Is it even possible anymore to have an intelligent discussion about this Veeky Forums?

They've made up their mind, everyone who still denies it is doing so for ideological reasons and there's absolutely nothing that will convince them otherwise.

Brainlet detected

>X has an impact on Y
>therefore every single instance of negative impact on Y is a result of X

K

This

Brainlet here.

Is it theoretically possible to plant asstons of trees to help with this. Obviously it wont happen in the practical sense.

Also, is this like an end of humanity scenario or more like an end of a way of life scenario?

Bears always die of starvation. That is where old bears go after they lose their teeth.

Man cannot do anything to the Earth. The Earth can select a super volcano to erupt and kill 99% of life on Earth as well as lower temperatures by 10-20C tomorrow if it wanted to. The Universe could also step in and chuck a meteor at us resulting in the same outcome.

You're a brainlet if you think human impact on the Earth is relevant at all. One volcanic eruption can put out more shit in to the atmosphere than humans have put out since our existence.

Look at this one dieing polar bear guys. Doesn’t it make you feel sad? That sadness is more proof than you’ll ever need that climate change is anthropogenic.

its end of all animal life on earth save for sea sponges and protozoa type situation user

why do all those things mean that man also can't affect it in such a way?

Because the total impact of mankind since we have began has less impact than singular natural events that happen on Earth at frequent intervals. Our impact is negligible at best.

no it's not, it's just not as catastrophic as some catastrophic shit so what, still significant

>One volcanic eruption can put out more shit in to the atmosphere than humans have put out since our existence.
Remember the massive chain of volcanic eruptions that launched a crazy amount of CO2 into the atmosphere over the last century? Man, those volcanoes sure are crazy, erupting all the time in ways not seen in the past million years.

>The Earth can select
What the fuck does that even mean? The Earth is not a conscious being.

Planting trees is not really an effective method of Carbon Capture and Storage. Let's also keep in mind that there's a lot more going on in climate change than just CO2 concentrations. There is enough storage potential on Earth to capture all human-released CO2 in the atmosphere and shove it underground, but it's expensive because you're fighting entropy and no one has the political will to do it. The tech is (as far as I know) not developed a whole lot too.

>Also, is this like an end of humanity scenario or more like an end of a way of life scenario?
Unless we trigger the clathrate gun (self-reinforcing reaction that dumps a shitload of Methane into the atmosphere, which is 34x more effective of a greenhouse gas than CO2) and get like 10C of warming humanity isn't going anywhere. The likelihood of this happening is going down and down as it's researched more.
We've really reached the point of no return as far as climate change is concerned, unless the entire world puts out a US in WW2 level of effort over the next 50 years, we're not going to be able to restore the climate to how it was pre-industrial times. This is an adaptation event now. Water sources are going to be stressed more, and you'll see more destabilization. Current research suggests a link between climate change and terrorism, so we'll see if they're right. Since the countries who have polluted the least are often the worst affected by climate change, you might see a massive international lawsuit, which will be a huge shitshow. Probably not for another 50 years or so.

Of course, even without any climate change, the current way of life we live had to change. We take more from the Earth in a year than it can produce in a year, so we're eating into the resource buffers. But that can't continue forever. You probably won't be able to buy a smartphone in 50 years as the rare metals that they need to function will be depleted. Same with Electric cars, as they need cobalt and lithium.

What vid? Just google for articles about climate change. Hint: Look for actual scientific journals and not stuff published by "Institute for Creation Research" or whatever.

All of this is false. This poster is a brainwashed shill.

So the Clathrate gun is a very likely event? How do you figure that, user?

>a nuke can kill me, therefore a knife can't kill me

>One volcanic eruption can put out more shit in to the atmosphere than humans have put out since our existence.
False, even a supervolcanic eruption puts out less CO2 than humans emit in a single year:

www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/global_warming_misinformation_volcanoes.html

Where did you get that graph from?

