you want to start using nuclear fission (unpopular) or renewables (libshit!)
That shirt fits her because she is a six tops.
that's at least 4 more than you can hope to get.
Right, because obviously the only question climatologists have ever asked is "is AGW real". No other information, such as local effects or rate of change, could possibly be found from better models.
Moron.
>Anthropogenic GLOBAL WARMING caused by CARBON DIOXIDE emissions. This is your claim. Not "climate change."
The terms are used interchangeably in casual conversation. That's not weaselling, that's just language.
>All proposed responses to AGW are terrible, but I won't bother justifying my claims of why
That's nice.
>The terms are used interchangeably in casual conversation
"No!"
the media conveniently shifted that "grobal warming" lingo to "climate change", to make it an umbrella term that can get anything behind it, hot seasons, cold seasons, more tornadoes than usual, anything.
>the media conveniently shifted that "grobal warming" lingo to "climate change", to make it an umbrella term that can get anything behind it, hot seasons, cold seasons, more tornadoes than usual, anything.
Do you have the slightest evidence for that?
Actually the current spin is climate change encompasses man made global warming but this is not a talking point for the reasons you mention. Talking about the weather has been taken to a whole new level with the meme and rarely will "the media" miss an opportunity to lambaste climate change deniers when they report on any weather anomaly, storm, tornado, flood, heavy precipitation, drought...etc.
History repeats, I am sure during the dark ages every news worthy item was cross marketed by the church and clergy with the dogma of the day. Have faith son, we pulled ourselves out of those dark ages...oh wait,,,that was mostly Black Death and the natural demand put on people to think critically and for themselves once again...
>The debate over flat earth is over, flat earth denier!
>The debate over aether is over, aether denier!
>The debate over evolution is over, creation denier!
ftfy
>if you were to claim that the Maxwell equations are bullshit, people would just meet you with a heavy load of skepticism.
And yet you claim that the very weak (logarithmic) influence of adding more CO2 is bullshit.
>>''Men-made Global warming'' is Liberal propaganda
>There's a whole world outside of the US you know.
Thank God
>"The coming cooling: Usefully accurate climate forecasting for policy makers"
>a solar activity millennial peak and correlated with the millennial peak – inversion point – in the RSS temperature trend in about 2004. The cyclic trends are projected forward and predict a probable general temperature decline in the coming decades and centuries...
Page, Norman J. "The coming cooling: Usefully accurate climate forecasting for policy makers." Energy & Environment (2017): 0958305X16686488.
>le science is based on endless debate meme
it's not that simple, /pol/tard
>And yet you claim that the very weak (logarithmic) influence of adding more CO2 is bullshit.
That graph doesn't look "very weak" to me. Think about the actual scales involved, a 3% gain in greenhouse forcing is a pretty big deal.
Also, where did you find it? There's no source at all on the graph.
>Page, Norman J. "The coming cooling: Usefully accurate climate forecasting for policy makers." Energy & Environment (2017): 0958305X16686488.
You just cited E&E. Why would you expect anyone to take you seriously after that?
This
I really hate the stupid muh science hipster geeks but they might actually be helpful here
what the flying fuck the alternating harmonic series have to do with this
Is there one practical real world application of the new age climate science other than applying carbon taxes? Muh climate crystal ball doesn't count, fortune telling is not a science and neither is garbage in garbage out computing.
That is very questionable on the face of it, throw in the muh debate is over clause and we are talking a rather large red flag calling this science except for perhaps social science and social engineering. Even then it's a stretch, smells like religion.
>Is there one practical real world application of the new age climate science other than applying carbon taxes?
Are you retarded?
you know that half of the shit on that board is unnecessary and is only on their to take space and make it look like they're more knowledgeable
pic related
>new age climate science
Stop.
>other than applying carbon taxes?
Climatologists aren't in charge of policy, and climate taxes aren't a (direct) product of climatology. You're confusing the scientific description of a problem with a proposed political solution.
>Muh climate crystal ball doesn't count, fortune telling is not a science
Prediction is kinda a central part of science.
>throw in the muh debate is over clause and we are talking a rather large red flag calling this science
Do you think astronomers "debate" the earth orbiting the sun, or chemists "debate" whether matter is made of atoms?
