The great debate

CONSENSUS vs TRUTH
FIGHT

>politics
If you accuse one side of denying data because of politics isn't it just as plausible to you that the opposing political side would invent data?
And isn't the fact that in 1990 they told us we'd all be drowned by the year 2000 proof that it's all just environmentalist fear-mongering and not real science?
We all know that factual but incorrect racist and sexist scientific data gets suppressed while mass media and government talk up fake nonsense like equality.

you can't compare NASA and every serious science institution in the western world, with the narrative mass media has on equality.

Every expert though Hillary was going to win, but here we are

I'm not sure if someone can a sweetheart this here, but I'll ask.

1. How much faster do human contributions accelerate climate change?

2. What real measures must be taken to STOP man made climate change, and then REVERSE it? I want examples of laws/policies.

What a strange auto correct. *Answer this here

>Consensus

Left.
>It never stopped changing
The rate of change is key. It's changing faster than it does naturally (not including VEI-6+ volcanoes and large impact events)
>There is little evidence its man made
This is a big problem with echo chambers. Similar to how there are still tribes living in the stone age in a world that is thousands of years ahead of them.
Go outside your comfort zone and read some scientific papers on the subject, there is a huge amount of evidence.
>There is no stopping it
Significant warming is inevitable at this point, but you can prevent it from getting worse and work on solutions for cooling the Earth down reliably.
But authority is not the main argument behind man-made climate change, the evidence presented and analyzed is. It wouldn't be evidence if there wasn't sufficient documentation to prove the evidence's existence.

>appeal to authority
Climatefags, you should stop. It's getting embarrassing.

They were going with the assumption that most people aren't morons. That's where their data fell apart

>this random dumb user on Veeky Forums represents every climate change believer

On climate chaos obviously left
In sex differences on humans right(SJW)

Too late to stop the effects of climate change completely. Our current goal is to minimize it. The success of that depends on the effort we put in. It's hard to say exactly how bad it will get for however much action is taken, but we should do everything we can within reason.

Name some things we are capable of but within reason that will meaningfully slow climate change

an appeal to expertise is not the same as an appeal to authority, and is perfectly valid

back to high school, american

I am supposed to know a bit about this topic (student) so I would like to say this
> The apparant necessity of the climate change debate is purely political and economical in nature
> The choice of a country to invest in """""""" renewables """""" is related to its geopolitics, economic development and availability to raw resources

I think that the consequences are
> Extinction of 50-95% of all species on earth (because this happened a few more times and not too much fucks should be given about this one)
> Change of climate on local scale. Think about desertification of one area and the change to oceanic climate on areas just south of the polar circle on the northern hemisphere
> These changes will likely occur in 200-1000 years I suppose (it has already started)

There is enough indication for climate change. Think about milankovic cycles, isotope data or some change in the characteristics of a geological formation. Throw the idea of climate change away and so you throw away the idea of geology which is the reason we have oil in the first place.

...

>one guy
holy fuck you're beyond retarded

Here is my main issue with "climate change", as opposed to climate science.
Most of the proposed "fixes" involve:
>send jobs overseas to china, which is the most environmentally friendly regime in the known universe
>import more third world peoples into america/europe
>continue to fund the third world, which again are historically the most environmentally friendly
>cut back on resources utilized and produced by the first world

It almost feels like there is an ulterior motive seeing that every proposed solution effectively undermines the power of the Western world while emboldening the third world/China.
Look at China.
Look at India.
Look at Africa.
Look at the Middle East.
Why do you want these people to not only increase in power, but increase in population? Literal subhumans. I'm all for being more environmentally conscious, it's literally my job, but I would rather pour a quart of motor oil into a stream than give more money to the third world.

this has nothing to do with the thread? Please return to your echo chamber

This is your mind on identity politics.

holy shit, they were right
Veeky Forums gives out (You)s like candy

>hurr i was only pretending to be retarded, joke's on you i'm actually just intellectually dishonest

Your post exemplifies why white genocide is not only justified, but necessary

It's going to take government intervention, so you won't like it. More subsidizing of renewable technologies can give it an economic edge over fossil fuels.

Why isn't the IPCC on their you brainlet?

If you want to ignore all of science based on that one instance back when there was no development based on the scientific method then it says more about you than it does climate change desu

>UN
>scientific community

The UN is one the most useless things on the planet.

what do you mean?
>If you want to ignore all of science based on that one instance
ignore what? based on what single instance?

>Modern scientists with equipment and resources never seen before can be compared to early renaissance astronomers, mathematicians, and philosophers who were heavily censored by the catholic church.

I support the consensus on climate change and even if it wasn't happening that's no justification to keep pumping garbage out all over the place. My only issue is if you see a climate change protest they all hold signs saying stuff like refugees welcome that has absolutely nothing to do with it, I end up inadvertently relating these topics due to the morons who go to the protests

If you ignore that model because people were wrong before, then ylut logically follows that you can ignore all models because they were wrong before, so what stops them from being wrong now? The logic you used, if consistently followed, undermines just about everything in science. If you think climate change isn't real or man-made or whatever, it's fine but use a better argument than "they were wrong before"

Neither.
>Left
#MarchForScience
The scientific """community""" is nothing but an academic circlejerk that if your result is nothing that they want to see, they will just call you a retard or w/e that term is for the scientist that have lost it.
Worse than IRC and Discord.
>Right
There's nothing here but bias, since they focus on politics of science because of the mentioned thing on the left, they just want to be the contraritarians without any PhD.

The only way to fix science itself is to break that huge cocksucking orgy that keeps on not being open-minded on result that could be right.
As well just eliminate science politics in general, imagine if science did not have any limits and "muh ethics" whatsoever; we would have fixed most genetic diseases, ended world hunger and could create personalized babies for the people that will end up alone for the rest of their life with half or less the cost of surrogacy.

Reminder that there is always the 3rd option, Veeky Forums.
>question_everything.png

>tfw you agree with the left but you still like memes

its a sad life. memes for all, yeah?

climate change isn't real
BUT it would be good if it was

I just to be all about /pol/ until after the election.
Then I started really read what the people in starts and stripes posted.
And, it's too often:

>Being extremely scientific illiterate
>Quoting conspiracy websites as sources
>High paranoia
>Refusal of defending his statement

Really can't stand a lot of it now.
And American posters are especially bad.

How on earth does one false prediction nullify an entire theory based on evidence? Jesus.

Either way the Jew wins.
>The Jew controls mentioned organizations, the Jew wins.
>The Jew ultimately has influence over mindless Trump supporters, the Jew wins.

The trick is not falling into the false left-right dichotomy, nor the civilization meme. Stop participating in a failed system, user.

Tbh I don't even give a fuck about climate change, I just want better technology developed that doesn't rely on the Gilded Age cuckoldry that is internal combustion efficiency (and no longer having to drag our dicks around in the Middle East is a bonus)

>I don't understand the science behind man-made climate change so I don't believe in it, the post

>when people pretend to be /pol/ to have an excuse to bitch about /pol/