I rendered it myself from this dataset
epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-08/ghg-concentrations_fig-1.csv which is itself a composite of 10 different data sets.

Neat. What program did you use to graph it?

skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming-intermediate.htm

>when your argument is retarded in principle and the example you use is demonstrably false

I don't think the issue ever was whether humans impact climate change. It should be fucking obvious that we do. We are an integral and ubiquitous part of the eco-system. I don't think any intelligent person flat out denies it. Sounds like a scapegoat for "I love science" activist types and sheltered academics. The same people bitching about nuclear 50 years ago.

It's about to what extent.. and more importantly in my opinion to what extent it matters
i.e. is it worth potentially catastrophic rash economic decisions. Is it unreasonable to assume that we will naturally adapt. Both to the changing climate itself and technology organically replacing fossil fuels with cheaper alternatives, etc.

It's kind of a catch-22 to fuck with fossil fuels at this point since it's the single biggest driver of the world economy.
Alternative energies are more appealing for reasons that have nothing to do with climate change. Logistics, profit margins, and simplicity of systems that use them. They will naturally take over even if climate change wasn't an issue.

I'm all for pushing to increase their use and research into them, but not necessarily at the cost of kicking the legs out from under an economy that relies on expansion or at the very least subsistence. Or crippling the middle class with retarded carbon taxes. None of these headline type reports go any deeper than drawing shallow conclusions and displaying troubling information. There's never deep and open dialogue about it because muh self righteousness and platitudes.

>economy that relies on expansion

That's wrong - certain sectors rely on growth more than others.

There are a few specific sectors that rely on expansion.

Development/construction
Extraction (mining/logging)
Financial
Political

All other sectors rely on expansion less than those ones.

You can pretty much guarantee whenever you encounter someone arguing against real environmental protection, you're dealing with someone who works in one of the above sectors.

oh please, we have SEVERAL documented cases of mass extinctions caused by a single species
and humanity is more than sufficiently dominant in the majority of the world's biomes to initiate one
the only thing that sets us apart from the others is that in theory we have the ability to avoid causing said mass extinctions due to our unprecedented ability to understand the scope of our own actions.

Adapting will be more expensive than cutting emissions

Capitalism relies on expansion. Or rather our current monetary system relies on expansion more accurately. Every physical goods based industry.

And I'm not arguing against environmental protection I can't believe that's what you got out of that.
I can only assume you work with software.

If you ask /pol/ you'll get an honest answer. Unlike here where shitlibs push their alarmist agenda. The studies have been proven misleading like any other damn statistic. Hell Ted Cruz has cross examined the dude in charge of the global warming committee and he skirts the question like any poltician every single time.

Define negligible

/pol/ is probably the least honest and least intelligent place on the internet. It's where you go to observe idiots and pathological liars in an environment resembling a zoo. I really hope your post was bait.

>/pol/ is probably the least honest and least intelligent place on the internet
Sadly this is a flat out lie, at least in /pol/ the majority of it's users is "ironic"
there are places out there that are like /pol/ yet 100% serious

You wouldn't know that since you shitpost on Veeky Forums instead. Want to know how I know you're not from Veeky Forums? I challenge you to make a thread asking if global warming is real: and you'll get sources that contradicts global warming.

Confirmation bias detected.

>ironic
No they are not, don't fool yourself

Capitalism does not rely on expansion.

Some sectors of the economy rely on expansion more than others.

It's pretty basic stuff. I'm not surprised you don't get it.

>our current monetary system relies on expansion

Yes, the financial sector relies on expansion more heavily than most other sectors of the economy.

That has nothing to do with capitalism.

Capitalism does not "rely on expansion".

:thinking face:

Negative incentives don't work. You want to cripple the economy that will provide you with the capital to fix it. It's paradoxical. It increases inequality, it slows growth, only works in a different political environment where you can control consumer costs.

