Watch stupid leftie film Wall Street II (2010)

>Dependence on Saudi Arabia is a consequence of reducing the use of fossil fuels
>Le cuck maymay
>Implying Africa not developing is a bad thing
Wew that's retarded.

Why don't you live in a hut filled with mosquitoes all day in the scorching heat?

global warming has been proven over and over again to be fabricated to promote the alternative fuel industry to rip us off.

It's just another poltard, nothing to see here.

This is big oxyfuel propaganda

Images like this are not arguments.
What politicians and activist say about climate science, is not climate science.

I dunno why /pol/ would think (((they))) are pushing the Climate Change issue, when (((they))) own the energy conglomerates and the banks that own them. (((They))) are the only ones who stand to benefit from Climate Change Denial. If anyone's pushing Climate Change Denial, it's (((them)))... And (((they))) seem ready to destroy the planet for what amounts to them as a few pennies on the dollar.

The only thing that's prevented every other city from looking like old London, where several feet of ash piled up on your roof every day, and there was a whole industry of people dedicated to sweeping it off before your house collapsed from the weight (or, more recently, why there hasn't been a Stage 3 Smog Alert in LA since the 80's), is the fact that the general public has always pushed to government to institute and enforce increasingly stringent pollution standards. It's done little to nothing to cut into profits, and indeed, created entire new industries, and made life all around more pleasant for everyone.

And now, suddenly, (((they))) have turned the general public against pollution control, despite the fact that it's been nothing but good for them for centuries? The public is now willing to end trend of cleaner and more efficient energy over time, just so (((they))) don't have to pay for it?

Meh, I blame Al Gore for turning it into a Democrat issue. Before the 90's, this used to be a non-partisan issue. Government emissions regulations went nowhere but up under Reagan, and Nixon founded the EPA, FFS. But now that the Democrats hijacked Climate Change for themselves, suddenly, it's a partisan lie.

Guess we can blame him for the Internet as well.

...and now this asshole's making a second movie.

>mfw OP is 50 years old and homeless and destitute because a fire tornado destroyed his house and in the process he even lost his Bitcoin wallet with all his savings

It's the most regarded conspiracy theory of them all.

Somehow I'm supposed to believe that a bunch of post-grads and professors making shit salaries in comparison to their education levels, made this whole thing up just so they could get funding for their research, just so they could could keep earning shit wages.

And they are somehow doing all of this despite opposition from trillion dollar corporate entities from all around the world, including pretty much all the vicious dictatorships and all governments. As if that makes any sense at all. As if they wouldn't be imprisoned or killed if they they were lying and making shit up. As if the same researchers couldn't just go work for some SV company and make $200k if they were after money.

Even if you completely disregard the science. The incentives and parties involved in this conspiracy makes no sense at all.

>Especially when solar, hydro, and wind are getting cheaper at faster rates than carbon based energy sources, and they have less negative externalities too boot

Solar is the future but your inclusion of wind shows you don't know what you're talking about.

Forget, for a second, that wind and solar, together, are responsible for something like 1% of energy generation and that the rest of the "renewables" are things like "biomass", which actually include the burning of human shit.

Wind, from a technical and physical standpoint, does not work. The maximum amount of kinetic energy that can be taken out of wind, by a turbine, in a theoretical situation involving infinite blades and no drag, is 59.3%, according to Betz's law. At peak performance, real-world turbines achieve 75-80% of this limit. There is basically nowhere to go, in terms improving energy generation. This is it.

So, to cover just new global energy demand, not existing but just new, would require you to cover a landmass the size of russia in wind turbines by, iirc, 2050.

It is also extremely harmful, from the point of view of "negative externalities". The construction of the steel requires a lot of coal, for the carbon content. The concrete also generates a lot of carbon (I don't think this part is harmful but, from your perspective, it is). And the precious metal mining is concentrated in certain parts of the world, like Mongolia, and creates toxic waste.

The 3 sources you listed might be getting "cheaper at faster rates" than carbon based energy sources but that's because carbon based sources have been refined for 150 years. Either way, they're still multiple times more expensive. And you simply will not be able to run a modern society until the energy density is at least comparable to oil, gas and coal, which it is nowhere near.

cont'd

All the foods you like, from all over the world; all the clothing you wear; the cars/buses/trains/planes you drive or use; subsequently, the job you work, which probably isn't that close to your house; all the computers you use; and a whole host of other modern conveniences, all gone.

