Which one is it?

climate change isn't world ending, it's just self destruction of our habitat

>curb population of the developing world, China, and India.
fuck that's important. if only the social sciences were still sciences.

kek

co2 concentration would have to be over double what we have today to cause perceptible health issues

>Chinks and Indians
They'll be the death of us all. Just wait until they start building nuclear plants en massse.

>another fake science thread
fuck off back to

Is there something wrong with me? The one on the left has something that gives me a semi-twitch down there.

The Poonjabbers are going all in with the nuke plants, they found a reasonable sized deposit under their lands. The Chinks are going all in with coal because that was the hand they were dealt.

The OP is a bit blunt, but it is ultimately a legitimate question as we're often presented with two very hypocritical positions in regards to climate change. 1. We're beyond the point of no return and basically, you're fucked and then 2. We can save the World if we just do x,y,z...

>Just wait until they start building nuclear plants en massse.
Australian uranium export boom = cash money for me

>do we need to enforce quasi-orwellian controls on emissions, industry and people's everyday lives to save the World from Climate Change

No.

Never listen to hippies or activist scientists.

My friend the world is not ending. There has been a narrative created to keep you and everyone else in a perpetual state of fear. The media has been used to create such a frenzy in hopes of making the population for compliant for "Emergency initiative" They will try to tax carbon. This means your food prices will go up, so will transportation and electricity. you will be charged a tax for living. The IPCC is a governmental organization that augments reports to paint a picture of doom. dont buy into it. watch the US Science senate committee interview these global warming alarmist

watch the presentation buy Dr. Monckton
and the interview with Donna Laframboise who has exposed the IPCC

>Are we beyond the point of no return
There is no clearly defined "
point of no return". Instead, there's a sliding scale of consequences, with a large lag in time. What level of consequences you would consider to be unacceptable determines where you would draw a "point of no return", which may well be in the past.

>quasi-orwellian controls on emissions, industry and people's everyday lives
Pollution controls aren't "quasi-orwellian", they're an accepted part of living in a functional society.
The tragedy of the commons is real, and all the libertarian tears in the world won't make it go away.

>10 years ago they said we'd be underwater by now
Who is "they"?

>stupid doomsday cult
Don't blame others for your shitty research skills.

>what's the matter with a higher co2 environment anyway?
Greenhouse warming will significantly reduce global crop yields, and some locations will see almost total collapse of all agriculture.

>with natural selection won't our kids just evolve/adapt to live with a slightly differently composed air?
No, that's stupid.

>It is rather too late for just emission controls to be effective.
Nonsense. Emissions controls are nessisary to stop making the problem worse.'

>We also need to start geo engineering
No proposed geo-engeneering idea is simultaneously affordable, actually effective, and likely to have side effects that are less than the warming it prevents.

>curb population of the developing world, China, and India.
Basically all population demographics show that happening anyway. Birth rates are plummeting.

>Never listen to scientists who say things I don't want to hear.

Your conspiracy theory is patent nonsense.

>The media has been used to create such a frenzy in hopes of making the population for compliant for "Emergency initiative"
Precisely the opposite has happened. Non-scientists and mouthpieces-for-hire have been funded by oil, mineral and energy industries to spread doubt and delay action against AGW. Look up Willie Soon as an example of the kind of bullshit that goes on.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Soon

>The IPCC is a governmental organization
Wrong.

>The IPCC augments reports to paint a picture of doom.
They are widely considered to UNDERSTATE the degree of concern expressed by researchers in the field, primarily due to the very large delay between research occurring and it's appearance in an IPCC report.

>watch the US Science senate committee interview these global warming alarmist
Firstly, do you really thing the US senate is a reasonable authority on climatology? Secondly, please tell me you're not thinking of of the dude with the snowball. He's a moron.

>watch the presentation buy Dr. Monckton
>Dr. Monckton
Jesus Fucking Christ On A Plane.
""Lord"" (actually not a Lord) Monckton isn't even vaguely close to being a respected researcher in ANY field, let alone one who's been awarded a fucking Doctorate. He's a clueless twit who spends a much trim backtracking from his bizarre falsehoods as he does asserting them in the first place.

