Climate change deniers can pretty much be divided into three categories:

Climate change deniers can pretty much be divided into three categories:

1. People who are upset that their unconscionable hoards of money will be smaller than they expected because of climate-change legislation when they finally kick the bucket

2. People who have been bribed or threatened by Category 1

3. People who have been lied to by Categories 1 and 2

Other urls found in this thread:

ft.com/content/7471a4a8-a9b3-11e6-809d-c9f98a0cf216
blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/the-reality-behind-saudi-arabia-s-climate-commitments/
reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-saudi-idUSKCN0SZ1TM20151110
ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg2/ar5_wgII_spm_en.pdf
nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Santa Claus deniers can pretty much be divided into three categories:
>1. People who are upset that their unconscionable hoards of good boy points will be smaller than they expected because of santa claus legislation when they finally kick the bucket
>2. People who have been bribed or threatened by Grinch
>3. People who have been lied to by Categories 1 and 2

Therefore Santa Claus is real. Deniers stay buttmad.

i'm not in any of those 3 categories though

I'm more worried about the people who believe it and don't give a shit.

Category 4: Contrarian faggots

>Category 4: Contrarian faggots

>Climate change deniers

People who use this term to dismiss actual discussion of the stupidity of the hysteria and disregard that the situation isn't black and white/yes or no are unscientific pseudo intellectuals who doesn't understand the complexity of the pros and cons of the issue.

Category 5: Majority of the people who don't buy bullshit with inconsistent or no evidence

You forgot:
>normal people who don't want their quality of life to get absolutely destroyed

>2 to 3% uncertainty
>equivalent to 100% uncertainty

Go back to pol

>>>/reddit/

>repeating what twitter says without even any evidence
back to dumbfuck. Saudi arabia and most eastern countries do not even support global warming. That's atleast 10% of the whole world just by themselves. Counting the additional scientists who stays silent or simply don't buy your bullshit easily BTFOs your 97% meme bullshit.
Or did you think memes are facts now?

>Saudis deny the existence of climate change

Gee I wonder why?

on imageboards you can chalk it up to contrarianism, kind of like holocaust denial it's like who cares, why is it so fucking important to you? how does it affect your life? it's just a desire to be as contrarian as possible.

>lmao theirs is because political reasons but ours aren't XDDDD

besides politics and oil, looking at saudi arabian contributions to science, I wouldn't hold them up as some authority on scientific questions.

too bad your racist opinions don't invalidate anything

Look, I fucking hate how the left bas turned what is actual science into a goddmaned trigender binaryqueer issue, but that doesnt change the issue that anthropogenic climate change exists. And the Saudis publically deny it largely because a divergence from fossil fuels may endanger their economic base. Also, a lot of Eastern countries are dirt poor and dont have access the the scientific consensus. Our reasons for acknowledging the existence of climate change might have been made political by leftists and the right, but the fact of its existence isnt.

Global warming is a fucking meme

Air pollution + lungs is the real problem
Global warming is propaganda to cull the normies and I'm ok with this if it can help with air pollution

But you'd have to be an absolute retard to actually believe cars are gonna turn this bitch to mars

Global warming and climate change arent memes, but the idea that ""holy shit u guise the Earth is gunna turn to Venus in like two decades stop killing Mother Gaia"" is a shitty maymay

* ...that retard leftists propagate is(sorry left that part off)

it seems I have struck a nerve, ahmed

back to

4. People who don't understand the consequences.

Lots of people are still in the mindset that the affects are only going to appear in the long term future and will not affect them personally.

It's 2017, not fucking 1990 and everyone eats food and drinks water. The fucking military has already said global warming is a national security threat a decade ago.

/pol/ denies global warming

/pol/ isn't one person

it can be modeled effectively as one

doesn't matter. racists belong to pol. so get back to

"I don't know what I'm talking about":the post

which country does this one /pol/ person best represent?

U to the S to the A
a big majority of /pol/ traffic is coming from the US

Saudi denies it for the same reason Uncle Sam denies it.

Homophobia is a bigger problem than climate change.

Ecological illiteracy is a bigger problem than climate change, one of the main reasons climate change is even a problem

/pol/ is for political discussion. Racism goes to Veeky Forums.

And the rest of the world? Aside from Japan there is zero consensus for global warming meme. Are you claiming that Exxon mobile is secretly controlling every country in the world?

I sometimes wonder how does the brain of a billionare wraps around topics like global warming. "Not my problem"? "They'll figure it out"? "Nevermind, it's so far into the future, and I've got money to make"? "The flood won't get me on the 44th floor anyway"? "Not like I alone could do anything about it anyway"? "Just a chinese hoax"?