>smells like religion
Thank fuck we're not relying on what things "smell like" to you then.
Why don't you dump your "pope shaking hands" folder and go home?
You talk as though the climate models accurately predicted trends in average global temperatures.
Climate science is on par with Social sciences when it comes to making predictions
What is this monstrosity of a figure? No way this got into peer review.
>get BTFO
>uhhh... your graph ugly
Kill yourself
The climate models are the same one used by groups like IPCC to predict increases in average global temperature.
>china is destroying the oceans by overfishing them and dumping industrial waste into them
>china is destroying afria by deforesting large sections of it whilst strip mining
>china is destroying academia by rampant cheating and falsifying achievements of students to sent them overseas
>china is destroying foreign governments by lobbying for chinese interests and buying large sections of the country with mass land purchases
>africa is rapidly becoming too full of starving, developmentally disables bodies that will never do anything but get aids and have children
>afria is rapidly killing off wildlife in the name of harvesting their parts for heathen voodoo bullshit korean boner-dust
>africa is rapidly descending into further madness and tribal warfare, further destabilizing the region and leading to the proliferation of more international violence
>israel
>middle east
>south america is less harmful than other but is probably deforesting when not starving in commie shitholes/beheading one another/making cocaine in a commie shithole after beheading somebody
solution:
>carbon taxes in europe/america
>ban plastic bags
>girls in stem
why do i hate """""""""scienteists"""""""""" who argue that climate change is/isn't man made/stoppable or any combination mentioned or not? because the solution is always "white people need to do x, y, and z, also upvote me on reddit xd" and not "we need to exterminate the chinese and their third world monkey henchmen in order to preserve nature"
if you claim to love the environment, or care about climate change, but think the solution is something that white people need to do, i really hope you dont get in a car accident and die because it would really tear me up inside
>scientists
those are SJWs not scientists
Because you make your own strawmen to argue against?
>"scientists agree"
>graph of "CO2"
>graph of "rising temperatures"
>"science stands for climate action"
>white labcoat and the "sjw with no understanding for what they stand for" stare
>strawman
please dont try to take me on a jape and pretend that the vast majority of those vocal about "climate change" are faceberg-tier normies who have no understanding about earth
if you think the world is ending because of an alleged increase of CO2 in the air, you are borderline illiterate
>more co2 memegas created
>plants/moss/ocean goo eats memegas and produces more plants
>excess oxygen
>?????
>chinese demand of imported air plummets, third great depression begins
How are you going to see through all those strawmen you keep making?
>all these memery
Yes china is currently the largest emitter of GHG, but more than 80% of anthropogenic GHG in ocean-atmosphere system was emitted by industrialized western nation as they modernize since the preindustrial evolution. US and Western Europe are the most responsible and the ones who need to rectify the problem
because i deal in realms above "whore self out for publication and grant money" that pervades climate study
when i had to take climate related courses in undergrad i wanted to go crazy
>excess carbon leads to excess plant growth
>third world continues to calcify/overfish the oceans and clearcut forests
>this is the white mans fault+problem
protip: the earth has been far hotter and far colder than it currently is.
the ocean acts as a temperature capacitor.
glaciers contain a FUCKLOAD of GHG that everybody seems to ignore in favour of blaming white people.
climate models are updated on a continuous basis in order to stay current, as all models have constantly gone off track in their predictions over and over and over and over and over again.
volcanoes and other activity release a gigantic amount of GHG
do you really think the earth can survive catastrophic meteor collisions, ice ages, constant volcanic activity, but the thing that does it in is pajeet on a dirtbike?
what ever happened to the hole in the ozone that was going to radiation everybody to death, even though nothing non-negligible happened with conservation efforts since it was proposed? what happened to the supposed temperature drop that changed to a temperature rise?
why does all of this "research" end in intangible bullshit, yet cost untold fortunes? if it's so concrete, why is nobody able to make an accurate climate change model?
again, if you are concerned about global environmental concerns, "climate change" is at the bottom of the list. how do you think humans are able to control the temperature of an incredibly static planet with a built in temperature regulator, in only 100 years, with the expectation that they will be able to apparently reverse any damage done.
the arrogance
Oh hey, it's that bullshit graph again.