Look at this shit: parliament.uk/business/news/2011/july/letter-to-viscount-monckton/

>No, that's stupid.
why?

I am reposting something that I wrote on reddit when talking to folks like you

Are you talking about the IPCC? Thats a joke. they are branded as the top scientist in the world ( and some of them are) but their reports are full of individuals that are one or two years into their masters or Phd. Not to say they cant be genius, but when a significant number of lead authors are graduate students that should alarm you. In addition many of the lead authors are associated with "green" foundations ( WWF, Green peace..ect) who are not scientists themselves nor do they have ANY authority or education in geology, oceanography, physics, meteorology or atmospheric science. Donna Laframboise did some basic research, which you can do yourself and confirm or deny her claims, on the IPCC. she went through their 2008 ( or was it 2007) report and looked at all of the 18,500 references that were listed, 1/3 were found to come from non peer reviewed sources. The IPCC has 4000 authors a significant number of whom have not finished their graduate degree at the time of publication or were not scientist at all. Please dont tell me their a body of the best of the best as they are touted to be. Scientific consenssu?? The global warming petition project has 32,000 scientist that have signed the petition to stop spreading this GARBAGE SCIENCE. Their qualifications include 9,029 PhD; 7,157 MS; 2,586 MD and DVM; and 12,715 BS or equivalent academic degrees. "Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science. So even if you just look at the individuals with PHDs that they far outnumber the IPCC "Scientists.

So no there is no consensus not by any means. those in Favor of anthropogenic induced catastrophic climate change are in the minority. Frankly this whole issue has been used to push a political agenda. Even the catch phrase " climate change denier" who the heck denies climate change ? NO ONE. The word has been used to label skeptics of the global warming issue ( remember when it was called global warming and now its called climate change why do you think that happened?) in fact the global temperatures have not increased for the last 18 years. remss.com/blog/recent-slowing-rise-global-temperatures Again it shows real data next to the IPCC modeling projections. Which are WRONG. you can listen to all of their excuses why it hasn't gone up, but frankly the objective data does not backup their claims.

So let me ask you did you even listen to Lord Moncktons talk? From your answer "I already have an opinion on "Dr. Monkton"" seems like someone has already made up your mind for you. I cant believe you said you already have an opinion on Monckton before you listened to anything he has to say. Doesn't seem like you care too much about hearing the other side of the argument. Before making any judgment why don't agree with him, you should watch his video and listen to him with your ears and then use your judgment instead of relying on someone else to tell you what to think. Go watch the senate science hearings on youtube. go watch the interview with Donna Laframboise. Then make up your mind. but please if your making up your mind before even exploring the other side of the argument you're selling yourself short.
You and my other fellow humans are being duped. The media is lying to you. Just like how they lied to you about acid rain, just like how they lied to you about weapons of mass destruction ( that cost the lives of innocent Iraqis, American citizens and Trillions of americans MONEY and not to mention ISIS which is now terrorizing the world. These are all tactics to get make people compliant so they can pass laws that will ultimatley hurt the people of the united states and the rest of the world, ironically just the opposite of what they tell you their doing.

>Are you saying that you think Dinosaurs would wax philosophical about the fate of the Earth?

You can't prove that they didn't.

>reddit
you have to go back

>The global warming petition project
>even if you just look at the individuals with PHDs that they far outnumber the IPCC "Scientists
Sure. Among the petition signers are fictional characters from the television show M*A*S*H, the movie Star Wars, Spice Girls group member Geri Halliwell, English naturalist Charles Darwin (d. 1882) and prank names such as "I. C. Ewe"
And only very few (around 40) actual climate scientists (if those are even true)

>So no there is no consensus not by any means
The consensus studies that have been done, yes the ones such as Cooks 97% consensus, were done mostly by not sending scientists a questionnaire, or getting them to sign some bullshit petition but instead reviewed samples of the scientific literature in the field of climate science, and looked for papers that made a statement about the human role in climate change. The results were that of papers that made a statement about human role in climate change, 97% of those papers supported the evidence that humans have been driving the current trends.