If you were 1 or 2 - that's what you would say.
If you were 3 - you wouldn't even know about it.

A Santa Claus denier strawman fallacy.

If we weren't on the same boat, I would let you have your own opinion.

...but rather risk the destruction of their entire species. Your "quality of life" is shit anyway.

Socrates was right - democracy was a mistake.

This.

A lot of people understand the science, and lie through their teeth telling people they don't.

There are other people who understand the science, don't deny it and try to set themselves up a profitable market niche like green energy or collecting carbon taxes while at the same time promoting growth.

These people are psychopaths. And I think they represent at least 50% of the population.

God help the rest of us.

Not just Exxon mobile, pretty much all the automanufactures and fossil fuels capitalists, aswell as international finance and oil-states have bought into the conspiracy at one point or another.
And it's not a secret, it's a well documented campaign to subvert the truth and delay action through media/legislative manipulation

the first 2 groups are the same the the third group is full of subhumans

It's not racist to notice genuine cultural differences. Ex: There's a reason why there have been practically zero Muslim Nobel physics winner in the entire history of the prize, whereas a much smaller population, Jews, have won IIRC about 1/4 of the Nobel physics prizes. Culture matters.

There was no hope for us anyways. Not unless some special sort of great dying happens. Which, you know.

Climate change.

People who don't like being told, "The only real science is our science."

You're free to do you're own actual science but global warming remains to be disproven by any reliable source.

But their feeling are more important than having reliable science.
Besides they have the 4% of scientists who know the truth.

...

>Saudi arabia and most eastern countries do not even support global warming.
literally false. the Saudis have said that they'll stick to the Paris accords even if Orange Daddy pulls the US out of them. they're not denying climate change; they just want to make sure the future transition away from petroleum is nice and gradual (giving them time to diversify their economy) so they don't get the rug pulled out from under them.
>ft.com/content/7471a4a8-a9b3-11e6-809d-c9f98a0cf216
>blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/the-reality-behind-saudi-arabia-s-climate-commitments/
>reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-saudi-idUSKCN0SZ1TM20151110

>That's atleast 10% of the whole world just by themselves. Counting the additional scientists who stays silent or simply don't buy your bullshit easily BTFOs your 97% meme bullshit.
The 97% figure does not refer to world population. Rather, OF PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL PAPERS THAT TAKE A POSITION ON ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE, 97% agree that it's a real thing.

>These people are psychopaths. And I think they represent at least 50% of the population.

But really, I've seen estimates that it might be about 1% of the population are sociopaths.

>A Santa Claus denier strawman fallacy.
Care to point out the fallacy?

4.1 people who are upset that government forces solar with their own fucking money. and do not invest in power grid

4.2 people who are mad that their (inflation adjusted) bills are higher than 10-15 years ago, despite lower usage

in my country even small company can pay >$2000/month for reactive power alone, because grid was left unmaintained for 50 years. and even if it was, it uses the "same" POS deprecated 30 year old tech

>1. People who are upset that their unconscionable hoards of money will be smaller than they expected because of climate-change legislation when they finally kick the bucket

But that's bollocks. Renewable energy will lead to far more money. Think of the energy savings for a company and then think of all the money to be made producing that energy.

>Therefore Santa Claus is real.
OP didn't make the claim that his argument proved Climate Change.

>sees your exact argument with exact wording thrown back at you
>calls it a strawman fallacy
Consider my neurons ignited

I had a friend who is category 3 in a nutshell. He used to post links on facebook about how global warming can't happen, all written by people literally employed by fossil fuel companies. Of course, with the cult-like church he's in, the world ending is probably something he's looking forward to.

I don't deny Climate Change but I deny pretty much all of the solutions.

5. Partisan hacks who want their political football team to win

>I don't deny Climate Change but I deny pretty much all of the solutions.
Well that's a start. You realize that you're just burying your head in the sand right?

Not at all, I'm just not a retard who seriously thinks carbon tax will fix global warming or even dent it.

You do realize that majority of the "solutions" proposed to nothing at best, and directly contribute to the further degration of the environment at worst.

See Solar Fricking Roadways.

defeatist scum like you who arent even willing to try should just kill themselves. I mean this in the most malicious way possible, I hope you feel or have felt a lot of pain in your life.

Pretty redpilled for a show about lesbians

Why? The world is overpopulated anyway, let it happen.

Why is everything a left vs right debate with you fags? Everybody gets fucked by climate change. Holy shit fucking tribalistic retards on both sides

read a thing on climate change causing mass human extinction in like 10 years, is there any credit to that?