T. Never got a serious answer on /pol/
Telling you fags there are good answers

t. seeks out the whiniest, most biased, dumbest people of our species for answers and "sources."

Alright, conceded. Yet those industries still make up like 30% of our economy or more indirectly. But, not exactly the point of my post.

Who cares about climate change though?
Poor people that's who.

Dude when even neo cons like Ted don't believe in global warming you know you're believing a lib lie. Who do you have? Where are your sources? What politician believes in global warming, Hillary? Obama?

Still waiting on you to make a thread on /pol/ asking if global warming is real or not instead of you crying on Veeky Forums about muh man made climate change. Watching Veeky Forums libbies debate politics here is like watching an ant parade at an insect zoo.

>when even neo cons like Ted don't believe in global warming you know you're believing a lib lie

wat

Does anyone else find this sentence confusing?

Yes.
Probably but to what extent is contentious.
The planet goes through climate cycles, this has been shown over and over. We're about due for such a shift, so the degree to which we impacted or accelerated that change is whats up for debate.

Might be more like 50%...

It needs to be looked into, that's for sure. And I'll concede that the problem is paradoxical... everything certain types of people do to "fix" the problem only seems to make it worse.

>everything certain types of people do to "fix" the problem only seems to make it worse.

Elon *cough* *cough* Musk...

>Negative incentives don't work.
Negative incentive do work.

>You want to cripple the economy that will provide you with the capital to fix it.
Mitigating climate change will not cripple the economy, and it will save us much more money than we would lose.

>It increases inequality, it slows growth,
So do the effects of climate change, except worse.

>only works in a different political environment where you can control consumer costs.
There is no need to control consumer costs, just tax CO2 emissions.

>I challenge you to make a thread asking if global warming is real: and you'll get sources that contradicts global warming.
What you'll get is a bunch of memes that have all been long debunked, yet /pol/ clings to them since they hold their political agenda over scientific evidence. Seriously, you will not find a single argument that hasn't been debunked, I challenge you to go on /pol/ and find one.

>Who do you have? Where are your sources? What politician believes in global warming, Hillary? Obama?
This is fucking hilarious. The sources for AGW are actual scientists with scientific evidence. If you can't think beyond which politician believes what, maybe you should go back to /pol/.

By ignoring the root cause of the problem or only considering parts of it, you are essentially making it worse.

A consumption tax addresses "per" part of "per" "capita" pollution, but ignores the "capita" part of the equation.

I think you work in one of the growth-dependent sectors - probably financial or political.

I just used Python's matplotlib.pyplot module after I imported the csv and cleaned it a bit

[math]
\int_{0-}^{\infty} f(t).e^{-st}
[/math]

>Probably but to what extent is contentious.
It's not contentious among climatologists. Evolution is contended by creationists, doesn't mean evolution is contentious.

>The planet goes through climate cycles, this has been shown over and over.
It has been shown over and over that the current warming is not caused by a cycle, but by man.

>We're about due for such a shift, so the degree to which we impacted or accelerated that change is whats up for debate.
Which shift are we due for exactly? According to the Milankovich cycle we should be slowly cooling right now into a glacial phase... over several thousand years. Instead we are getting very rapid warming over a hundred or so years. Completely ass backwards from the natural cycle. Please don't post if you don't have any idea what you're talking about. Making shit up does not help your case.

look up charles david keeling

not everything comes in "vids", millenial

>Who do you have? Where are your sources? What politician believes in global warming, Hillary? Obama?
Why are you suggesting that people get their scientific interpretation and data from politicians? That's pants-on-head retarded. Is it what you do? Your big boy with an "R" next to his name tells you that "Anthropogenic Climate Change doesn't real because cows make CO2 when they fart" and you take that as scientific?

Get the the fuck off of this board if you're taking your scientific talking points from politicians.

