LOL

>not an argument

The problem with your statement is that it's true. But it's also true that global warming will fuck our planet over. Both are true.

And I know that sounds like a double think/oxymoron, but fact of the matter is that it's possible to have propaganda for stuff that is proven verifiable fact.

>people actually think Global Warming would have negative effects

Have you noticed they aren't called it 'global warming' anymore, they're calling it 'climate change'? Well that's because the Earth isn't heating up.

Remember when 'scientists' wouldn't shut up about the 'ozone layer'? Well that's because it was a hoax.

It is late August and I'm in the UK. It's been the coldest August I've ever experienced.

>inb4 'well climate change can change drastically and the destabilisation is due to our co2 emissions'

Shut ya gob. The Earth has been through WAY worse stuff, and its survived. The real reason is because Oil is gonna run out pretty sharpish and we need to find a renewable resource so we don't all die. The global warming thing is to make people less scared about the impending apocalypse.

GW is literally unfalsifiable.

earth warming is a leftist ploy to make first world countries more habitable for africans and mudslimes while also giving a reason for them to leave their homes because they're "climate refugees"

>I'm fine, so clearly everyone else is fine!
you are the faggot who says "works on my machine" in every troubleshooting forum

Yeah and the earth ain't round

Except all the negative effects of course

Not an argument /pol/

>they're calling it 'climate change'
>they

>unfalsifiable
babby's new werd

Renewable energy will take undue power out of the hands of the fossil fuel giants, namely OPEC and Gazprom. A lot of resources at the big car companies are going into battery tech research for the very purpose of weaning the transportation sector off of its dependence on oil.

It spells trouble for the Middle East, but it'll happen with the area in a very weakened state. Though to be honest, they really weren't ready for that kind of power in the first place. Go forward with renewable sources, and the international scene will be better able to control itself.

It's a big international political game playing out not just in the West, and the moderate left is pushing to level the economic playing field in the energy sector by taking power out of the hands of the oligopolies.

Even if man-made climate change is real (which it probably is but not necessarily guaranteed, you know, science), prediction of changing climates of the future DOES NOT equate to authoritatively enforcing mandates, forced reallocation of people's money, and that sort of thing.

Don't be a pawn for Crony Capitalism

The middle east wasn't mature enough for that much money. Send them back to the 3rd world so they learn to act human

>fuck our planet over
What a charming little piece of chauvinism. It'll screw humanity over, for sure, but our planet's biosphere has been through much worse shit, it'll do just fine afterwards.

>exxonmobil
iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa815f/meta

Yeah, there's always some circular logic going on with this shit.

>I say that carbon emissions into the atmosphere can cause destablization to the climate, do you agree?
>Sure, that seems plausible
>Okay, so we're agreed that it's time to give the Chinese $100 billion to build new coal power plants that emit 10% less carbon than the coal power plants they're using right now
>What? Fuck off.
>WHY DO YOU HATE SCIENCE SO MUCH YOU STUPID RETHUGLICAN IT'S PROVEN AND SETTLED

OPEC -> Sells Oil in US dollar only -> Foreign entities must have holdings of US dollar to buy Oil -> USA exports its inflation
To wean off Oil would mean the breaking down of USA hegemoney. (it'll also make the unbelievably rich Oil princes upset)

This presents a critical problem. How do you safely transition the world to a better and more environmentally friendly energy source?

I predict that (D-T) Fusion will have scientific proof of practicality in 2019, and on an economic scale where the power generation (steam plant, turbines, etc.) will significantly outweigh the cost of the Fusion reactor. I further predict that commercial Fuse-reactor designs will be drafted and installed for power generation worldwide by 2030, and will kick off a rapid, economically driven departure from fossil fuels.

The USA will be squeezed with a petrodollar collapse imminent.

"Science" needs to stop trying to fret 90 IQ plumber Joe's about turning off the lights, investing in solar panels, and indirectly paying carbon tax on his car. Instead, "Science" needs to get off its ass and start modeling with game theory a way out of the incoming shit show.