Yes there is a 99% chance of human extinction within the next 10 years it's scientifically proven

Holy fuck, you are an absolute moron. You really think we need to even try with carbon tax when it obviously will fail? And by the way, people already did try. Australia tried it and it ended horribly, it tanked their economy and guess how much they reduced emissions? A whopping 1 (maybe 2) percent. WOW! all it takes to reduce emissions by 1% is tanking the entire economy! Why are republicans so resilient to this I wonder? Maybe because destroying the economy is a sure failure but global warming is chaotic and uncertain so acting brash isn't a very bright thing.

By the way, even if carbon tax could reduce emissions by large amounts good luck getting China to listen to you. Of course you probably have some magical way you will convince them to reduce emissions right? Don't you realize that the science behind climate change isn't even HALF of the debate, it is just the part that liberals use to feel superior.

Not a chance, humans will find a way to survive, that doesn't mean many people won't die though. As for the 10 years prediction, I bet my left nut nothing will change in 10 years. People will still be saying we are running out of time but there will be virtually no difference. Also please ignore anyone who says, "Today was HOT! Darn global warming!" or "Today was COLD, global warming is false!"

where though

libby libby librals

normies can't read scientific papers so they have to take the words of scientists at face value
scientists are seen as left-leaning and ideological when they are not.

inevitable outcome; cant understand the evidence, don't trust the people who do, climate change denier.

>You really think we need to even try with carbon tax when it obviously will fail? Australia tried it and it ended horribly, it tanked their economy and guess how much they reduced emissions? A whopping 1 (maybe 2) percent. WOW! all it takes to reduce emissions by 1% is tanking the entire economy!
Literally everything you said is a lie. Australia's economy didn't suffer at all. It was a 2% reduction in emissions and would have been higher if Abbott had not promised from the start to repeal it. It failed purely for political reasons, which you are now using as a self-fulfilling prophecy.

>You really think we need to even try with carbon tax when it obviously will fail?
It's not obvious that it would fail. If you want to make a claim like that, post evidence.

>Australia tried it and it ended horribly, it tanked their economy and guess how much they reduced emissions? A whopping 1 (maybe 2) percent. WOW! all it takes to reduce emissions by 1% is tanking the entire economy!
Let me rephrase that. Post evidence THAT ISN'T OBVIOUSLY COMPLETELY MADE UP.
Australia’s carbon tax didn't collapse the economy for the same reason it provided negligible emissions reductions - it's was politically controversial, generally weak, and repealed almost immediately. This isn't a particularly difficult thing to check - not only is wikipedia good enough, but anyone who lived in Australia for the last few years could probably give a decent sketch of it.

Please stop fucking lying.

>By the way, even if carbon tax could reduce emissions by large amounts good luck getting China to listen to you.
China has pretty consistently been onboard with emissions reductions and green energy, and have an economy that's massively dependant on exports. If the western world rolled out a serious carbon tax or ETS, I'm not sure it would be too difficult to pressure China into following. Do you have evidence otherwise?

>Don't you realize that the science behind climate change isn't even HALF of the debate, it is just the part that liberals use to feel superior.
The evidence isn't half the debate - it's the entire debate. "BUT GUBERMENT TAXES" is just a distraction thrown out by the people people who are consistently losing that debate.
If you want to talk about how to actually deal with global warming, then a) that's a separate topic which doesn't (shouldn't) influence discussion on whether AGW is real, and b) you would need to actually suggest things - "I don't like you ideas, so lets do nothing" is transparently obstructive.

Okay looking into it I might have been mislead about the Australia thing. I thought it was a tax on all carbon emissions but apparently it was only certain companies. Regardless it will only reduce it so much and still won't "solve" global warming.

>wikipedia
I don't trust Wikipedia given they outright lie on certain political articles.

>"I don't like you ideas, so lets do nothing
I never said that. I'm just saying that most of them have terrible ideas or ideas that sound like scams. Maybe you could debate how much carbon taxes would hurt the economy if it's only on certain companies and not everything but it really won't solve global warming and will just eventually level off. The only real solution would be to shift to alternative fuel but doing that is not an easy thing which is my point.

Also if you look at U.S. government subsidies renewable energy has the most subsidies yet it is mostly dogshit. Either our subsidies are shit or renewable is not a good option right now. If you look at nuclear it has less subsidies than fossil fuels. Why not just move all the fossil fuel subsidies to nuclear? Isn't nuclear better than fossil fuels anyways? There is one of my solutions that doesn't involve the dumb carbon tax that is only mildly effective at best (I'm telling you the benefits will level off at a point). Why don't democrats push for that?

