Abrubt Climate Change (ACG)

According to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change(UN-IPCC) the Earth may not heat up by more than 2° C on average.

Stefan Rahmstorf(Ocean scientist) says that all human CO2 emission have to be reduced to 0% by 2060 to stay under 2° C.

This means we may not burn more than 1 drop of oil, gas, or other carbon fuels.

Without fuel cars, tractors, boats, and airplanes no longer work.
Without transportation food and drink can no longer be transported on a large scale and more than half of humanity will die from food shortages.

The International Energy Agency(IEA) says that human energy deman will rise by 100% by 2060.

According to the United Nations the global human population will be 10 billion by 2055.

According to the United Nation the Earth can only contain 4 to 6 billion people to give everyone a healthy meal.

The Earth now contains a human population of 7.5 billion.

If all people on Earth live a Western lifestyle with a car, a house, a tv, a smartphone, and so on. We need 3 Earths to mine all resources and extract all the oil, but we only have 1 Earth.

Today there are approx. 750 million cars on Earth. There are not enough minerals on Earth to replace all these fossil fuel cars by electric vehicles. The batteries for electric cars and smartphones use Cobalt, Lithium, and Graphite

There are known Cobalt deposits in Afghanistan, Congo, China, and North Korea. The mining of Cobalt is poisonous en pollutes the environment where it is mined. Causing local water to be undrinkable. Because of this plants, animals, and humans die of diseases.

People who work in Cobalt mines have an average lifespan of 30 years.

There are Lithum mines in Bolivia, Chile, and Argentina. Mining Lithium consumes a lot of water. This causes farms in around the mindes to have less access to water. Which reduces vegetable and fruit production. Groundwater can also become polluted destroying entire crops, which in turn reduces global availablity of some fruits.

Other urls found in this thread:

af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/929168/fueling-the-future-af-works-to-home-grow-biofuels-for-dod-industry/
iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/4/045022/pdf
youtube.com/watch?v=MNdigt30Ucg
youtube.com/watch?v=EeBeq0i03bg
trunity.net/sam2/view/article/51cbf44b7896bb431f6af515/
cs.mcgill.ca/~rwest/wikispeedia/wpcd/wp/a/Arable_land.htm
agry.purdue.edu/ext/corn/news/timeless/yieldtrends.html
theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/28/alarm-as-study-reveals-worlds-tropical-forests-are-huge-carbon-emission-source
nextbigfuture.com/2016/06/update-of-death-per-terawatt-hour-by.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Graphite is only mined in China. All other countries in the world have practically banned mining Graphite, because it is so polluting and harmful for health.

The Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) of the United States says Graphite mining causes lung diseases including lung cancer and heart attacks.

The acid used for puryfing Graphite poisons local water sources which causes people to become sick or die.

Kevin Anderson (Climate scientist and UN consultant) says we have a 5% chance to stay below 2° C warming.

James Hansen (NASA climate scientist) says that if on average the Earth warms by 2° C it is a catastrophe and the human race can potentially go extinct.

When the Earth warms enough most plants will no longer be able to grow, causing animals and humans to die of hunger/starvation.

Vaclav Smil (Enviromental scientist and European Union consultant) says that we can 100% renewable energies around 2090.

But if the trend as it is now continues the human race will become extinct around 2060.

The CO2 levels in the atmosphere in 1850 was 300 PPM (Pars Per Million).

In 2017 the CO2 levels were 410 PPM.

NASA says that at 450 PPM the climate will become so unstable that glaciers and the polar caps on Earth will melt so fast they can never grow back.

All rivers on Earth en nearly all fresh water comes from glaciers. When glaciers melt practically all rivers of Earth will dry up.

Without rivers plants, animals, and human can no longer live. When the rivers dry up no life on land is possible anymore.

According to NASA we will reach 450 PPM somewhere between 2020 and 2040.

At 500 PPM complex life on the planet will probably not survive. This will be reached around 2060 if we continue burning fossil fuels.

Scientists are already sure that by 2020 there most likely wont be any sea ice in the northern hemisphere.

>Without fuel cars, tractors, boats, and airplanes no longer work.
Lrn2electric fgt pls

Because (sea)ice is white it reflects sunlight back into space which cools the planet.

But when the sea ice replaced by the darker ocean more sunlight gets absorbed which causes the Earth to warm up even faster than expected.

Because all the molten ice and warmer temperatures, more water can evaporate. The more water vapor in the atmosphere the more we will experience hurricanes, storms, and typhoons, that are also going to be stronger than normal.

