Stop denying anthropogenic climate change

>globalists are priests
and they say atheism isn't a religion. They literally tout this stuff as dogma

youtube.com/watch?v=t9L2Rhn8EyM

>video on communication skills
>people in the video talk in the most patronizing tone possible
What did they mean by this?

>how to pull wool over people's eyes and practice taqiyaa

I wouldn't deny that the climate is changing. What I would deny is the social commentary that has latched onto it like a parasitic disease that thinks the west is responsible for all the world's terrors and that we should continue to disadvantage ourselves in a plethora of ways because of that fantasy.

China and India currently have a larger carbon footprint than the entire NATO area. And the print is stable and lowering in said NATO area while steeply climbing in the developing world.

The current rates at which people are being lifted out of poverty worldwide and the population growth in Africa are both astronomical figures. It is likely that by 2200 that continent is going to have a carbon footprint that dwarfs that of the Chinese.

No amount of climate concerns are going to ultimately stand in the way of human prosperity. Trying to do so is going to be futile in practice and harmful to international relations in ways our descendants are not going to be thankful for. Trying for enforce policies to prevent climate change will place such a tremendous cost on human prosperity that you might as well be arguing in favor of stopping Africa from ever developing as a continent. It is a genocidal argument.

The wiser path would be to prepare and adapt for the changing climate, instead. You know, the way in which life has always prospered. Even before mankind.

>Evolution is a religion
>Round earth is a religion
>Any facts I don't like are a religion

did I say that you shit-eating moron?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Obviously we should only take actions which are cost effective. The problem is that you people deny global warming will be costly and greatly exaggerate the costs of mitigation. You think that mitigating climate change will be genocidal, and yet we're the alarmists?

>The wiser path would be to prepare and adapt for the changing climate, instead. You know, the way in which life has always prospered. Even before mankind.
Yes and let's not take vaccines, let's just adapt to polio.

Retard, do you understand what an analogy is?

vaccines are polio you fucking idiot. No law can change the "climate" because no law can keep the tide from coming in to shore.

>vaccines are polio you fucking idiot.
Wow what a non sequitur! Your stupidity is stunning.

>No law can change the "climate" because no law can keep the tide from coming in to shore.
What the fuck? This isn't a poetry reading, idiot. Of course laws can change the climate, if you reduce GHG emissions you will reduce global warming.

>some off topic shitpost in a thread about bill nye and climate change is my analogy against it all being radical soul-searching that morphed into a religion
you're fucking stupid. The catholic church has recognized atheism as a religion

Yes please post more schizophrenic rambling.

>my metaphor is retarded and pointing it out is stupidity!
okay smart guy. I guess I shouldn't point out that you have a terrible grasp on both science and english.
>this isnt' poetry
its not poetry its political science which was related to the climate in the middle ages.
>reduce global warming
its all a hoax, none of the laws that were passed in Europe have reduced "climate change". Or prevented the natural disasters and shortages that were touted as because of it.

>if you stay on topic you're schizophrenic
okay you shitposting moron. Keep talking about stuff that has nothing to do with thread topic.

Prove it's anthropogenic.

Protip: Some half-assed correlation between temperature and time isn't enough

:^)

>he doesn't know what a metaphor is... yet he says others have terrible grasp on English
>he thinks that pointing out the polio vaccine is polio somehow has anything to do with the analogy, which is that mitigation is often preferable to adaption, even if only adaption was available in the past
>the analogy had to be explained to him like he was a five year old
>he thinks poetic cliches are actual arguments
>he thinks science is a hoax

>im a nigger
all you had to say

So my analogies of the "religion" fallacy is off topic because they mention other topics, which is the entire point of an analogy? You are retarded, but keep talking about the catholic church and atheism, it's clearly on topic.

Oh and whatever you believe is a religion, so you're wrong.

It's proven via direct causation, no correlation needed.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

>my analogies in science are on-topic
>my analogies which put words in other people's mouths are legitimate arguments
>you are retarded for arguing with me
it is on topic you shit-smearing faglord. Climate change is litreally a part of the atheist creed.

>wikipedia
just a maggoty field of lemmings who don't get paid

>95 years before present
>Present actually refers to 1950, not 2000
>graph doesn't show temperature past 1855
>yet deniers will still post it, even though they know all this by now after having been told over and over

What was that?
Anthropomorphic Climate Change?

>my analogies in science are on-topic
Where did you get the words "in science" from? My analogies are on topic because they counter your argument that climate change is a religion.