You simply do not understand how modern society is structured if you think solar panels and wind turbines are capable of sustaining it.

>carbon credits
Look up this shit. Oil companies have nothing on the private banking cartels in terms of size and power. Global warming is real, and it is anthropogenic, but we're not gonna solve it by shovelling cash into the turd world and ditching internal combustion engines. The biggest contributors to carbon emissions are heavy industry and power generation, neither of which is going to be powered by wind or some other toy. Solar has promise, but not in the way of all this trendy hip ground-based bullshit. You either cover massive areas in solar panels and come up with a manner of storing the energy (like hydrogen cells or something), or you set up solar power satellites (which we should have been doing in the 80s). Taxing the developed world in order to fund industry in poo land and africa is not a benefit for anyone in the developed world. Besides, if we developed solar power satellites, stopping global warming would become quite trivial by simply using sunshades in space.

Over a recent 20 year period, Exxon put 20 million toward climate research. Over the same period, the US government put 80 billion. A 4000-fold difference. The money is in alarmism. The grants are huge and there's nothing "shit" about the wages.

Want to have your career ruined? Want to be attacked and destroyed in the media and compared to holocaust deniers? Question the "science" of catastrophic, anthropogenic global warming.

No, you're right, user. Politicians don't want another reason to tax people or another thing over which to take control. Third world leaders don't want another reason to demand billions of dollars from muh ebul rich westerners (India thinks you owe them trillions, btw). When The Sierra Club took a 100 million dollar bribe from a hedge fund manager to stop saying immigration is bad for the environment, it didn't count or whatever. When Greenpeace accidentally releases a rough draft of a press release that still has the placeholder, and I'm not making this up, "INSERT ALARMIST AND ARMAGEDDONIST FACTOID HERE."

Give me a break, son. The money, the power, the influence, it is ALL on the side of alarmism.

The average brainlet thinks most energy is consumed by their tiny little world of consumer products. Lightbulbs, toasters, cars, tvs. Which is retarded. An obscene amount of energy is consumed by heavy industry, infrastructure and transportation. Good luck heating Russian or Canadian cities in winter by solar. Good luck smelting steel by wind.

Just because your iPod can run on renewables doesn't mean it can be produced and delivered to you by them.

>stopping global warming would become quite trivial by simply using sunshades in space.

Oh god. See, this is what I'm talking about. You people don't know anything about anything yet you're still forming opinions.

THANK YOU.

Oh and let's not forget agriculture. I really want to see how these retards will use the same land for growing food and solar panels. Both directly competing for the same fucking source of power.

No, it is you who doesn't know anything. Why go backwards when you can go forward? Develop space industry and shit like this becomes trivial. But that's not on the agenda, because it would only profit the earth as a whole and likely weaken the powers that be.

Fission reactors are really good and not a big pollution problem if you invest money into the infrastructure to store and reprocess the waste as well as maintain the reactors, develop newer and more efficient reactor designs,
I'd rather live next to a nuclear power plant than a coal power plant.

>blah blah blah POLLUTION blah blah blah MUH CHILDREN blah blah blah

washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/01/10/americas-first-clean-coal-plant-is-now-operational-and-another-is-on-the-way/

>The companies say that the plant can capture over 90 percent of the carbon dioxide released from the equivalent of a 240 megawatt, or million watt, coal unit, which translates into 5,000 tons of carbon dioxide per day or over 1 million tons per year.

>Somehow I'm supposed to believe that a bunch of post-grads and professors making shit salaries in comparison to their education levels, made this whole thing up just so they could get funding for their research, just so they could could keep earning shit wages.

What is Tesla. What is Solyndra. What is GE. The "useful idiots' on the bottom, the professors you're talking about simply didn't cash in on this because they are just that, useful idiots. You don't see SJW professors profiting off the transgender epidemic, or sex change surgeries.

>Why don't you live in a hut filled with mosquitoes all day in the scorching heat?

You mean when the waters rise, the city becomes a swamp, and heatwaves happen in winter because of global warming?

>What is Tesla. What is Solyndra. What is GE

What is BP, what is Shell, what is exxonmobil, what is Chevron

Trying hard, aren't we? How many shekels do they pay you?

Don't even bother mate. They are either shills or mentally ill people with sub-average IQs. Either way, there is no point in addressing them.

>As if the same researchers couldn't just go work for some SV company and make $200k if they were after money.