The glaciers in the Europe, Alaska, Canada, Greenland, India, China, Nepal, Tanzania, and Argentina are already melting.
In 2013 there was a flood in India and Nepal caused by melting glaciers. 1200 people died. Millions of homes were destroyed.
In January of 2018 there was floods in Switserland en Germany caused by melting glaciers which killed several tourists and destroyed entire villages.

The IPCC has says no viable technologies exist to sequestrer CO2, except planting trees.
62% of all forests on Earth were cut down between 2000 and 2012 according to the Nature Conservancy Foundation.
At the current rate 90% of all forests on the Earth will be cut down according to Edward Wilson(Biologist, PhD)

The United States Army recenly claimed the biggest threat to the USA is climate change. (But you cant fight the climate with guns)

Some claim nuclear power is the solution to combat climbate change.
While nuclear fission reactors by themselves produce no CO2.
To mine and transport uranium we need to burn fossil fuels for powering the mining equipment which produces 1.1 kg of CO2 per kWh.
Also a nuclear power plant needs about 200000 tons of concrete.
The concrete industry is one of two largest producers of CO2 according to the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD).
To make 1 tonne of concrete it produces between 290 and 410 kg of CO2 according to University of Dundee.
According to the Nuclear Energy Institute(NEI) nuclear power plants provided 11% of worldwide electricity with about 450 nuclear plants.
We would need to build nearly 4500 more power plants to replace fossil fuels with nuclear power. (not including an energy demand increase of 100% in which case we need 9000 more power plants)
There is probably not enough sand on the Earth to produce that much concrete.
Proper sand for concrete is already a scarce resource.

Chart showing that if we want to stay under 2 degrees Celsius warming each person may only take 1 airplane flight per year.
The average American makes 2 to 5 airplane trips per year according to Airlines for America

Air travel is one of the biggest polluters.
And we cant have air travel without fossil fuels.
Even if the electric grid is 100% renewables.
Airplanes still need kerosene to fly.
It is technologically impossible to make commercial electric airplanes.
So far only extremely lightweight 1 man airplanes can be made electric.
The Airbus A380 and the Boing-747 the standard for commercial flying are practically impossible to make a clean energy alternative out of.

The aviation industry is growing every year.
Kevin Anderson says the aviation industry is actively trying to stop development in public transport such as trains, buses, and ships which are much cheaper and less polluting.
If the aviation industry keeps growing and other industries lower their emissions then the aviation industry will soon be the largest contributor to global warming.

Fact: A warmer Earth is fine
Fact: higher CO2 is fine
Fact: Minor changes in climate or ocean or where plants/animals live can be accomodated
Fact: Most arable land in the world could use a year long growing season
Fact: The Greenhouse effect is not real
Fact: The idea of an H20 feedback is not real
Fact: These scientists are all Dem voting communists who want to dismantle industrial society

Fact: You should get back to your containment board The big boys are talking here.

Fact: You have no idea what you're talking about.

Well, one could say that nuclear power is still not very efficient and that if we innovate more, we would be able to make them more efficient.

In my town, the agricultural industry has taken measures to make sure nothing goes to waste.
They take power that has been produced in our greenhouses is distrubuted over the powergrid. They put white sheets over the greenhouses to make better use of the light they provided. They are in no part co2-neutral, but they don't waste materials, I think if we stop wasting energy and resources, we would get closer to less climate change

>0% co2
You are all insane. The bullying in school was meant to fix you retardation and hatred for humanity. I'm sorry it backfired so badly.

...

Fucking idiot brainlets with their alternate "facts". Kys.

OP, desu I'm past caring. We're less than a glint in the eye of a sperm made by this galaxy, among billions of other galaxies, in a near infinite universe, among probably another infinite universes, being born and dying off an infinite amount of times for an infinity.

It looks like our race really is stupid enough to want to risk extinction because of "muh cars", "muh chocolate" and "muh lifestylez". So they're about to get fucking everything they deserve. It's just your normal Darwinism in action. Life will survive without humans, even if it has to change its form a bit. And even if it doesn't, it's not like it matters at all in the grand scheme of things anyway.

>According to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change(UN-IPCC) the Earth may not heat up by more than 2° C on average.
Wrong.

>But if the trend as it is now continues the human race will become extinct around 2060.
Wrong.

>To mine and transport uranium we need to burn fossil fuels for powering the mining equipment
Wrong.

>Fact: A warmer Earth is fine
>Fact: higher CO2 is fine
Wrong.