>(around 40) actual climate scientists
Ehh, those 40 are specifically Climatologists, not Climate scientists. Still, a big amount of signers of the petition are not experts at all in climate science. They don't do research in that area.
The IPCC doesn't do research itself either. The scientists working there are compiling studies and assessing the conclusions. But they are all actually looking at the research and have knowledge in the field. Unlike the big majority of the supposedly >30,000 scientists who signed the Oregon petition.

So you're telling me that expert oceanographers, atmospheric scientists, Physicists, mathematicians, computer scientist environmental engineers , geochemists, earth scientist , Geophysicist meteorologist astronomers and astrophysicists With PhD degrees have no qualification or valid opinion on climate change. do you even know what your talking about? These were the Phds that signed the petition. All climate change predictions are based off of models ( that computer engineers produce) those models use data from diverse groups of study ( you know like the fields I highlighted above).So yes those fields DO contribute to the knowledge of climate change.

My friend, are you making up false claims? Here's the link to the names of the 31,000 scientist that signed the petition

petitionproject.org/signers_by_last_name.php?run=all

NONE of the name you claimed are on there. And then when you realize you have no argument you act like a child and say " well who even knows if their real scientists" hey smart ass why dont you type those names that they provide into google and find out yourself? naw you wont do that. That's because your arguing from a place of emotion, not fact. You have been duped by the IPCC, but thats ok so has a large portion of the population. Open your eyes and judge for yourself. watch the lectures by Monckton, watch the senate science committee hearings, watch the interview with Donna Laframboise.

and Cooks paper shows just how terrible some researchers are. they didn't even read the papers. they read abstracts and then made judgments from that...lazy scientist. 12 people looked at 12,000 articles. then through bullshit statistics and garbage methodology claim that 97% of climate scientist agree that humans are the cause of climate change.

>NONE of the name you claimed are on there.
No shit, they keep scrubbing the list. That doesn't change the fact that it's trivially easy to find complete inappropriate names on the list.

>hey smart ass why don’t you type those names that they provide into google and find out yourself?
You know what? Let's do that. Here's some randomly picked names. I'm NOT filtering out people I think are credible, only those I can't actually narrow down. This is an actual sample of the list:

>Arthur Ballato, PhD
clemson.edu/cecas/departments/ece/faculty_staff/faculty/Adjunct_Faculty.html
Electrical Engineer

>Norman G. Wilson
indwes.edu/academics/faculty/norman-wilson
Professor of Global Ministries

>Joseph G. Whelan
amazon.com/s/ref=dp_byline_sr_book_1?ie=UTF8&text=Joseph G Whelan&search-alias=books&field-author=Joseph G Whelan&sort=relevancerank
Author

>Edward Joseph, MD
doximity.com/pub/edward-joseph-md
Urologist

>Deborah Hokien, PhD
marywood.edu/phd/faculty/detail.html?id=612fda3e-c870-4b24-b940-573a2dbce1ee
Ph.D. Program Director, Program in Human Development

>Samuel E. Hoke, MD
drscore.com/Wisconsin/Gastroenterology/search/Samuel-Hoke_10382088.html
Gastroenterologist

>Wilbert N. Hubin,
kent.edu/physics/profile/wilbert-n-hubin
PHD in... something. CS? Education? Nothing climate related anyway.

>Stephen A. Holdith, PhD
duckduckgo.com/?q=Stephen "A." "Holdith," PhD
This is what I was hoping for. The ONLY relevant results for this person are copies of the petition itself. Either they live alone in a cave somewhere, or the were entirely invented by the petition authors.
A fictional person.

And on top of all that, it's an open question how many of these people actually signed the document, rather than unwillingly having their names slapped on it. There definitely have been reports of people trying to get their names pulled OFF the list.

That petition is utter bullshit.