>A consumption tax addresses "per" "capita" pollution, but ignores the "capita" part of the equation.
No, it doesn't ignore population. The optimal tax should be determined by the savings from mitigating climate change versus the cost to the economy. If population growth is increasing demand for emissions, then that means there are more savings to be had by making it more expensive.

pettifogger gobbly goop....

idiots like you will continue pulling carbon out of the ground indefinitely, while making life practically unbearable for the bottom 90% of the population.

If pulling carbon out of the ground can be done without causing more harm then good, I don't see how that's bad. Dogmatic people like you are just as harmful as deniers.

>No, it doesn't ignore population.

It certainly doesnt address population. It actually does pretty much ignores population.

You obviously work in either finance, or politics - heavily growth dependent sectors.

I get that you need to protect your livelihood.

>It certainly doesnt address population. It actually does pretty much ignores population.
I just explained how it does. The only way it doesn't is if population has no effect on consumption of emissions.

>You obviously work in either finance, or politics - heavily growth dependent sectors.
Wrong. Try not make ad hominem arguments, they make you look like a fool.

>>Is it even possible anymore to have an intelligent discussion about this Veeky Forums?

>"There's no arguing with idiots."
The real question, who the fuck put all these idiots in charge!!!

idiots

>The planet goes through climate cycles
True
>We're about due for such a shift
A little bit less true. Evidence suggests that without humans we'd be seeing slow (very slow for human life timescales) cooling.
>the degree to which we impacted or accelerated that change is whats up for debate.
This is the big error. Certainly the climate has always been changing, but rates fucking matter. The rate at which the climate is changing is much much faster than natural processes produce. Look at the chart. The transition time from warm to cool periods is on the order of tens of THOUSANDS of years. Even if we ignore the fact that a naive interpretation of this graph suggests that we should be cooling, not heating, the rate at which we're heating is completely inconsistent with the "This is just a slightly accelerated natural shift" hypothesis.

Its been shown over and over that pulling carbon out of the ground and putting it in the atmosphere causes more harm than good. It's sickening how you play with words and ideas and warp them to your own benefit.

charlatans like you who take people's money and energy and lives and claim to be doing it to help them, all the while convincing themselves that its good for everyone are the very definition of evil.

Dont you have a sick person to sell snake oil to somewhere?

>Its been shown over and over that pulling carbon out of the ground and putting it in the atmosphere causes more harm than good.
No, if that were true then the optimal carbon tax would be infinite. There is a certain finite cost of emissions and a certain finite cost of mitigating emissions. Any measure to mitigate climate change has to weigh these two costs, otherwise you are just doing more harm than good because "carbon bad." Of course carbon is bad, but it's not infinitely bad.

>It's sickening how you play with words and ideas and warp them to your own benefit.
You mean logic and reason?

>charlatans like you who take people's money and energy and lives and claim to be doing it to help them, all the while convincing themselves that its good for everyone are the very definition of evil.
I'm still waiting for an actual argument instead of this baseless character assassination.

Its good to be skeptical, but most human made climate change skeptics are ideological and make arguments soley based on economics and politics, not science and history.

Economics actually supports mitigating climate change.

you sound like a lawyer

You sound like you have no argument.

>I'm still waiting for an actual argument instead of this baseless character assassination.

Please explain how a regressive consumption tax, and ignoring growth dependent industries such as finance/construction is beneficial to anyone but bureaucrats and people who work in such industries.

Well, The Climate change is real and we know that Climate change is natural cycle, but the question is ..... Do we help it or not ? Will the temperature at its peak be higher than normal, because of us ? How much we speed up the Climate change ? We cant stop climate change, we can only prepare for it's change.

Please explain again how a consumption tax addresses the number of people.

Do they become too weak to breed because the have no food?

>Please explain how a regressive consumption tax, and ignoring growth dependent industries such as finance/construction is beneficial to anyone but bureaucrats and people who work in such industries.
Mitigating climate change benefits everyone and this would effect any industry currently effected by CO2 emissions. For example, the construction industry is currently dependent on concrete production, which is a very large source of CO2 emissions.