>Fact: Minor changes in climate or ocean or where plants/animals live can be accomodated
This is not a minor change though. This rate of warming is unprecedented in human history.

>Fact: Most arable land in the world could use a year long growing season
Global warming will make current agricultural production centers less arable. California for example is already experiencing decreases in yields due to increased droughts and floods.

>Fact: The Greenhouse effect is not real
So fucking retardedly wrong. Way to deny fundamental chemistry and thermodynamics.

>Fact: The idea of an H20 feedback is not real
So explain how interglacial warming happens so quickly.

>Fact: These scientists are all Dem voting communists who want to dismantle industrial society
Alarmist.

Yes, warming on average by 2° in 200 years period is something unimaginable, nothing so bad have ever happened on Earth and we are all doomed

So, we can either stop living like modern, industrial society and go extinct in couple of years or do nothing and live at risk of storms being more often and the winters being colder (due to global warming obviously). Gee, it's so hard to choose, so we should fight the global warming I guess

If humanity spent around 1% of the global GDP towards reducing CO2 emissions (sp roughly 800 billion dollars), I don't think it would be much of an issue. That humanity is struggling to do even that really shows that we absoluetely deserve what is going to happen, we as a species have no business to become a space-faring civ if we fail at such basic levels of civilized living together.

Oh boy, more extreme weather killing all of our crops.
Oh gee, making california alaska every half a year and the sahara the other half.
Oh no, it's not we're going back to the prehistoric era, we just need to cycle to work. Or take the bus.

And die of starvation because, as op said, we need to reduce CO2 emissions to 0%, and as far as I know all the tractors run on diesel oil, so no tractors mean no food.

>There is probably not enough sand on the Earth to produce that much concrete.

dumbest thing I ever read

But that's true. Not all of the sand can be used to make concrete, for example Sahara desert has tons and tons of sand, but you can't make concrete with it

>There are not enough minerals on Earth to replace all these fossil fuel cars by electric vehicles.

Not true.

>All rivers on Earth en nearly all fresh water comes from glaciers. When glaciers melt practically all rivers of Earth will dry up.

Wrong, most rivers are from rain.

>At 500 PPM complex life on the planet will probably not survive.

Wrong, CO2 levels were well over this in the past and complex life thrived.

>To mine and transport uranium we need to burn fossil fuels for powering the mining equipment which produces 1.1 kg of CO2 per kWh.

Mining equipment can be electric, too. Also, breeder reactors produce a lot more energy per unit of uranium.

>Also a nuclear power plant needs about 200000 tons of concrete.

Not necessarily.

you can make concrete with desert sand, it is just of lower quality

anyway, we are not going to run out of suitable sand, period

the problem with concrete is that it emits lots of carbon dioxide during solidification, potentially offsetting the benefits of nuclear plants (but not really)

not running out of sand, LOL

That's bullshit, manual labor is still a thing. You weak insolent cityman.

>Without transportation food and drink can no longer be transported on a large scale and more than half of humanity will die from food shortages

This is a lie. The problem stems not from food production and distribution but because of factory farms where a few people that want more money control companies that force local farms out of business. This will change when there's less transportation of food and people will revert to eating local foods again. It's not at all like we'll forget how to do modern agriculture.

GROF, POSPERITY, AND JERBS

FOR MUH ECOMOMY STUPID

You can fuel planes with hydrogen. Near term we can convert planes we have today to run shorter ranges with hydrogen. Long term we make different planes with big lifting bodies

To support 's assertion, I offer pic related

We haven't got much of what you call "long term", pal.

>Yes, warming on average by 2° in 200 years period is something unimaginable
Consider that the fastest warming humans experienced before this, the interglacials, took at least 1500 years to warm 2 degrees. Do you have any idea what you're talking about? No, you don't. You are embarrassing yourself.

>So, we can either stop living like modern, industrial society
Why the alarmism? All that needs to be done is tax fossil fuels and we will save hundreds of billions of dollars in future damage to human civilization. Investing the revenue in technology and infrastructure to replace the fossil fuels would be good too. No one needs to stop living a modern lifestyle, and no industry needs to stop, the only thing that needs to change is that the true cost of fossil fuels is represented in the market, which will cause it to be replaced by cheaper energy.

why are you on Veeky Forums? do you even read papers?

Why is graphite mining so toxic?

fuck off back to

He's here for (You)'s. Like the ones your giving him.

How about you go back to /x/ with your climate science. Learn some atmospheric physics and then come back.