The alignment's fucked, and it uses the (inaccurate) old RSS data. Gavin did a pretty good job of walking through a bunch of the shit it gets wrong.
Calling out bullshit is a little different to calling the graph ugly.
(It is ugly to though)
>The climate models are the same one used by groups like IPCC to predict increases in average global temperature.
The climate model runs are each built around different scenarios (human emissions, solar activity, ENSO). kludging them together and comparing that against historical data without considering the scenarios involved says nothing interesting.
>I shouldn't have to clean up my mess because other people have made some too
That's retarded.
>if you think the world is ending because of an alleged increase of CO2 in the air, you are borderline illiterate
Maybe you should try to get a vague clue about the subject before you try to argue against it?
>white labcoat and the "sjw with no understanding for what they stand for" stare
Where the fuck are you even going with this?
the global temperature is (slowly) changing (at snail's crawl of a pace)
1. is it caused by man?
>no
then there is nothing we can do, natural earth cycle
>yes
2. (if yes) are we able to fix it
>no
carry on then, nothing we can do
>yes
3. (if yes) is it white people's fault and duty to once again save the dirty, poor, uneducated dark skinned beasts?
>no
carry on then
>yes
4. (if yes) why is it white peoples' fault that third worlders shit up their environment, and why should white people be punished for it
>bix nood
carry on
>oy vey
carry on
>>I shouldn't have to clean up my mess because other people have made some too
>That's retarded.
why should we have to clean up china's mess? why should we have to clean up what anybody else did?
if you force them to change, you violate "human rights" and "national sovereignty". if you do nothing then everything gets shittier while SJWs complain about white people doing nothing.
if "science" wasnt filled with popsci IFLS retards it would be easy, instead biology is a forbidden subject, genealogy is neutered, "climatology" exists, paying for welfare is more important than funding NASA, and not paying carbon tax is akin to anudduh shoah
i'm fucking embarrassed to say i have a degree in a field of science these days, because it's akin to saying that i'm a dumbfuck who didnt read a book, and who isnt the father of my own children
>"whore self out for publication and grant money" that pervades climate study
I can make bullshit claims too, Watch: "you fuck cats hourly." Wasn’t that fun!
>protip: the earth has been far hotter and far colder than it currently is.
Wow, it's like you have absolutely no idea what AGW is.
That the earth has been outside the temperature range of the last few thousand years in the past says nothing at all about how severe the effects of extremely rapid changes are going to be on modern civilization.
>the ocean acts as a temperature capacitor.
And the oceans surface is rapidly warming.
>glaciers contain a FUCKLOAD of GHG that everybody seems to ignore in favour of blaming white people.
Are you actually claiming that we shouldn't worry about making the problem worse, because there are feedbacks that will amplify our effects?
That's fucking stupid.
>climate models are updated on a continuous basis
No shit. Science moves on.
>all models have constantly gone off track in their predictions
Nope. See pic.
>volcanoes and other activity release a gigantic amount of GHG
Volcanoes are tiny compared to human activity.
Where are you getting this shit from?
>do you really think the earth can survive [...], but the thing that does it in is pajeet on a dirtbike?
Who said anything about the Earth not surviving?
>what ever happened to the hole in the ozone t
We put out environmental regulation that fixed it. You know, like we're trying to do with AGW now.
>what happened to the supposed temperature drop that changed to a temperature rise?
No idea. You need to be WAY more specific then that.
>why does all of this "research" end in intangible bullshit, yet cost untold fortunes?
Er, what?
>why is nobody able to make an accurate climate change model?
They have. It says we're waist-deep and sinking.
>how do you think humans are able to control the temperature of a planet
Greenhouse gasses. Read a fucking book.
>the arrogance
k
>all these memery and uninformed opinions
>glaciers contain a FUCKLOAD of GHG
Not even close. I'm an ice core scientist and there is no significant amount of GHG trapped in air bubbles in glacier. Please provide me with any relevant source saying otherwise. Look it up in pic related, the carbon cycle figure by IPCC
en.wikipedia.org
Where does it say that glaciers contain a significant amount of CO2/Methane? Or even N2O, the 4th most important GHG. Glaciers don't contain any of these gases
>volcanoes and other activity release a gigantic amount of GHG
0.1Pg per year compared to anthropogenic emission is not relevant.