I know who you are.

What's that supposed to mean?

...

>I never said that. I'm just saying that most of them have terrible ideas or ideas that sound like scams.
To be a "scam" something requires actual deception, so I don't really see how that's applicable. As for "really terrible idea" - there's a perfectly reasonable way of looking at AGW as a "tragedy of the commons" problem: where CO2 emissions are a negative externality that benefits emitters but is paid for by everyone. From what I understand (and I'm obviously not an economist) using a tax to "internalise" externalities by making the benefiter pay their share of the global costs is a pretty normal and accepted response.

>but it really won't solve global warming and will just eventually level off
Why do you think that?

>The only real solution would be to shift to alternative fuel but doing that is not an easy thing which is my point.
Of course, and one of the goals of most carbon taxes and ETSs is to try and incentivise that switch-over without actually mandating a particular solution.

>Also if you look at U.S. government subsidies renewable energy has the most subsidies yet it is mostly dogshit.
That really depends on how you do the accounting. Like I said, in a way fossil fuels are naturally massively subsidised, because very little of the costs of using them (AGW, air pollution,etc.) are paid for by the person who burns them.

>nuclear
That topic is different whole can of worms. The short answer is that nuclear power is expensive as fuck, and regardless of whether you think those costs are intrinsic or extrinsic, they're not going away any time soon.

>Isn't nuclear better than fossil fuels anyways?
Yes, and No, and probably also Yes?

>Why don't democrats push for [nuclear power]?
I'm not in the USA, so I probably shouldn't comment on US politics. I'd imagine the reason is a lack of public support though.

As long as we all agree that Climatology is a shit tier science that's in it's infancy and only science fans and their "popularizer" heros populate the alarmist circle jerk.

>Why do you think that?
They will just reduce emissions but not completely get rid of them. You would have to ban fossil fuels to do that instantly.

>That really depends on how you do the accounting.
Well regardless fossil fuels just shouldn't be subsidized then? If it needs subsidies then that means it can't sustain itself on it's own merit and needs to be artificially lifted up (or else it is not advanced enough to be effective).

> The short answer is that nuclear power is expensive as fuck, and regardless of whether you think those costs are intrinsic or extrinsic, they're not going away any time soon.
See but this is basically saying what I have been saying, that the issue is far to complicated to have one "solution." So when liberals like Bill Nye act like they somehow KNOW how to fix it and it's only a matter of implementing their plan it's total bullshit and an actual lie. I didn't intend to be wrong about Australia I was mislead.

>implying killing all humans wouldn't solve the problem instantly

Check mate cuck

Right but why? Without humans all life will eventually be destroyed unless intelligent life manages to spring up again and not kill each other like us (very unlikely).

>They will just reduce emissions but not completely get rid of them. You would have to ban fossil fuels to do that instantly.
Right now, that's about the best we could really hope for. Even a small reduction in emission will reduce the rate things get worse at, whcih will give us more time to develop better solutions. And given an outright ban won't happen, reductions make a good first step towards a phase out.
The perfect is the enemy of the good.

>Well regardless fossil fuels just shouldn't be subsidized then?
Even that's more complex than it sounds. The obvious answer is that they shouldn't be, but dropping fuel subsidies would raise the cost of living for a lot of people. In theory you could counteract that with some accounting and the government providing fuel tax offsets (funded from emissions taxes?) to people in lower income brackets, but that's the exact opposite of the "hands-off" approach that people seem to want from the government.

>If it needs subsidies then that means it can't sustain itself on it's own merit and needs to be artificially lifted up (or else it is not advanced enough to be effective).
Eh, I don't really see how that's an issue. Modern societies are absolutely stuffed full of things that aren't self supporting, because we recognise that demanding that kind of self-sufficiency can actually detracts from functions that benefit everyone. Look at healthcare as an example.

>that the issue is far to complicated to have one "solution."
Yes and also no.
To the best of our knowledge, AGW has exactly one solution - (simplified) reduce CO2 emissions. There a lot of paths to that, and some of them are better supported than others. Right now, ETSs and emissions taxes are the two best regarded approaches, and so pushing for them is sensible. That doesn't mean other approaches don't exist, and they may replace or supplement those two as we figure more out.

(cont.)

>So when liberals like Bill Nye act like they somehow KNOW how to fix it and it's only a matter of implementing their plan it's total bullshit and an actual lie.
Absolutely not. It's a massive simplification of a complex issue, but it's not wrong and definitely not a lie.
We have a very solid idea about the big picture, but a rougher idea about the details. We know that emissions reductions are necessary and urgent. We have workable (though not great) plans available that would start to provide those reductions. At this point it is pretty clear that delay now would be more expensive than making a start and needing to make changes later down the road.