Wheres your source fir all this?

>Graphite is only mined in China. All other countries in the world have practically banned mining Graphite, because it is so polluting and harmful for health.
stopped reading there. fucking CANADIA is a major producer of graphite.

>i have no argument

>Airplanes still need kerosene
USAF has successfully used biofuel (vegetable oil) in its aircraft:
af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/929168/fueling-the-future-af-works-to-home-grow-biofuels-for-dod-industry/

except economic damage done today will compound over decades to being immensely more than the costs of piping fresh water around or building a dike to keep the ocean out of miami

Yes, because Miami is the only american city that is going to be affected by it.

There are very few cities that can be called "American"
Hopefully all the Democrats and foreigners drown

Also, no overall economic damage is done. Old industries (oil and coal) die, new industries emerge (wind and solar). Happened for centuries and will happen again. The only question is how long the american government is going to remain a pupeteer of the old industry.

sure m8 go spend 50,000 dollars on a solar setup to supply power to your house, that makes lots of economic sense.

Try 5.000$ you Trump-loving piece of shit american.

We discuss politics on /pol/ and scientific matters on Veeky Forums. Take your UN and IPCC drivel to the right board. Thanks in advance.

I'm glad you know better than the vast majority of economists, who agree that an optimal carbon tax saves more money than it costs.

just plant trees in the sky

Correct, "climate" scientists and "economists" are all scammers

>winters are the coldest in history because of global warming
>glaciers grow because of glaciers melting
>CO2 concentration rising will cause all complex life cease to exist even though it has always thrived when CO2 concentration was high
Gee, it's really hard to be a climate scientist, all that mind bending.
"Guys, catastrophe is coming unless we do something, yeah, we warned you couple of times that we all will die unless we do something, we did nothing and there was no catastrophe, but this time is for reals, trust us, why would we lie?"

>winters are the coldest in history
False.

>glaciers grow
False.

>CO2 concentration rising will cause all complex life cease to exist even
False.

Gee it's really hard to be a denier, all that lying.

Life thrived on Earth when CO2 levels were well above 500 ppm, so stop lying about lying

>Because (sea)ice is white it reflects sunlight back into space which cools the planet.
However, in winter the enhanced emissivity means even more heat is lost to space,. enhancing cool down.

>Stefan Rahmstorf(Ocean scientist) says that all human CO2 emission have to be reduced to 0% by 2060 to stay under 2° C.
Given that humans exhale CO2, you are calling for some serious genocide here.

>(But you cant fight the climate with guns)
You just said you could.

>wind
Only viable for specific places
>solar
Only viable for microgeneration

The best way is to move to nuclear energy

>Life thrived on Earth when CO2 levels were well above 500 ppm, so stop lying about lying
Yes life that evolved for that climate, that was adapted to that climate.

Unfortunately, humans and the ecosystems we rely on did not evolve in that climate and do not have time to adapt to it since it is changing so rapidly. So the claim that "life" thrived has nothing to do with anything, since we are not that life. And this non sequitur doesn't even back up a single lie in the post you're responding to. You truly are a pathetic debater, intellectual scum.

>UN
stopped reading

>>wind
>Only viable for specific places
Such as coast lines, of which there is plenty.
>>solar
>Only viable for microgeneration
Unless you cover deserts like Sahara, Takla Makan, Kalahari, Gobi etc. Very little cloud cover there and the area is a loss anyway.
>The best way is to move to nuclear energy
Citation needed.

>Scientists are already sure that by 2020 there most likely wont be any sea ice in the northern hemisphere.
That's only two years from now. When were these estimates made? Doesn't sound legit.

I think he meant zero total net CO2 emissions. Considering that there are things that transform CO2 into food and O2 (see: trees), it isn't impossible to do.

But we still have time to adapt. And 2 degrees isn't a big deal after all, it's pretty much nothing, call me when the temperature rises by 20 degrees

>But we still have time to adapt.
We who? Do fish have time to adapt to rapid ocean acidification? Do crops have time to adapt to increased droughts and floods? Here's an adaption: solve the fucking problem and emit less greenhouse gasses.

You are a moron.

Yes, and go back to living a caveman life for the sake of fish, what a great idea

>Do fish have time to adapt to rapid ocean acidification? Do crops have time to adapt to increased droughts and floods?
Sure, why not? Fish that can't handle higher acidity die, fish that can live. How long should it take?

From what I know, There was a convention held at the Ontario Convention Center In California in 2014 about gold mining in Alaska... We had a Earthquake on Monday.... Its only a matter of time.before we have to move, since we are a migrating species.