>what ever happened to the hole in the ozone that was going to radiation everybody to death, even though nothing non-negligible happened with conservation efforts since it was proposed? what happened to the supposed temperature drop that changed to a temperature rise?
Montreal protocol passed.
en.wikipedia.org
They phased out CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-112 and so on. Industries began replacing CFC which depletes carbon into HCFCs which doesn't. As a result the ozone depletion stopped, and ozone hole over antarctica has recovered.
These are just a fraction of factual, basic scientific facts error you had in your post. Please educate yourself further before start spewing uninformed opinions, and maybe find a better source than /pol/ or breitbart news
lets assume the doomsday scenario:
>temperatures rise significantly
>glaciers melt completely
>droughts become extreme
>etc.
you know who will be suffer the least negative effects? europe and america. you know who will cause the most negative effects? human migration from third world shitholes coupled with lack of industry+tech to adapt
so once again, i fail to see how this is a first world problem.
is it nice to have clean oceans and air? of course.
should white people be punished for the actions of the third world?
of course t. science community + libtard brainlets
>environmental regulation fixed the hole in the ozone
top kekketh, except for the whole "china started rapidly industrializing the entire time" part. i fucking swear to god, i dont know why every single time i try to talk climate change the opposition constantly avoids talking about the third world. must be a compulsive need to not seem like a racist, even after recognizing the the OVERWHELMINGLY VAST MAJORITY of groundwater pollution, ocean calcification, strip mining, overfishing, hunting to extinction, air pollution, and other preventable events, happen in the THIRD WORLD.
>guys im bleeding to death
>patch up my broken toes first though ignore the sucking chest wound
ecks fucking dee
>the global temperature is (slowly) changing (at snail's crawl of a pace)
We have no evidence that it's EVER changed this fast.
>1. is it caused by man?
isotope signatures and outgoing radiation says yes.
>2. (if yes) are we able to fix it
Depends on exactly you mean by fix it, but we can definitely control the rate it's getting worse.
>3. (if yes) is it white people's fault and duty to once again save the dirty, poor, uneducated dark skinned beasts?
What the fuck?
>4. (if yes) why is it white peoples' fault that third worlders shit up their environment, and why should white people be punished for it
The majority of cumulative emissions are from firstworld countries. This is our problem.
And no-ones talking about "punishing"; that's your own persecution fetish bleeding in.
>why should we have to clean up china's mess? why should we have to clean up what anybody else did?
No-one is saying that. We should clean up our mess, which is the majority of the mess. Once you make a start on that, THEN you can lecture other countries about doing their part. Until then, you're a hypocrite.
>if "science" wasnt filled with popsci IFLS retards it would be easy, instead biology is a forbidden subject, genealogy is neutered, "climatology" exists, paying for welfare is more important than funding NASA, and not paying carbon tax is akin to anudduh shoah
What the fuck is all this shit?
>i'm fucking embarrassed to say i have a degree in a field of science these days, because it's akin to saying that i'm a dumbfuck who didnt read a book, and who isnt the father of my own children
Cry harder. Reality won't change if you shout KEK really loud.
>Industries began replacing CFC which depletes carbon into HCFCs which doesn't.
I meant industries began replacing CFC which depletes OZONES into HCFC which doesn't
Some things are believed because they are demonstrably true. Others are believed simply because they have been asserted repeatedly.
The p-value for climate change is too large for the conclusion that man-made climate change is real can be taken seriously. It is not a credible study, not credible evidence. Some poorly drawn lines on a chalk board do not change that.
>>No-one is saying that. We should clean up our mess, which is the majority of the mess. Once you make a start on that, THEN you can lecture other countries about doing their part. Until then, you're a hypocrite.
do you think china/india cares about protecting the environment at all. do you think africa does?
what will happen when they further industrialize and you have 3 billion+ people who continue to rape everything they touch. all the crying in the world won't do anything, and no amount of enacting further regulation and constraints on the first world will solve it.
what is the solution, in your eyes? how must white people save the world once again? how much more efficient do their cars need to be, how much more efficient do their factory scrubbers need to be? also lets keep ignoring japan's reactor constantly leaking into the ocean, tell me how many electric cars will save the world.