More like:
>Hey did you know we're probably causing global warming?
>NUH UH THE JEWS DID 9/11
>KILL ALL SHITSKINS
>THE EARTH IS FLAT
>HITLER WAS RIGHT
>TRUMP 2020

More like:
>Men can have periods
>Sex is a social construct
>Bringing in 1 million africans will have a positive impact on the economy
>We came, we saw, he died
>Hilldawg 2020

I'm asserting that there are people who irrationally reject the premise of carbon emissions outright because they don't want to have the conversation about carbon taxes, redistribution, refugees, etc.

Because that's never a conversation, it's a list of demands.

Aside from that, is probably on to something about "plumber Joe" too. Climate change was a virtue signalling pop culture phenomenon as fleeting as Kony 2012 and absolutely nobody in the general public actually gives a shit anymore

ITT: Memeologists test a /v/ meme on Veeky Forums

seems to be going well, parameters within acceptable limits

Nobody on /pol/ believes in flat earth.
It's known to be a psiop/disinformation campaign to try and discredit /pol/s other conspiracy theories.

You can believe in a scientific fact without believing in a specific government plan

Tell that to the people screeching "this is LITERALLY the end of the world" over the Paris Accords

They believe vaccines cause autism which is just as retarded

It's fucking crushing how you can't have a thread mentioning NASA or SpaceX there without seeing 200+ "the earth is flat" pics getting dumped in it

Those aren't scientists and global warming is currently the biggest threat to the earths life in a long time

>veterans

Literally, welfare. "GIB MONEY!"

Lmao, and as a daughter of a veteran, you know some veterans care more about the future for their families than money.

ICE AGE earth vs GLOBAL WARMING earth
Who wins?

Nigga what the fuck this entire year has been among one of the hottest. I live in the UK near the sea and shit's unbearable even though I spend most of my time naked

how many people do you actually convince with your sole piece of evidence being anecdotal, actually kys

while it is a huge threat why do people always forget that nuclear devastation is literally right around the corner every second of every day, decades of recorded information with MULTIPLE right up to the brink events and no one cares lmao. I swear to god the soviet union broke up and the west was like k its fine now forget about it forever

>but wat what about all the missing materia-
>and the aging syste-
>what about rogue stat-
>what about incompent-
>and malfuncti-
>at least you can agree there is a small chance of an honest mistak-
FORGET IT
>plus there is the economic cost
>and the ethics
>also MAD is an idiotic idea to begin with
FUCKING FORGET IT RREEEEEE, IN FACT WE ARENT GOING TO DISARM BECAUSE THEY ARE REALLY FUCKING USEFUL TRUST ME

>Have you noticed they aren't called it 'global warming' anymore, they're calling it 'climate change'?
Lie.

>Well that's because the Earth isn't heating up.
Lie.

>Remember when 'scientists' wouldn't shut up about the 'ozone layer'? Well that's because it was a hoax.
Lie.

>It is late August and I'm in the UK. It's been the coldest August I've ever experienced.
Lie. (see pic)

>The Earth has been through WAY worse stuff, and its survived.
No one is concerned about Earth's "survival," whatever you think that means. What an idiotic strawman. Climatologists are concerned because humanity and the ecology we rely on have never experienced warming this rapid. It's too rapid for our environment to adapt to and for our infrastructure to adapt to without incurring significant costs.

You are stupid and dishonest, and you should feel bad.

The fact that he thinks earth won't survive just shows he has no idea what the fuck he is on about.

Someone should break him the news that it isn't earth that isn't going to survive. It's us, humans who won't survive.

that would be good, unless humans reach life expectancy of 200 years or more, none will do shit about this.

Seems I've rustled a few jimmies here.

Not an argument

'They being scientists... who else would I mean?

Speak for yourself.

And where do you get your information? From other people over the internet with graphs. intelligent and enlightened one you are.

>Lie.

Proof?

>Lie.

Proof?

>Lie.

Proof?

>Lie. (see pic)

Global warming/cooling is natural. (See pic)

>No one is concerned about Earth's "survival," whatever you think that means.