>Yes, and go back to living a caveman life
So you're an alarmist as well as a liar.

>0% oil consumption
>all production of petroleum based products will have to stop
>ignoring natural sources of co2 and other greenhouse gasses that still occur

how about we start exploring space already?

Extinction is not the same thing as adaption my retarded friend.

>Fucking idiot brainlets with their alternate "facts". Kys.
Holy shit you dumbasses get angry when someone has the balls to call out your fake climate change narrative. Literally nothing is going to happen, stop going into hysterics over a myth that has been pushed since the early 1900s. It wasn't that long ago that all you retards were shitting your pants over the coming ice age and everyone freezing to death.

Funny how evolution stops being a real thing when climate change alarmism is in the picture. Suddenly natural selection isn't real and fish can't evolve. How fucking convenient for you, eh?

yeah man the earth wasn't designed all that well. it can't cope with a 2 degree increase in temperature

>what is average
it'll be more like 10 degrees on land

There are individual differences among fish of the same species. The oceans get more acidic, x% of fish can't handle it and die, 100-x% survive and enjoy reduced competition. Is there some reason why this wouldn't be the case?

but you are still a flaming commie

Fact: You are a nigger.

sad, but kind of true

> (/pol/)

>evolution being real means that major traits can arise instantly
neck yourself my man

intraspecific variability has its limits. sometimes x = 100

>This means we may not burn more than 1 drop of oil, gas, or other carbon fuels

no it doesnt. it just means that we need to create a closed loop carbon fuel system by 2060. which is actually completely doable. liberals just don't want to get with the program.

>Suddenly natural selection isn't real and fish can't evolve.
Rapid climate change can and has triggered mass extinctions in the past.

>It wasn't that long ago that all you retards were shitting your pants over the coming ice age and everyone freezing to death
The cover on the left is about an economic slowdown. The cover on the right is about a cold winter. Stop lying.

>2060
that's cute
the warming becomes self-sustaining at 450 ppm, it won't need humans anymore
That's what the 2C limit is really about
At the current pace, we will be at 450 ppm around 2030

>the warming becomes self-sustaining at 450 ppm, it won't need humans anymore
What are you basing that on? No serious model or discussion I've read says that.

>That's what the 2C limit is really about
No it isn't. The 2C limit was picked because it was considered to be a realistic target. Nothing special happens there.

Climate models handling of cloud covering is toppest of kek.
>Hurr durr we don't know how it works so we will just ignore the evidence.
Svensmark&Shaviv
>B-but you didn't cite this one paper so y-y-you wronk!
Meanwhile experiment confirms their theory, still ignored by IPCC because it doesn't fit the agenda. Climate alarmists eternally btfo by Svensmark&Shaviv.

>climate will become so unstable that glaciers and the polar caps on Earth will melt so fast they can never grow back
Already happening.
>rivers on Earth en nearly all fresh water comes from glaciers. When glaciers melt practically all rivers of Earth will dry up.
Bullshit.

Change is not a bad thing, a little change is in fact a good thing
Almost all the "climate change" charade is about the fact the third world population is far higher than sustainable and it will be a serious issue for them when equatorial crop lands disappear

>Climate models handling of cloud covering is toppest of kek.
>Hurr durr we don't know how it works so we will just ignore the evidence.
What? Cloud models are pretty crude, but climatologists definitely aren't ignoring them.

>Svensmark&Shaviv
Wait, are those the folks who think that climate is driven by cosmic-rays seeding clouds? Because that shit's never stood up to any scrutiny by anyone else. For example:
iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/4/045022/pdf

>Meanwhile experiment confirms their theory
What experiment?

>still ignored by IPCC because it doesn't fit the agenda.
Now you're just falling back into conspiracy theories. It's ignored because it fits very poorly as an explanation for the observed warming.

>Wait, are those the folks who think that climate is driven by cosmic-rays seeding clouds?
No. They are the folks that think cosmic rays have effect on climate. That "shit" has stood up to scrutiny of Nature.
>What experiment?
They conducted an experiment to test their theory, you know, actual science. That experiment was then repeated at CERN and SLAC with results agreeing with their theory.
>Now you're just falling back into conspiracy theories
Ah, so a theory that finally explains something that has been scaring climate "scientist" shitless for decades, supported by experiments, is a conspiracy theory, alright.
>It's ignored because it fits very poorly as an explanation for the observed warming.
It doesn't say cosmic rays cause global warming. It has little to do with global warming at all, it is just a very important link that can help improve climate models, if it wasn't ignored. It also explains the recent slowdown of the warming (which is pathetic as explained, or rather hand-waved, by IPCC).