>human migration from third world shitholes coupled with lack of industry+tech to adapt
Then what happens? You have humanitarian and refugee crises several orders of magnitude worse than what is currently happening in Europe. So much for 'muh white nations eh? Don't you want to keep these people off your country?
>using pie charts
>using a graph without axes
yeah, i'm sure they are real scientists
Only hipsters are going to this, fuck's sake Trump is probably the most pro-science candidate of all because he's throwing DARPA an unsolicited $54 billion in new yearly funding. What liberals don't get is that science is just a tool, it's not inherently liberating. Which means hardcore Republicans are some of the biggest science supporters, even if they're otherwise fucking stupid.
And protesting climate change itself is stupid too, considering that it won't stop it. Also liberals don't seem to realize that the free trade agreements made since the late 80s directly cause climate change by outsourcing industry to countries without any pollution regulations. Of course, they won't admit this because they cannot fathom living in a society where they can't just buy new shit every other year.
>if we ask nicely black people will stop dumping industrial waste into the rivers that china owns, and then retire to their domicile for US funded relief oatmeal, not before impregnating all 7 of their female children
>"whitey is the reason i need a ford fiesta and a free apartment"
>implying the "refugee crisis" isnt artificial
do you even read wikileaks releases or do you read the headline of CNN, feel smug, and then complain about doody-head drumpf wanting to build a wall and how much he hates science
>come into thread expecting some actual discussion on the role of scientists in public debate & shaping policy
>it's another /pol/ sperger spouting wrong facts about climate and getting BTFO episode
The refugee crisis is real, if you actually did read wikileaks you'd know that the crisis exists because the US:
- did not anticipate the evacuation of so many people through Turkey (this was a deliberate action by Edrogan)
- did not anticipate Europe to not respond to the boats, at all
- did not anticipate Europe moving to "rescue" migrant boats off the Libyan Coast, a job the defunct Libyan Coast Guard used to do
- did not anticipate ISIS growing so out of control and fucking up the FSA
It's why Hilary's emails express a constant and low level suspicion of Muslim refugees, because her chances of getting elected would sink if any of them caused a terrorist attack.
scientists don't debate or shape public policy
when has this ever happened outside of the guise of pushing a political agenda
>if you don't subscribe to popular science climate change, you are from /pol/ and have autism
hmm
>if you don't subscribe to popular science climate change, you are from /pol/ and have autism
If you don't accept the overwhelming scientific evidence that climate change is happening, is manmade, then you're just burying your head in the sand. It doesn't necessarily mean you're a /pol/kin.
However, spewing /pol/ buzzwords like white people's guilt, etc into the conversation where it doesn't belong makes you a /pol/kin. No amount of posting KEK and trying to get arbitrary repeating digits on a post number in El Savadorian bull fighting imageboard can save you from reality and basic fundamental physics
>obama admin destroys libya
>obama admin destroys syria
>israel continues to get funding
>multikulti pushed hard in europe
>africa+ME gets boatloads of funding
>EU does nothing to stop invaders
>EU actively tries to punish and sabotage states that enforce their border
>EU continues to do nothing about the "crisis" even in the face of daily terrorist attacks
>leftists rally to the defence of a rapid influx of military aged males from a society violently opposed to equality, feminism, trans*ism, and democracy
>"did not anticipate"
how can you not anticipate something you were directly working towards? why didnt europe respond at all to the refugees? why didnt europe try to stop the obvious flow of refugees that were from other countries just looking for free handouts? why do they continue to give welfare to these people? why to they continue to let them in?
who stands to gain from a weak + mixed europe? who stands to gain from the west having a diminished role currently, and a weaker european people in the coming decades?
who makes these decisions? are there any particular patterns that seem odd in these peoples? how did you arrive to this conclusion?
what scheming race, what stateless race, what irredeemable race, what race that constantly meddles in affairs of others, what race that is a complete parasite that contributes nothing to host nations, what race worms it sway into elite power circles only to corrupt them, what race that has been historically hated since its inception, what curly haired, crook nosed, wart faced, pale skinned, ratty visaged, sickly demeanored, inbred race, what race that CONTINUES to fuck everything up to this VERY FUCKING DAY is responsible for all the bad in the world?
that's right, its the fucking cape verdeans.