Yes, who cares about Earth's well-being. Moron.

>What an idiotic strawman.

Not an argument.

>Climatologists are concerned because humanity and the ecology we rely on have never experienced warming this rapid. It's too rapid for our environment to adapt to and for our infrastructure to adapt to without incurring significant costs.

Proof?

>You are stupid and dishonest, and you should feel bad.

And you are blithely following the consensus of your government. Like I said, its all because oil will run out, not because they care about the environment. If you want the truth, always follow the money.

The fact that he thinks earth won't survive just shows he has no idea what the fuck he is on about.

>Someone should break him the news that it isn't earth that isn't going to survive. It's us, humans who won't survive.

I think the Earth and Humans will survive, you are clearly a moron.

The year has been one of the hottest in recent history, that's just a fact, and some of the months have been *the* hottest in recent history

>Proof?
>Have you noticed they aren't called it 'global warming' anymore, they're calling it 'climate change'?
Burden of proof is on you.

>Well that's because the Earth isn't heating up.
It is. See pic.

>Remember when 'scientists' wouldn't shut up about the 'ozone layer'? Well that's because it was a hoax.
Burden of proof is on you.

>Global warming/cooling is natural. (See pic)
That doesn't respond to what I said. This August in the UK is warmer than average, when you said it's the coldest you've ever experienced.

Your pic is fraudulent since it doesn't even show temperatures over the last 100 years yet it claims to show current global warming. You're really proving how dishonest and incompetent deniers are. It also fails to mention that the temperature in Greenland is not necessarily representative of global temperature, which is what we're talking about.

>Yes, who cares about Earth's well-being. Moron.
Can you explain what that even means? The earth is not alive you utter buffoon. Try to focus your little pea brain, the well-being of humanity is what we are concerned with.

>Not an argument.
False, and not an argument.

>Proof?
earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page3.php

>And you are blithely following the consensus of your government.
Not an argument.

>Like I said, its all because oil will run out, not because they care about the environment.
Proof?

You are a proven liar, and you have no counterargument.

I can photoshop a graph like that in a few minutes too kiddo

>Burden of proof is on you.

You're a silly billy. The burden of proof would rely on the first mover in this argument, e.g. the governments that espouse such accusations of global warming; of which there is no solid proof. it is conjecture due to rising co2 emissions that have always been happening and therefore is unreliable data. They lied about that and they lied about the ozone layer.

Your responses are ill-informed, dogmatic and arrogant. You don't even think oil will run out... you are an idiot.

>You are a proven liar, and you have no counterargument.

Why argue with a retard like you? People like you are always so sure of themselves, so arrogant, so 'I've done reading from science men so it must be true!' But what you fail to look at is the big picture. The Earth has been alive (and it is alive you pathetic mong) for 4.6 billion years. Do you honestly think that 250 years of industrial smoke will even so much as dent this big blue ball? You are too stupid to insult. I bet you're one of those loony green living advocates.

trips of truth

This desu.

Utterly BTFO. What a pathetic comeback.

>he thinks climate change is a problem
good for you now stop trying to convince everyone else to vote democrat

>spend the money currently spent on fighting global skyfall on moon infrastructure instead
>use moon infrastructure to build either solar collector array/shade
>regulate climate from the fucking source
Benefits are more numerous than putting eco-friendly recyclable billboards left and right. But that is actually good so we can't have that.

>The real reason is because Oil is gonna run out pretty sharpish and we need to find a renewable resource so we don't all die.

It's actually nothing that dire.

Very wealthy people like to play games with supply and demand because even a minor up- or downturn in a commodity's price can have enormous gains if you have the inside track. Hedge funds make it possible to make money off a commodity NOT being sold.

Right now, the idea of demand stagnating because of the Saudi/US/Russia oil price war and climate change is draining interest from boosting exploration...this is a mistake, objectively speaking, but someone's going to make a killing from it.