What exactly are you trying to argue?

True but a lot of skeptics seem to believe that economics is the ultimate reality, when the universe does not give a shit about tax laws. Even economists are divided on solutions.

I think its up to politicians (sadly) and engineers/scientists to fix our energy issues. Most skeptics also appear to believe in financial responsibility and consequences as individuals, but not when it comes to climate change as a civilization. I can't say for sure what they're thinking but that is the impression that i get. We humans chose this technological path and now we need to deal with it, hopefully with science and come neutral policy. But nothing positive can really occur with ideologues like Cruz and Sanders. That is my opinion at the moment. I think a solution is energy storage research and implementation. Merge the public and private sectors in this market.

>the construction industry is currently dependent on concrete production

You know damn well they just pass the costs on to the consumer.

Your tax is regressive.

QUIT PLAYING GAMES

People like you need to be put out of business and given a guaranteed basic income, that way you'll have less of an impact.

An optimal carbon tax is calculated in order to maximize the savings from mitigating climate change minus the costs from the tax. If population effects CO2 emissions then the tax would have to respond to population growth.

If you are concerned about the lowest income groups, then this would be remedied in the traditional way, which is to distribute revenue from the tax to the neediest.

>pulling carbon out of the ground and putting it in the atmosphere causes more harm than good.
Every single thing about modern life that you take for granted was produced by putting that carbon in the atmosphere.

Stop pretending you know how to stop climate change without massive collateral damage.

Using scientists as a credible source because you happen to agree with them is no different than using a politician's opinion. 97% of scientists believe humans cause climate change while only 24% of Republicans do. Must be something with the data? Google "percent of republicans who don't believe in global warming" and it's the first result for my source.

>You know damn well they just pass the costs on to the consumer.
Which decreases demand.

>Your tax is regressive.
A carbon tax does not have to be regressive.

>Mitigating climate change benefits everyone

How does mitigating climate change benefit me? No really, how does it benefit me, today? Mitigating climate change benefits no one today. its completely intangible.

thats why your economic models will fail.

please start banning climate change threads

Why?

>Your tax is regressive.
Not really, rich countries who are responsible for the carbon that is already in the atmosphere will have higher taxes than developing countries who contribute less to the problem.

That is by definition a progressive tax, which would also get /pol/ triggered because of the word progressive

>Using scientists as a credible source because you happen to agree with them is no different than using a politician's opinion.
I don't "happen to agree" with them though, I agree with them because they have a massive amount of convincing scientific evidence, and so far I have seen no credible counterargument.

>97% of scientists believe humans cause climate change while only 24% of Republicans do. Must be something with the data?
This is because most Republicans value their ideology over the scientific facts. Not that hard to figure out.

Are you so fucking blind that you can't see the difference between a scientific position and an ideological one? Why exactly are you on this board?

>is calculated in order to maximize the savings from mitigating climate change

this is ridiculous...

some rich fuck loses is beach from property?

the maximum sustainable amount the fishing industry pulls out of the ocean?

according to your model, climate change could be beneficial because it'll be easier to mine and drill for oil in the arctic...

what a fucking joke...

the fact is that you, and people like you, benefit directly TODAY, from taxing people.

You're just as bad as people who rationalize their use of lifted diesel f-350 trucks and luxury cars (including tesla) for the daily commute instead of using the train...

>How does mitigating climate change benefit me? No really, how does it benefit me, today?
It will benefit you in the future by mitigating harm to global agriculture, industry, and infrastructure caused by global warming.

I didn't say it would benefit everyone today. If you aren't thinking about costs and savings in the future then you don't have the ability to claim anyone's economic models will fail.

I believe the climate science of humans affecting the atmosphere, but you are oversimplifying the solution. Rich countries need to upgrade their infrastructure first.