So are we gonna solve global warming or are we likely to be extinct in 100-150 years?

>No one gives a fuck.

why should anyone? i have no stake in the future of humanity, so why should i give a damn?

>First of all Global Warming isn't a significant issue

I can imagine that you only devolve further into partisan bullshit from here.

Global warming is about as significant as today's horoscopes

Five years from now the "scientists" will probably be back to the old global cooling theory since this one won't pan out

>The amount of carbon currently in the atmosphere is manageable by the plant life that physically stores it and would be so for the foreseeable future.
False. The total amount of annual carbon emissions far exceeds the amount of carbon absorbed, due to man's contribution. Which is why the amount of carbon in the atmosphere is rising rapidly.

>No matter what 1st world countries do right now to lower their emissions their efforts will be statistically insignificant compared to the pollution caused by India and China.
Also false. The United States is the biggest source of CO2 emissions in the world. First world countries have the most capability to reduce emissions since they have the highest emissions per capita. India has less than 1/5 the emissions of the US and 1/8 the emmissions per capita.

>Unless they were able to create cheap, efficient, clean, reliable renewable energy and such technology is decades or more away.
Nuclear energy and renewables could replace fossil fuels today, and would save money by mitigating climate change.

>Global Warming is a fear tactic of the Democratic party to gain votes and raise taxes
I don't see how scientific facts can be a fear tactic. A fear tactic would have to be something made up, like the lies in your post.

>their proposed solutions to Global Warming would drastically lower the standard of living for the average American and weaken the competition of the market against countries that do not adopt the same policies.
See, this is a fear tactic.

>Overpopulated developing nations are the real issue, that's where all the pollution is coming from,
But that's wrong.

>The United States is the biggest source of CO2 emissions in the world.
Wrong.

It's nice to know that in 5 years you might still care. You'll still be wrong, but at least you will still care.

>It's nice to know that in 5 years you might still care. You'll still be wrong, but at least you will still care.
Care about what?

RIGHT

an average muttican consumes five times more resources than an average Indian or Chinese. The per capita emissions are higher for US as well

Global warming is a giant hoax.

>global warming
>oh fugg, the earth isn't warming, so let's rename it
>climate change

...

Chicken butt.

>cumulative
lol

...

That's a cumulative graph that includes the 1970s which does not accurately represent the China of today.
This is why no one trusts climate scientists, they cherry pick graphs and fudge the number to support their agenda.

Global warming will not cause humanity's extinction.

Do you really believe that a specie that can live pretty much anywhere on this planet, with the ability to manipulate its surroundings even with an extremely primitive technology and with knowledge far greater than the times that technology was used can be extinct with this? Yes we may lose our current civilization, but we would be far from extinction.

I have to say though, I don't mean that global warming is not a threat. It is, but even if it happens as it is predicted by the most pessimistic minds, we will prevail.

That doesn't respond to what I said.

"First world countries have the most capability to reduce emissions since they have the highest emissions per capita. India has less than 1/5 the emissions of the US and 1/8 the emmissions per capita."

>That doesn't respond to what I said.
How does a graph showing that China is the biggest source of CO2 emissions in the world not respond to the lie that the United States is the biggest source of CO2 emissions in the world?

Global warming is current climate change, you nut.

the problem with the whole climate change scheme to raise taxes is that the numbers the "scientists" fudged imply it's too late to do anything about it anyway (if it were real)

>Nuclear energy and renewables could replace fossil fuels today and would save money by mitigating climate change.
They are not cheap, reliable and readily available, you just can't build a nuclear power plant in every city in every country, they're expensive and if corners are cut shit is bound to go wrong. And you'd be a fool to believe that right now the whole world can run on wind and solar.

China is the biggest source of CO2 in 2017, not the biggest source. Global warming did not begin in 2017. Avid again you fail to respond to what I said, which is that arguing China and India are the most responsible is flawed since first world countries have the highest emissions per capita.

ITT watch as literal brainlets turn climate science into partisan bickering and conspiratorial nonsense.

>Avid again you fail to respond to what I said, which is that arguing China and India are the most responsible is flawed since first world countries have the highest emissions per capita.
But that's not an argument, why would per capita matter?

It's too late to completely halt future warming, but it's never too late to mitigate future warming. Why do you need to constantly lie and misrepresent if you actually believe your position?