HAHA, this is EXACTLY what I don't get.

Yeah, sure I'm going to get into a highly contested field of research making $40k as a full professor after a whole decade of university education, just so some buffoon like Trump can get in the office and fire me. Yeah, that sounds like the best way of making money! It's like like I could use my Ph.D to go work for Google or Facebook and make $250k/year easily.

Fuck off /tv/

>clean coal plant
...and yet companies will fight tooth and nail to prevent legislation that forces them to build those instead of the cheaper models (doubly so any that would force them to replace the older models).

So this in no way invalidates the point.

youtube.com/watch?v=DpTIhyMa-Nw
>"What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as an ideological matter..."

...

>Wind, from a technical and physical standpoint, does not work. The maximum amount of kinetic energy that can be taken out of wind, by a turbine, in a theoretical situation involving infinite blades and no drag, is 59.3%, according to Betz's law. At peak performance, real-world turbines achieve 75-80% of this limit

Thermal plants only use about 30-40% of the heat energy of their inputs, saying this means you really don't understand the industry.

On top of that, what you and the user you responded to don't understand is that no one in the industry expect solar/wind to be anything more than cheaper peaker plants. Until we perfect fusion, the vast majority of electricity is going to come from thermal plants.

>It is also extremely harmful, from the point of view of "negative externalities".

This point is really a non-argument, thermal plants have all of those externalities along with the ones directly related to the transportation and burning of the fuel.

>You mean when the waters rise, the city becomes a swamp, and heatwaves happen in winter because of global warming?

>coastal cities flooded
>also happens to be where most democrats live
>also happens to be where most pollution occurs
>also happens to be where most consumption lives

looks like its not our problem now is it?

Wind gives excellent return on energy invested, it works at night, and the "land usage" is not exclusive (i.e. you can have wind turbines on cropland or in forest and barely affect the yield). It's a very good partner for hydro, or pumped hydro storage, as long as you keep the costs down.

>An obscene amount of energy is consumed by heavy industry, infrastructure and transportation.
...all working to produce and supplying consumer products and services.

>Good luck heating Russian or Canadian cities in winter by solar.
Enough solar energy falls on Russia and Canada in a summer day to heat their cities for a century.

Because companies are going to use coal in the cheapest way possible, unless you can pass regulation to make them do otherwise, which you can't due, because the climate denial front has taken over the political body.

So yeah, point still stands - try again.

I love how none of you dumb dumbs have cited any of your points while OP has linked to numerous articles and posted several graphs already.

>energy dependence on Saudi Arabia

>United States literally produces more oil than it imports as well as uses more of it's own than uses imports

of course you wouldn't do any actual research though before you post this dumb shit

>washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/01/10/americas-first-clean-coal-plant-is-now-operational-and-another-is-on-the-way/

From the comment section of the WaPo article:

"Wake up. This is all about the people who want to make money providing fossil fuels to the suckers who continue to buy fossil fuels. In this day and age, how is it that the US still is so dependent on fossil fuels like coal, gas, and oil? There are viable alternatives. Employees involved with coal, gas, and oil can be retrained to produce the renewable fuel options so NO JOBS would be lost (myth perpetuated by those who want to continue making money providing fossil fuels). The only changes would be the US would be part of the solution to help the planet and the people making money off the fossil fuels would have to change to making money off the renewable fuels. Oops.. the fuels are renewable so their money making options are limited... Ahh, that is the real reason the US is behind the 8 ball on this one and clogging up the planet earth with greenhouse emissions."

They completely ignored the part of the article where they said the coal plant was capturing carbon and keeping it from being expelled into the atmosphere. Just like how the US is damned for not joining the Paris Agreement even though per capita CO2 emissions has went down by 12% over the last ten years which is better than countries like China or even Germany.

See google.com/search?biw=1280&bih=614&q=united states per capita carbon emissions&oq=United States per capita c&gs_l=psy-ab.3.0.0j0i22i30k1l3.4420391.4427550.0.4428887.30.28.2.0.0.0.121.2689.19j9.28.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.30.2694...0i131k1.Uw35-lKF08Y

Is the green movement really all that science-based? Not with this level of dogmatism and disconnect with reality.