>If all people on Earth live a Western lifestyle with a car, a house, a tv, a smartphone, and so on. We need 3 Earths to mine all resources and extract all the oil, but we only have 1 Earth.

If the left really gave a damn about reducing CO2 emissions, they wouldn't fight tooth and nail against nuclear.

youtube.com/watch?v=MNdigt30Ucg

And we most certainly wouldn't waste our time trying to redistribute wealth.

youtube.com/watch?v=EeBeq0i03bg

The number of Earths needed for humans is bullshit. The Earth's carrying capacity is based on technology. With technology, more can be done with the same resources. A hunter-gatherer society required roughly .4 square mile of arable land per person.

trunity.net/sam2/view/article/51cbf44b7896bb431f6af515/

cs.mcgill.ca/~rwest/wikispeedia/wpcd/wp/a/Arable_land.htm

The Earth's carrying capacity for humans wouldn't reach 30 million. That's over 200 earths. Crop yields per land area has been rising since the 20th century.

agry.purdue.edu/ext/corn/news/timeless/yieldtrends.html

On his show, Bill Nye asked the idiotic question "should parents in the Western world be punished for having too many children?"

Note he said Western world-the countries were the number of children per couple is less than the replacement rate of 2.2 children per couple rather than people from developing nations where there is actual population growth. Sorry, but that would racist to suggest efforts to reduce the population growth there rather in those countries where the population is dropping barring immigration.

This is because Bill Nye puts his leftist political agenda ahead of science just like all the others.

>glaciers melt
>less water will be in the rivers
>ice melting = less water
what

Less ice built up each winter due to increased temperature = less water in long run

Pretty simple

See

>If the left really gave a damn about reducing CO2 emissions, they wouldn't fight tooth and nail against nuclear.
>they

fuck you man. I'm liberal by all meanings of the word, and I love nuclear power. don't conflate me with jill steintards

Do your pretty fancy models take this into account?

theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/28/alarm-as-study-reveals-worlds-tropical-forests-are-huge-carbon-emission-source

And do you think this will be the last ohfuck-moment?
Are you really ready to bet the farm on it?

>They conducted an experiment to test their theory, you know, actual science. That experiment was then repeated at CERN and SLAC with results agreeing with their theory.
No. Everything I can find about the experiments at CERN say that the could formation rates were largely independent of level of cosmic-ray exposure. That pretty strongly suggests that changes in cosmic-ray exposure aren't a major diver of climate changes. Studies like the one I posted confirm that.

>Ah, so a theory that finally explains something that has been scaring climate "scientist" shitless for decades, supported by experiments, is a conspiracy theory, alright.
That's not what I wrote. Assuming climatologists are ignoring results you like because "it doesn't fit the agenda" is a conspiracy theory.

>It doesn't say cosmic rays cause global warming. It has little to do with global warming at all,
They what the actual fuck are you talking about? What is "the agenda" to you? What motivation do climatologists have to ignore this?

>Ah, so a theory that finally explains something that has been scaring climate "scientist" shitless for decades
You just wrote it "has little to do with global warming at all". Again, what are you talking about?

>It also explains the recent slowdown of the warming
I've seen nothing to suggest that. And even if it did, so what?
The "slowdown" isn't some gaping flaw in climatology, it's just an interesting piece of noise.

>If the left really gave a damn about reducing CO2 emissions, they wouldn't fight tooth and nail against nuclear.
That doesn't follow at all. "The left" doesn't believe that nuclear power is a safe and economical way to generate power. Of course they're not going to advocate for solutions they don't believe will work.

>Do your pretty fancy models take this into account?
Climate models will take into account whatever numbers you type into them. If you tell them that forests are carbon sources they'll believe you.

>And do you think this will be the last ohfuck-moment?
No, but there's no reason to assume that future discoveries will all lean in the same direction.

>Are you really ready to bet the farm on it?
What does that mean?

>"The left" doesn't believe that nuclear power is a safe and economical way to generate power.

nextbigfuture.com/2016/06/update-of-death-per-terawatt-hour-by.html

Facts > feels

You're confused about what I wrote.
I'm not trying to claim that nuclear power is or isn't viable. I'm saying that, if you don't believe it's viable, it's not inconstant to oppose nuclear power and believe that AGW is a serious issue.