And so it has come to pass.

What I think of all of you.

The influence of emissions seems overblown - anybody remember the evidence they trot out every once in a while, where industrial age coincides with warming? if that was proportional we'd be like Venus right now, China alone shits out more co2 in a year than all of the ye olde mechanical turke' cotton mills in a century. There's either significant lag, in which case we are dead already, just don't knwo it yet, or the level of correlation is incredibly inaccurate.

Also, can all the alarmists explain why they never seem to advocate more funding to initiatives such as ITER (which runs at a pitiful budget, considering the number of backers and the potential prospects), instead focusing on increasing regulation and muh solar powah'? Fucking hell, you know full well that 75% fo the world can't adapt to that w/o halting its economic activity altogether, essentially committing genocide. If you're certain this is our pending doom why are all your solutions selected for looking "in tune with nature" and otherwise appealing to hippie sensibilities? If this is THE problem maybe we should escape it out pacing it technologically - which would actually have a chance to attain unilateral support because of the potential gains - instead of demanding humanity which mostly still lives hand-to-mouth to cut industrial activity by 50% "or else". That is never gonna happen. India might rise to 2.4 bln, Africa to 4.4 bln eventually.

Because we are attempting to reduce emissions, not reduce populations.

we should all die, period.
we want food and wont grow our own, been dumb for long time and asking to die lol.

>Because we are attempting to reduce emissions, not reduce populations.
What does that have to do with my post?

Source mayne?

We as a species have been growing our food for a long ass time m8, what you on about?

Well, other people care about the continuation of the species and about the well being of their off-spring. You don't have to care if you don't want to, just accept that other people have valid reason to care.

>mfw undergrads defending their belief in climate change

Reducing populations is the best method for reducing emissions though, why remove cars from the road when you can just remove people entirely?
Although there is no good way to lower populations, China tried the 1 child thing and it failed really badly, social engineering is tough work. Easier just to invent a superbug,

>Global Warming is a fear tactic of the Democratic party
Then why do other countries, where it isn't a partisan issue, join in with the fear tactic?

First everything will go to shit.

Then war. Then political unrest. Then we fix democracy and get rid or capitalism.

Then we start working towards cooling the planet, again.

Just my prediction.

>get rid or capitalism.
lol no

You have a special kind of autism.
That graph shows the us isn't 1st in gross emissions or emissions per capita.

If total emission is what contributes to global warming, then per capita emission is a meaningless stat. The only thing that matters is whether it's there or not.

You are part of it though? Unless you know that you're not going to be alive in 20+ years

How do you propose to fix climate change while retaining capitalism?

The reason we will not do anything about climate change is because rich people don't want to lose money.

i am aware of this. it was a rhetorical question, but i suspect that many people don't care one way or the other.

'climate change' doesn't have the word Global in it, you numb nut
Climate change is local
Global warming is very real, 16 of the 17 warmest years on record have occurred since 2001

Do you have any actual argument?

It's sad that they have to believe in it.
A belief about anything isn't going to make it real.

not really. i have little stake in society as a whole.

>anybody remember the evidence they trot out every once in a while, where industrial age coincides with warming? if that was proportional we'd be like Venus right now, China alone shits out more co2 in a year than all of the ye olde mechanical turke' cotton mills in a century.
What is this evidence? Surely you know that warming from GHGs is logarithmic, which is why warming is measured per doubling of CO2. So exponentially increasing emissions produces a linear or less exponential warming trend. And surely you know that none of this is based on correlation, but causation based on fundamental chemistry and thermodynamics. Surely you aren't just talking out of your ass.

>Also, can all the alarmists explain why they never seem to advocate more funding to initiatives such as ITER
Can you explain how you know I don't support more funding fornuclear and fusion, when I do?

>Fucking hell, you know full well that 75% fo the world can't adapt to that w/o halting its economic activity altogether, essentially committing genocide.
>instead of demanding humanity which mostly still lives hand-to-mouth to cut industrial activity by 50% "or else".
And you call me an alarmist, what a hypocrite. Where do these nice round numbers come from?

Then we best start with reducing the population of countries with high per-capita emissions, since reducing those is most effective

Surely you can't be this stupid. Do I have to explain everything to you like you're a baby? Per capita emissions removes the effect of population size.