>my analogies which put words in other people's mouths are legitimate arguments
You lying above about what I said is putting words in someone's mouth. Analogies are not. I never claimed you said those things, you just assumed that I did because you don't understand how analogies work.

>Climate change is litreally a part of the atheist creed.
Most atheists, along with most of the populace, tend to adhere to scientific facts. I know that is an extremely hard concept for you, but atheism is irrelevant.

>attacking the source and not the greenhouse effect
You lose.

>nigger
Why the racism?

you don't understand the platonic form of analogies, English nomenclature, or theology.
>most people
don't speak for other people most people side with God in the USA over godless abominations that have been ignored.

>you don't understand the platonic form of analogies, English nomenclature, or theology.
You're projecting.

>don't speak for other people most people side with God in the USA over godless abominations that have been ignored.
Whatever you say schizo. I can tell the meds are wearing off because the punctuation is disappearing.

>you lose
sorry bub. But if you kill your enemies they win. So I win.
>saying nigger is racist
you should learn what discrimination is which is why the term was created.

>But if you kill your enemies they win. So I win.
I'm still posting, so you obviously didn't. And again you didn't respond to the argument. You lose.

lol

Does anyone here on either side even have enough experience with dynamical systems modeling to understand the climate models? I feel like you guys are just regurgitating talking points without really having a true appreciation for the actual science and mathematics behind this debate? I ask because I'm learning about systems modeling for my job and I was wondering if anyone here does work on models like these. I really want to get to the point where I know enough about this to interpret a model myself so I can stop just regurgitating other people's points.

Does anyone here have the background to help me out, or are you guys just wasting time talking about stuff you don't REALLY understand?

they are lowly plebs. They should be working the fields rather than the wikipedias. Their ideas are not worth the time it takes to argue\.

Shouldn't you be asking a climatologist instead of a board on Veeky Forums? Is that really your intent?

We all hold several PHDs in the subject, fag, you're the brainlet here.

>Are you qualified
yes
>models
they're all bullshit

>Sorry if this kills your narrative.
It maybe would if climate change were the only problem related to overpopulation and if the world could rely on Africa never developing. Of course that's retarded and most likely against your own narrative.

So you admit you lose. Thanks.

Well, this certainly got out of hand.
As for whoever responded to me by drawing a comparison with climate and polio:

I think a better analogy would've been bird-flu. As vaccinations are an adaptation to the existence of a disease, not a mitigation of a hypothetical catastrophe. You effectively offered me a reinforcement of my own argument with that one. Whereas with bird-flu pandemics we see a much better equivalence.

However you also seemed to think I was a denier when I explicitly stated in the first sentence that I was not. A little disappointing.

Please look at the numbers. You're going to need some kind of magic if Africa is going to develop without creating a tremendous carbon footprint. It is inevitable, they're not going to just wait for their prosperity if they can help it. Their growth isn't just going to stall because of climate qualms.

Will technologies and solutions emerge that may allow Africa to develop without developing the predicted carbon-footprint? Maybe? Who knows? Are you going to put faith in that? I'd rather not. Faith is for the religious.

I've had occasional encounters with other serious professionals beyond just narcissistic know-it-all undergrads here, so I figure it couldn't hurt.

>So you admit you lose. Thanks.
it seems the plebs are hard of hearing. maybe you should wipe the grime off your ipad and read my posts.

Something we like to say in biology is that "all models are wrong some models are useful". I think that's important to bear in mind when discussing all models. It's disheartening that many models take the same data-sets and give widely varying predictions, but we are making progress in applying systems models to making real, testable predictions, at least in cell biology.

The thing about modeling is that it is not just a science but also an art, and there can be good art and bad art and there can be straight-up dishonest art. I guess what I want to know is, what is it about the recent climate models that you find makes them so bad? Can you link me to an example of a really bad climate model paper and point out the parts of the paper that are especially egregious? My professor will do this sometimes with genetics papers he doesn't think were rigorous and it's a really good teaching technique. Can you sort of point me in the right direction in this way?

punishment of humans fall under theology and law, not the cooked-up field of climate science.

>I think a better analogy would've been bird-flu. As vaccinations are an adaptation to the existence of a disease, not a mitigation of a hypothetical catastrophe.
By that logic mitigation is an adaption to climate change, which exists right now. You're just arguing semantics without responding to the point. Mitigation will not simply save money by averting fantastic catastrophes that in your mind are the only proposed consequence of climate change. In reality, climate change is much more insidious, and billions of dollars in damage will go by barely noticed, because the change is so gradual and over such large scales.