>Especially when solar, hydro, and wind are getting more subsidies per kwh than carbon based energy sources, and they have less negative externalities that can be seen by the public too boot

Fix'd for truth

Because everything you just said is fucking Greenpiss propaganda bullshit

forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2017/05/30/why-do-federal-subsidies-make-renewable-energy-so-costly/#75d20983128c

instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/big-winds-dirty-little-secret-rare-earth-minerals/

news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2014/11/141111-solar-panel-manufacturing-sustainability-ranking/

dailycaller.com/2017/07/01/solar-panels-generate-300-times-more-toxic-waste-than-nuclear-reactors/

>Wikipedia is a source
Kek OP is a faggot.

That is a very recet development that the left did much to try to block and Bernie promised to ban during his campaign. Trump is a buffoon but you can unironically thank him for this, at least.

Go ahead and ignore liquid fuel fission reactors, because it's the most viable energy production method we could build today and would undercut the current price of energy by a factor of 1000 or more

Wait, how the hell is that system capturing any CO2? It's just rerouting the exhaust from the boiler furnace back into the furnace, or is it using it along with the steam to spin the turbine? There's no process for actually capturing the carbon dioxide in this diagram.

>Wind gives excellent return on energy invested

Wind is the worst form of energy production in terms of return per energy unit invested.

Yeah, fuck anyone who even tries to make the world a better place, I guess.

Why does /pol/ keep making topics on here?

From Veeky Forums, not /pol/. We actually don't like living in crippling poverty and want a higher standard of living.

because everything you don't like is /pol/

Southern europe's already been decimated by the strongest heatwave in the recent decades as a direct consequence of Trump's refusal to comply with the treaties related to combating Climate Change. It won't be long before the right wing realizes the grave they are digging is their own.

I tried to formulate a response but the post was so utterly retarded beyond human comprehension that I'm simply struck speechless.
Your a fucking faggot.

Asking the real questions here.

>Fahrenheit
>PSI
>Units of yesteryear
Dismissed.

Caring about units at all is outdated. The modern world is one free of facts, so units are meaningless. Everything is determined by your politics, even things like temperature that you might have thought were fairly simple data points. If you're on the left, you think it's hotter than it was before. If you're on the right, you think it's colder. What the actual temperature is has nothing to do with that, it's entirely determined by which tribe you belong to, so what units you're using doesn't matter because data doesn't matter.

>le jewz control de le renewables and fusion meme
>le big oilz is not ebil at all guize, dei gud bois, what is increased CO2 in the atmosphere, I just don't know
>burgerstan suburbia is completely sustainable, what if oil is running out in the next 50 years, idgaf mane, fuck muh chilluns and shiet
Fusion, nuclear and meme renewables>oil, you fucking brainlet. Anyone shilling for big oil should be skinned alive in all cases.

The only reason you have a higher standard of living is due to the pollution controls of yesteryear. Such efforts have been nothing but good for the economy, creating entire new multi-trillion dollar industries, all while increasing the comfort of living for all. ...and now, for the first time since the dawn of the industrial revolution, the general public has been duped into fighting that same effort that has taken us so far.

It's effectively advocating to set the technological clock back two hundred years, so that some random one-percenters can make an extra dime a week.

Agreed. I tried explaining why I disliked Al Gore and his movies to someone the other day, and they couldn't understand that I wasn't denying climate change. I think the entire approach politicizes an issue that should be left to the scientific community, and as a result, it's become a clusterfuck of misinformation.

Solar mirrors >>>>>> meme panels

>It's effectively advocating to set the technological clock back two hundred years
No shit, you are just figuring that out now? How much do you want to bet they keep their 21st century Inquisition tools though?

Yeah flood the most productive parts of the country 'cus fuk demicucks' who will just move anyway. Bait detected.

It isn't the Jews.
It is the baby boomers.

>seize the memes of production. t. totally not a communist pope

>proven

Why is it that suddenly we are getting these oil shilling threads on Veeky Forums?

>look at me! I linked to Wikipedia and posted infographics without sources in them!

Rex Tillerson is personally shilling on Veeky Forums to get away from his duties as Secretary of State (a job he didn't even want). Cucks like
are supporting him and encouraging him to slack with that whole North Korea thing looming on the horizon.

Because those so-called shills figured out solar panels and wind turbines don't work on windless nights contrary what Bill Nye told you. Oh and fuck Bill Nye for being anti-nuclear power too. I could have overlooked the anti-fossil fuel if he was pro-nuclear. "Oh replace coal with molten salt reactors. No problem!" But no! That fucker is letting Greenshit hippies set our countries' energy policy.