I just explained this in another thread
Let me shift attention away from global warming and other particulars and explain the general process of our problem, here global warming is an element of the "shifts in boundary conditions" I referenced
>Actually with the biodiversity loss and shifts in boundary conditions that we are experiencing there is more free energy than there has been in almost any point in time since the Cambrian explosion.
>Of course this is very bad news and spells doom for most of the complex life forms on earth and the higher level entities of which they organize, most likely including our particular human life form. We aren't in any direct threat, but the world we live in, those entities that exists at a higher level of organization in which we exist in, what we abstract as "ecosystems" are eroding, releasing the enslaved energy that bounds their parts together. To reiterate we are parts, we are plummeting into a world of loneliness and entropy, our chances of survival along with our comrades are slim. Which is rather unfortunate on the evolutionary scale, as humans and their unique ability to create and manipulate symbols was an avenue for life to understand itself.
>I hope I wasn't being too mysterious in this explanation, I hope you understand. I know that it isn't the answer to the question you asked, but I took advantage of semantics to try to explain a much more pressing problem, the literal existential crisis we face.

So you're saying that not only have they lied to you, for some reason, but also they lied so poorly as to make it not accomplish their goal? Are you fucking retarded? You're really trying to claim that years worth of peer reviewed study is false, but not just false, blatantly false and doesn't even accomplish the goal that it was set out achieve? How many scientist would have to be in on this lie? Why does it benefit them?

My fault, I should have said left-leaning parties. So why do all left-leaning parties join in on the rhetoric? Well like I said it's for votes "Vote for me, and I'll stop the world from ending" And then they can use it to increase taxes like implementing a carbon tax to fund their other socialist endeavors. Right-leaning parties are more interested in jobs and economy so they don't want to go full retard with taxes and funding that would lower the standard of living, but they would still claim to be against global warming only to stop the triggered screams of the left.

>So you're saying that not only have they lied to you, for some reason, but also they lied so poorly as to make it not accomplish their goal?
Yes.

>How many scientist would have to be in on this lie? Why does it benefit them?
Some people don't think things through very thoroughly, foresight is a rare trait these days, and I certainly wouldn't expect it from pseudoscientists

Every thread on both /pol and /b these days.

/sci is getting just as a bad. It's ridiculous, they have ruined any ability to have an honest dialogue.

>Drive car towards wall
>Can't brake in time to stop before wall
>HURR DURR WHY SHOULD I BRAKE AT ALL I'M GOING TO CRASH ANYWAYS

>That graph shows the us isn't 1st in gross emissions or emissions per capita.
And where did I say the US had highest emissions per capita? You just can't follow an argument can you?

>If total emission is what contributes to global warming, then per capita emission is a meaningless stat
Per capita emissions removes the effect of population size. I don't think anyone is or should attempt to use population controls as a response to global warming. Again try responding to what I'm saying.

Non-argument.

What user said is true though.
Why is it most science is non partisan but climate change is?

>Why is it most science is non partisan but climate change is?
because leftists are trying to use pseudoscience as an excuse to raise taxes

when/if people are convinced of climate change, will most of them actually care?

>Also false. The United States is the biggest source of CO2 emissions in the world

You literally said it.

I never said anything about population control. The emissions are a problem regardless of where it comes from.

Of course it will take a long time to feasibly transition away from fossil fuels, but it can be done today, the technology exists, unlike what the person I was replying to claimed. And yes it requires a large investment up front that will save money in the future.

>I certainly wouldn't expect it from pseudoscientists
Why do you assume that what they are? What is your evidence of that? What is your qualification on the subject? How are you not a just a pseudointelectual?

Quite a few sciences are turned partisan by the toxic left.
>Racial differences of IQ
>Gender differences
>The number of actual genders
>Climate change
It's very hard to hold skeptical positions in these fields without vile retaliation of the regressive left.

>Why do you assume that what they are?
Who said anything about assuming?

Then how is any regulation passed? An optimal carbon tax is simple, could be implemented today, and will maximize net savings from mitigating climate change.

Dad I'm scared

Yep, raise prices of goods and services so that people can no longer afford them. Then production goes down, cutting emissions.

Just kidding, everyone will just go to china.