The question then is how much mitigation is cost effective, but you must at least first admit that mitigation can be cost effective. For some reason, it seems you denied that possibility entirely.

>Please look at the numbers. You're going to need some kind of magic if Africa is going to develop without creating a tremendous carbon footprint.
Please look at the numbers yourself! For example look at the research on optimal carbon taxes.

>Will technologies and solutions emerge that may allow Africa to develop without developing the predicted carbon-footprint? Certainly not if you keep denying that it's a problem in the first place. But yes, I agree that we should fund more research on cleaner energy.

But China is taking YUGE steps to lower it's carbon footprint. They're spending insane amounts of money on rail, building massive hydro-electric plants, nearly doubling their nuclear capacity by 2020, and have imposed some of the most aggressive mandates for EV sales.

Meanwhile the US is pulling out of a "I promise to do better" agreement.

Yeah I just read a bunch of posts where you failed to respond to the fact that the greenhouse effect exists, GHG forcing is increasing, and humans are currently the main net source of GHGs.

I am also a Christian, but God's Earth is still subject to his laws, and we have done a good job with modeling some other things that happen in his world, like infection and gene regulatory networks. From an epistemological perspective, there's nothing saying we shouldn't be able to model climate, at least not for theological reasons. What church to you belong to?

>greenhouse
unproven, unscientific, atheist, and promoted by face-less maggots ans snakes like bill nye and the kill-whitey democrats.

I can't tell if this is a parody or a real insane person. Either way, it's hilarious, thanks.

>tfw devout Christian
>tfw I believe God's mandate to mankind as having dominion over the whole earth makes conservation a religious issue

>it's hilarious
im laughing too. Can't wait for all the socialists to start their green-revolution and get shit on

Judiasm.
>disease, gene
designations

models are based off matrices mixed with variables which doesn't work because then it has to morph into reality which is not the closed system that matrices are used to describe.

>It's a socialist atheist democrat globalist illuminati conspiracy bill nye religion!
Yup, totally sane reaction. You really scientifically disproved global warming.

>he doesn't know about the gay frogs
keep pointing fingers and putting words in my mouth you pathetic excuse for a scientist

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clanging

>confirmed for schizo

OK, so it's a parody, not bad but you went a little too far there.

>psychiatry
not even a skill
>wikipedia
faceless maggots who swipe at people who disagree

>tfw upper midwest border resident
>tfw less winter means more crops, more oil drilling
>tfw all I have to do is not give a shit about the effect on elitist faggots with beachfront property or overpopulated third world hordes clustered close to their native coastlines

Deny? I fully embrace climate change.

I feel like climate change advocates would be more successful if they focused more on air pollution and bundled GHD in with it. Global warming is such an abstract thing for most people, but air pollution is something people deal with everyday of their lives. For example, California's Central Valley has some of the worst air in the country, which is more due to it's geography than with the people that live there, but is also relatively conservative with a lot of climate change denial. I get greentards want to win with their factual arguments, but while those are important for policy creation in the Legislature, that's not how you move people to action in their everyday lives. Global warming is completely abstract to those people. Air pollution, on the other hand, is very real. It's something they deal with everyday. Kids get asthma from it. Some days you have to be careful about going outside. If activists focused their movement to the public on that, I think they'd be more successful.

TL;DR: Use a real fear of air pollution to get the public to care about environmental policies.

But if all those people die, who are you going to sell oil and crops to?

>models are based off matrices mixed with variables which doesn't work because then it has to morph into reality which is not the closed system that matrices are used to describe.
Models don't have to be as complex as reality. They're models. If you want to make a map of north carolina so you can drive somewhere, you don't need really to include the temperature data or the data on bird populations, even though that means you're not fully reflecting reality. The model is always 'wrong' in some way because it's an oversimplification, but the important part is whether it predicts and/or explains the aspect of reality you're interested in (the roads, in the analogy.)

I thought you said you were qualified to discuss models, but now you're dismissing the entire concept. Why?

Tesla drivers and street shitters are not critical target markets.

Because he has no idea what he's talking about.

(((Muh Vagina Dance)))
((( youtu.be/AVDBD_HXtMs )))

(((Castrate Your Male Kids)))
(((Gorillions of Genders)))
(((White Genocide)))
(((Fucking White Males)))

>>tfw all I have to do is not give a shit about the effect on elitist faggots with beachfront property or overpopulated third world hordes clustered close to their native coastlines
Yeah man lol it's not like this could lead to global war and it's not like that will affect you indirectly lol.