Not us...we'll be paying gasoline markups from 150 to 200 percent...

marketwatch.com/story/iea-warns-of-potential-shortage-of-global-oil-supplies-in-3-years-2017-03-06

>Have you noticed they aren't called it 'global warming' anymore, they're calling it 'climate change'?
END THIS MEME.

The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) was established in 1988 you ignorant faggot. So called because temperature changes are not the only changes we can expect to be having. Global warming means global warming and climate change means climate change. Neither term is new and neither has replaced the other.

>You're a silly billy. The burden of proof would rely on the first mover in this argument, e.g. the governments that espouse such accusations of global warming
That doesn't respond to what you're replying to. Do you need to go back to elementary school to learn how to read? I asked for proof that

a. "they" aren't calling it global warming anymore
b. ozone depletion was a "hoax"
c. the government is doing this because oil is running out

None of these claims would be settled by governments providing proof of global warming, which they have in copious amounts.

So you won't accept scientific research because "muh gubmint" yet you demand that they have the burden of proof. You have no argument.

>it is conjecture due to rising co2 emissions that have always been happening and therefore is unreliable data.
Ah well we've always been falling towards the earth so gravity must be "unreliable data." Never mind that we know exactly how much warming is coming from CO2 due to radiative spectroscopy. You haven't done the slightest bit of research on the topic you are trying to talk about and it shows.

>You don't even think oil will run out... you are an idiot.
Another baldfaced lie! Do you really think this is helping your case?

>The Earth has been alive (and it is alive you pathetic mong) for 4.6 billion years.
Peak stupidity.

>Do you honestly think that 250 years of industrial smoke will even so much as dent this big blue ball?
Yes clearly releasing carbon that took hundreds of millions of years to accumulate underground over only a few hundred years can have no effect! Clearly the greenhouse effect can be handwaved away even though it's fundamental chemistry! Clearly radiative spectroscopy must be wrong because some idiot on Veeky Forums can't understand how CO2 could warm the earth!

You are dumber than a rock, which you would believe is alive.

Problem is limiting sunlight is just as bad as trapping heat. Plants need sunlight. And how would a solar collector on the moon help? You need energy everywhere all the time, and you can't just transfer electricity halfway around the world or from the moon. The only way to cleanly produce it is nuclear.

Time to get out the stick

...

...

...

...

Wow, shitposting in Veeky Forums? Who would have guessed!

...

...

tl;dr to deny global warming is to deny thermodynamics.

You cannot make an object absorb at the same rate while radiating less and have it not heat up, and unless a substantial fraction of all the coal, oil and gas ever extracted was actually secretly re-buried then the atmosphere has been doped with more than enough carbon dioxide to make it happen.

Veterans of what. The Great Oil Wars?

>people knew about global warming in the 50s
>CO2 emissions have only skyrocketed since then

WTF IMPEACH DRUMPF

You can transfer it from the moon using microwaves

Pollution is the metaphorical penis of the metaphorical white Man, just another consequence of white supremacy and white democracy

Thank you user, you are a legend

>pollution
>/pol/lution
GREENHOUSE GASES CONFIRMED NEO-NAZI EXTREMISTS

Partly true. It's perpetuated by them but I don't think anyone on the left side is capable of pulling off such a scheme. People with the money are behind it.

Collector is in space between the Sun and Earth. It doesn't need to be huge because you aren't doing Venus terraforming, just offseting supposed 1c or so temperature increase in a century or two. The Moon infrastructure is needed, actually a requirement for anything meaningful in space of any kind, because rockets on earth have to be really big and there won't be any meme antigravity star trek engines in the near and distant and far distant future. Forget the memes about solar arrays beaming power on Earth. This planet has atmosphere so it doesn't work. The thing is for spacey stuff and also doubles as a shade, that's all.

Of course, the alternative to all this is memeing.

>the earth had gotten 1.5F hotter in the last century, we're all going to die!
Actually retarded, please view a graph that goes back more than a hundred or so years

a lol thread on Veeky Forums? Is this the end of the board?

LOL do you realize how inefficient that is? You could make many orders of magnitude more power by putting the solar arrays on the earth itself.