>you know who will be suffer the least negative effects? europe and america
We that's all fine then. I guess killing people is a-okay so long as they're not over here.
>you know who will cause the most negative effects? human migration from third world shitholes coupled with lack of industry+tech to adapt
What? How is that going to drive CO2 emissions?
>so once again, i fail to see how this is a first world problem.
It's a problem the first world is mainly responsibly for, that's a good place to start.
>should white people be punished for the actions of the third world?
Again, I think you're confusing AGW is your own racial persecution fantasy.
>groundwater pollution, ocean calcification, strip mining, overfishing, hunting to extinction, air pollution, and other preventable events
That's all worth talking about, but none of it is AGW. Which is the topic here.
my stance on climate change is the same as vaccines.
are vaccines theoretically good? yeah, probably. nobody has polio anymore in the first world, pretty good thing.
however, for all the good that vaccines could do, do you really trust the pharmaceutical companies that manufacture them? do you really?
same thing applies here. cleaning up the environment is a good thing, but do i really trust gigantic supranational entities that try to force states to enact legislation in an attempt to supersede the populace? probably not, i dont really trust any supranational entity. i'd rather take small steps towards improving my own country than try to force sweeping changes on everything with no way to enforce it, at the behest of industry that's outsourced to china who continues to ignore basic safety regulations regarding not adding lead to food, or venting nuclear material into the ocean.
And yet your beloved dear leader Drumfkin is a total Israel shill and marry his daughter whom /pol/kin jerk off to everyday to a circumcised white Brooklyn Orthodox jewish benis
In the immortal words of Sam Harris, "who's the cuck now?"
>We that's all fine then. I guess killing people is a-okay so long as they're not over here.
seems to be the contemporary policy of the EU and US governments, why should mine be any different if it benefits me directly?
>What? How is that going to drive CO2 emissions?
suddenly 3 billion people all want iphones, refrigerators, cars, televisions, and factory jobs. this is completely fine, even after i just got done ranting about negative effects on the environment by first world countries xd
>It's a problem the first world is mainly responsibly for, that's a good place to start.
why doesnt the third world step up to the plate and stop destroying where they live to the point they feel entitled to free shit in other places?
>Again, I think you're confusing AGW is your own racial persecution fantasy.
"the slippery slope fallacy doesnt exist goy, now pay your carbon tax"
>That's all worth talking about, but none of it is AGW. Which is the topic here.
wew, the leftist is forced to concede a point, and then immediately ends discussion. where have i seen this before
>do you really trust the pharmaceutical companies that manufacture them? do you really?
I trust them more than you.
>Some things are believed because they are demonstrably true. Others are believed simply because they have been asserted repeatedly.
>The p-value for climate change is too large for the conclusion that man-made climate change is real can be taken seriously.
Well there's a fantastic pair of statements.
>Trump is probably the most pro-science candidate of all
Utter nonsense.
Ignoring scientific research when it says things that you don't like makes you anti-science. Massively cutting funding to scientific research makes you anti science.
>And protesting climate change itself is stupid too, considering that it won't stop it.
What?
The whole point of the protest is to try and push politions towards doing things that WILL stop (or at least slow) it.
>my stance on climate change is the same as vaccines.
What, without evidence and utterly stupid?
>my stance on climate change is the same as vaccines.
Yeah because that's a reasonable, and fact based stance based in many peer reviewed scientific studies.
MANY SUCH CASES! indeed /pol/kin
trump was better than any other candidate in the past 60 years, and yet people project that actual """"right-wing"""" learned folk treat him as a sort of messiah.
he was never a messiah, but he was the choice we had. i never expect to see uncle ted running for president, so i'll choose people who will do the most good at the time.
still hoping for a one state solution, and then watching the arabs vote israel into kekking itself
>climate change is happening
It has been for all of history
>How much of an effect do humans have on it?
Very little, technology will soon fix the small effect we have on it
>How much can we as a country change?
Not much,and it would be economical suicide.