>demagouges start another world war
just more money and technology. Only good can come of war

>this could lead to global war

War is an excellent market for crops and oil.

>Being scared of overpopulated third world countries declaring war
What are they actually going to do? They're third world for a reason.

Enjoy your refugees.

As you probably already know, the term 'third world' originates from the cold war. The first world was the US and its allies, the second world was the commies and their allies, and the third world was everyone else. These countries often served as battlegrounds in the complex geopolitical game that the two main powers played. In the modern world, when war breaks out, the top dogs will always use it as an opportunity to do something, so these wars definitely affect our lives.

>20 times if you're an American.
There's literally thousands in the undeveloped world per American. Even American carbon footprint can't hope to touch the total carbon footprint of the billions in the undeveloped world. Further, it is easier to reduce the carbon footprint of the undeveloped world than it is to invent further marginal steps for the developed world to take.

Put out the tire fire before switching the fire engine from diesel to electric.

no refugees here faggot.

There's a dude on Youtube who represents the anthropogenic climate change model very well.
youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP
Complete, of course, with sources from the scientific literature.

Thanks for actually delivering user!

Not yet ;^)

Actually, there are numerous countries that are not America that are working to reduce carbon emissions. Solar has become cheaper than coal. China is planning to replace all carbon-emission vehicles by 2030, as is Paris (not sure about France as a whole) and the Netherlands.

It's pretty much America that shoves its head up its... sand. It's a sad world when we look to China for our salvation.

Actually, there are numerous countries that are not America that are working to reduce carbon emissions.

It's pretty much America that shoves its head up its... sand. It's a sad world when we look to China for our salvation.

It's Time: The Netherlands Is Planning to End All Its Coal Power by 2030 www.sciencealert.com/the-netherlands-is-planning-to-end-all-its-coal-power-by-2030

Paris plans ban on combustion engine cars by 2030
europe.autonews.com/article/20171012/ANE/171019832/paris-plans-ban-on-combustion-engine-cars-by-2030

A transformation is happening in global energy markets that’s worth noting as 2016 comes to an end: Solar power, for the first time, is becoming the cheapest form of new electricity.
bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-15/world-energy-hits-a-turning-point-solar-that-s-cheaper-than-wind

Nominee for EPA’s air office tells senator he is ‘not familiar’ with climate data
youtube.com/watch?v=EqjfEpJwrv8

>It's a sad world when we look to China for our salvation.
To specify...
"China, the world’s leading fossil fuel consumer, has pledged to cap the growth in its carbon emissions by 2030 and increase the share of nonfossil fuels in its primary energy consumption to around 20 percent by that time."
scientificamerican.com/article/the-age-of-wind-and-solar-is-closer-than-you-think/

>term 'third world' originates from the cold war.
Started by our british empire to refer to anyone that wasn't in the british empire, a colony former or otherwise, or an empire we were allied with or one that had a certain level of power or size we were at war with.

Third world would refer to the shitholes inhabited by poo in loos, obongo from africa, and the subhuman micks.

It was not an amerifat invention, just another thing the mongrels stole and claimed they owned.

No problem user

>im going to suck your dick
sure showed me with your wink and kike-faced nose

Also,
>bar the gates to the hunnics

If agw politics actually produced policy that resulted in mitigation, I'd probably be OK with it. Carbon taxes are literally a pyramid scheme and the Paris Agreement ensures nothing, so I'm still waiting.

I'm Amerifat, and I always thought 1st was old world Europe/Asia, 2nd was the British colonies (and breakaways like we), and third was the undeveloped, mostly Dark Continent.

That's basically it. The irish were also third world as they were below african civilisation when it came to anything outside british rule

> There's literally thousands in the undeveloped world per American.
No there aren't. There are 320 million Americans and 7.6 billion people total. Even if you're an American and classify literally everyone else as underdeveloped, that's no where near "thousands per American." Americans are about 4% of the world's population, so for every American in the world there are about 24 people who are something else. ANYTHING else.

>im literally lobotomized and demand I argue about some fake graph
you are fake news. and the allegory of the cave

Stop denying the real solution and stop pushing meme green energy

Also, to further damage your narrative, the global fertility rate is 2.3 so EVERYONE has on average 1-2 kids, 3 tops

everyone 'is' average, but they're not 'the' average my brainlet friend.