>I didn't intend to be wrong about Australia I was mislead.
Fair enough. Australia is a pretty unique kind of shitshow.

Okay, my only problem with this is how do we know we absolutely must reduce emissions now. It is one thing to say we are changing the climate and it could end badly, it is another to say it is so urgent we must immediately reduce emissions. I can understand wanting to get closer to alternative energy but merely reducing emissions does not seem very useful.

>Australia tried it and it ended horribly, it tanked their economy and guess how much they reduced emissions?

What an outright lie, it had absolutely no effect on our economy, and actually the price of electricity doubled AFTER IT WAS REPEALED

You should have read the replies, I already admitted I was wrong about that.

Just pointing out there is one solution is all

Carry on with your debate with that other user, it intrigues me

>Okay looking into it I might have been mislead about the Australia thing

Because you only believe what you want to believe.

How do you know?

>People who overuse green text are fucking losers.

You see this? It's a titanosaur Argentinosaurus huinculensis, the largest dinosaur ever discovered. The largest Earth animal is the African elephant, weighing in at 7 tons. The tallest is the giraffe, which can get up to 6 meters tall.

This dinosaur was over 40 meters long, 20 meters tall, and weighed upwards of 105 tons. It is difficult to grasp the scale of magnitude of this monstrous beast, but it weighed as much as a house. and was nearly half the length of a football field.

Imagine a tropical rainforest with enough vegetation to sustain this massive creature. It would have made the modern Brazilian rainforest look like your grandmother's flower garden. As we know from ice core measurements, airborne CO2 was a lot higher back then. Considering what we know about how CO2 enriches plant growth, it's likely that the land was many orders of magnitude more lush and productive

More titanosaurs compared to human scale

It's likely that the ones we've found so far aren't even the biggest

Stop using real science to make your arguments. That shit isn't accepted here!

Nice digits btw

>merely reducing emissions does not seem very useful.
Our emissions are the only real control we have over the situation. Other ideas like aerosol injection have been discussed, but they've all been found to be ineffective or disastrous.

>how do we know we absolutely must reduce emissions now. It is one thing to say we are changing the climate and it could end badly, it is another to say it is so urgent we must immediately reduce emissions.
The AR5 is a bit conservative and very out-of-date, but it's still probably the best list for this kind of thing. This is the AR5 WG2 SPM:
ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg2/ar5_wgII_spm_en.pdf

The short version is that rising temperatures will cause crop yields to fall, many species to got extinct, worsen and create new health issues, inflame regional conflicts, and displace many people. In the worst case scenario, will will see wars, mass extinctions in every ecosystem, unprecedented severe weather and populated areas actually becoming too hot for human survival. It's not quite the apocalypse, but it's going to be pretty fucking bad.

Furthermore, we know all of those things scale pretty significantly with the rise in temperature. So even if a measure wouldn't be enough to stop all warming, if it can prevent things from going from bad to very bad then that can still be enough to justify it.

So you're saying global warming might actually be a good thing? Interesting, I've never really considered that argument. When you think about it humans will probably be fine in a warmer climate it's just penguins and polar bears, and well...maybe they are a necessary sacrifice.

>rising temperatures will cause crop yields to fall, many species to got extinct, worsen and create new health issues, inflame regional conflicts, and displace many people. In the worst case scenario, will will see wars, mass extinctions in every ecosystem, unprecedented severe weather and populated areas actually becoming too hot for human survival
Will it though? That sounds an awful lot like end of the world preaching, which is almost always entirely incorrect.

It's already happening

nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

Maybe we can get the dinosaurs back some day

>As we know from ice core measurements, airborne CO2 was a lot higher back then. Considering what we know about how CO2 enriches plant growth, it's likely that the land was many orders of magnitude more lush and productive
There's a lot more to plant growth than just CO2. In particular, water availability is a major factor, and there are large areas that are going to see a lot less (or too much) rainfall as the world warms.

>So you're saying global warming might actually be a good thing?
It will be good it some ways, but bad in a lot of others. It's almost certain that the bad things will heavily outweigh the good.

>When you think about it humans will probably be fine in a warmer climate
We really won't. I don't know how to say this strongly enough, but a lot of people are going to die.

>Will it though?
To the best of our understanding, yes.

>That sounds an awful lot like end of the world preaching
I understand that, which is why I've been emphasising the uncertainties and complexities involved.
It isn't going to be the end of the world, but it is going to be an awful time for everyone who has to live on it.