>Collector is in space between the Sun and Earth. It doesn't need to be huge because you aren't doing Venus terraforming, just offseting supposed 1c or so temperature increase in a century or two.
So how big would it need to be and what would be the other effects of the shadow it casts on the earth? You didn't really respond to what I said. Realize that you'd need to have this shadow roaming around the entire earth for it to work, otherwise you'd just be massively cooling one area while the others warm up.

So you would necessarily be reducing sunlight, which we need.

1.5F in only a century is unprecedented. So what exactly is your point?

>Actually retarded, please view a graph that goes back more than a hundred or so years
You mean like the graph in the link in my post you are responding to? The one you apparently didn't look at? When are you idiots going to start feeling some shame from being intellectually spanked over and over again?

Interestingly, that hides in a humorous package the answer to the climate debate. There are several ways to counteract greenhouse effects through geoengineering that mimic natural processes (such as injection of sulfur compounds into the stratosphere, just like large volcanoes do.) Most of these can be given small-scale trials with the ability to rapidly shut them down if there are adverse side effects.

They would not REQUIRE writing taunting messages in the sky but I suppose you COULD do that as well if it made you feel better.

I would tend to agree -- climate change happens all the time, and is real. Human impact on this is likely, given what we know about how climate and greenhouse gasses work.

But the scale of the problem has been blown completely out of proportion (if one scientist says the world my warm a few degrees in this century, and there will be some problems this will cause that we will have to solve, and another says that it might get so warm that millions will die in floods and famines and plagues, which one gets more time on the news? And the insane exaggerations of activists like Mr. Gore are well documented.)

Further, when the right went into denial mode, they abandoned the field of proposing solutions to the left, who are captive to green ideologues on this issue and will only accept solutions that do more to advance a political agenda than to combat any climate issue.

In an ideal world, the right would get in the fucking game, and the more insane wing of the left would calm the fuck down.

Sincere question -- presumably there would be positive effects as well, has anybody considered what they are, and how extensive they would be.

Would you like someone to explain it to you?

It's preferable to be right for the wrong reasons rather than wrong for the wrong reasons.

Not really senpai, the sunlight on the moon is constant and unaffected by earth shit and it wouldn't even be that

Cold places get warmer and maybe more tropical so they can farm crops they couldn't before, and there's no need to go holiday for the winter. But then, all the shit hot places lose demand for their crops and tourists, which likely leads to more immigration, so maybe that's not a good thing.

>Climate change was a virtue signalling pop culture phenomenon as fleeting as Kony 2012

Not THAT fleeting.

But I agree, a lot of the hype about it is leftists virtue signaling -- you can tell this when you see the climate bumper sticker on the back of their SUV.

As a case in point, presumably there are some people out there who sincerely concerned about climate change, no longer travel -- Al Gore, jetting around the world to attend climate conferences about how much doing what he does is killing the planes, is not one of them.

Wouldn't even be that inefficient if you choose the right range of wavelengths

>Nobody on /pol/ believes in flat earth.
>It's known to be a psiop/disinformation campaign

Source lacking.

Somebody on /pol/ probably believes it -- it gets posted there enough that kooks into that would eventually find it.

But mostly, /pol/ is a troll containment board, and flat Earth trolling gets guaranteed replies.

Underrated post.

I wish to associate myself with this remark.

Definitely, Russia would like to have the Northern Sea Route open for more than a couple months a year, for a minor example.

Some do, some troll about it, some argue with the morons and trolls. There is more than one poster over there.

Noe of which has anything to do with the climate issue.

Y'all heathens need to get to know the Ad Hominem Fallacy.

So, who do you trust to manage a giant microwave beam shooting at the Earth?

Also, I would envision some adverse environmental impact from that.

Yes, please explain how global warming is unfalsifiable. This is one of my favorite denier memes.

But your chances of being right go up if you get to know the right reasons. Arguing "I'm right even though I have all my facts wrong," or "You're wrong though you have your facts right" is not a strong place to make a stand.