Fossil fuel companies and their ability to profit. This is just how capitalism works. They will do everything they can to make as much money as possible, that includes making it as hard as possible for any competition to have a chance. Their not evil like people say they just do what makes the most money, lobbying does that, putting out misinformation does that, making people fear nuclear does that.

Note how none of this even attempts to disprove global warming.

I'm glad I don't live in a technocracy so that I could be saved from morons like you. A carbon tax won't solve anything it'll only weaken the economy while competing counties like China would just financially rape us.

there's a reason why most people don't believe in climate change while believing in any actual science...

even rednecks believe in gravity, but anyone with at least a GED should know better than to believe in climate change

You did, you called peer reviewed study the work of pseudo scientists. You are making the assumption that they are pseudo scientists

>Also false. The United States is the biggest source of CO2 emissions in the world
Yes that's me saying the United States is the biggest source of CO2 emissions in the world. Which it is. See Nowhere did I say it's the biggest per capita or the biggest in 2017 emissions. So not only did you lie about what I said, you also got the facts wrong.

>I never said anything about population control.
I never said you did. I said that per capita emissions is a relevant stat because it removes the effect of population size. Why is population size relevant to mitigating global warming?

>You did, you called peer reviewed study the work of pseudo scientists. You are making the assumption that they are pseudo scientists
I'm not making the assumption, you're just assuming I am. I'll say it once more so it's clear: I'm not assuming they're pseudoscientists.

You're fucking retarded. Just leave you oil company shill. You have not contributed to conversation and I don't believe you have the capacity to. Just leave.

>Just leave you oil company shill.
You're stuck at the bottom of pic related

Next?

>Why is it that evolution is politicized science? They should just keep it out of our public schools.
Science tends to become politicized when one group had an ideological interest in denying reality.

But you called them pseudo scientists. Where is your evidence of that? What hives you the ability to make that assessment?

Any you're where on that pyramid? How are you contributing to this conversation other than to just insult me and posting an unrelated info graphic?

>Yep, raise prices of goods and services so that people can no longer afford them.
What you don't seem to realize is that people cannot afford the effects of climate change. An optimal carbon tax is by definition the most affordable option.

>How are you contributing to this conversation other than to just insult me and posting an unrelated info graphic?
Where did I insult you? You're the one throwing out memes like 'oil company shill'

Do you believe in racial differences in IQ caused by genetics? Answer honestly.

I'm so glad people like you ignore the effects of climate change because MUH CHINA IZ TAKIN ER JABS

Unlike the USA, China does not deny climate change though

Must be nice living on mommy's credit card and not worrying about the jobs and economy.

Give me a clear deffinition of race and qe can go from there.

Global warming is a work of fantasy like the lord of the rings,so it can easily be solved using imagination.Like writing fan-fiction or something.

>What is this evidence?

So I guess you never encountered it? Whats the fuss about then? Oh no, wait, you go on to defend it later on, no point in forcing me to produce the graph then, no? We both know that Al Gore horseshit, c'mon.

>GHGs is logarithmic, which is why warming is measured per doubling of CO2. So exponentially increasing emissions produces a linear or less exponential warming trend.

It still won't line up into an cataclysm, just like the last 6 times the alarmists predicted in the past. We were supposed to flood the Himalayas by now, 'member?

>And surely you know that none of this is based on correlation, but causation based on fundamental chemistry and thermodynamics.

So I guess "the science is settled" then? lel

You know full well we don't understand the exact dynamics of our atmosphere yet, its not like pumping gases into an aquarium and extrapolating. Its correlation that you actually have hard evidence for, not exact impact of co2 on the system. you can't produce a formula that'd predict the median temperature 2 decades from now. Manmade warming can be riding a larger short term fluctuation we can't yet recognize and you wouldn't know. Hell, you can go back to global cooling theory in that span of time.

>Can you explain how you know I don't support more funding fornuclear and fusion, when I do?
>I do?

You individually don't matter. I want someone to respond for the movements the millions of "concerned" bourgeois exhibitionists that don't support it. The talking heads mounted atop of them don't. its theatric and unconcerned with outcomes, just "trying". Does mortal fear really inspire such a reaction?

>racial differences in IQ caused by genetics
This is not a scientific statement, you'll have to be more specific.