Do you believe in global warming?

[AlwaysFocus]

The only major group of people in the world who don't believe in climate change are people who worship a fat orange retard who told them that climate change is a hoax created by China on a social media platform

These same people believe in Qanon, Pizzagate, Uranium One, Seth Rich, FBI spying on the Trump campaign, deep state, Ukraine hacking the DNC, and Barack Obama being a gay, Kenyan born Muslim

I think that tells you all you need to know about the debate

u are so mad, its great

[JoeDelts]

but surely if it's 3% every year, after 10 years it's 30%... 20 years 60% etc.. thus proving my point...

[wincel]

Even if u dont accept climate change, we still need to get off fossil fuels and switch to renewable energy. Srs. We are runing out.

[Sakeoe]

Even if u dont accept climate change, we still need to get off fossil fuels and switch to renewable energy. Srs. We are runing out.

unironically though fossil fuels are by definition renewable (although not on an human timescale), whereas electrical-battery based solutions are inherently not.

But you are right, we do need to get off fossil fuels. But not through the hype that is happening right now. We also aren't in any danger of running out of fossil fuels on the short-term. It's sad so much money is being wasted on battery power that should be getting spent on more useful technologies such as fuel cell's.

[Codyisback]

It's a scam and I don't care if the Earth is gone by 2100.

Aha agreed entirely. Let's enjoy the planet while were here and stop with the whole narrative about "preserving the Earth for future generations" lol. On one note I do believe there is merit to solar and wind powered energy simply because this would improve air quality due to less pollution, though as I said, I think global warming is a myth. It makes me sick that this agenda is being forced upon school children also, they should be left out of it...

[Codyisback]

The only major group of people in the world who don't believe in climate change are people who worship a fat orange retard who told them that climate change is a hoax created by China on a social media platform

These same people believe in Qanon, Pizzagate, Uranium One, Seth Rich, FBI spying on the Trump campaign, deep state, Ukraine hacking the DNC, and Barack Obama being a gay, Kenyan born Muslim

I think that tells you all you need to know about the debate

My Lord, is this you in the below video? bahahhhahahhahha

[wincel]

unironically though fossil fuels are by definition renewable (although not on an human timescale), whereas electrical-battery based solutions are inherently not.

But you are right, we do need to get off fossil fuels. But not through the hype that is happening right now. We also aren't in any danger of running out of fossil fuels on the short-term. It's sad so much money is being wasted on battery power that should be getting spent on more useful technologies such as fuel cell's.

Yes we are. It's about 38 or so years before we run out based on current growth rates.

[Codyisback]

I saw a documentary on the ice age that suggested the earths warming and cooling cycles are caused by how the gas giants effect earths orbit. Depending on where the gas giants are in orbit in relation to earths orbit they cause our planet to have a more eliptical 5% elongated orbit causing an ice age. Further more when the earth goes into a period when it is minimally effected by these gravitational forces it's orbit becomes a near perfect circle causing the climate to warm.

Could this not be the cause of the current warming trend?

Absolutely brilliant point, repped (srs). Though this must be an older documentary, as something like this would surely be lambasted by the leftist political agenda in today's world. Nonetheless like I said an excellent point.

Yes, climate change exists, but no, it is not a man-made mechanism. I think you're right in the sense that slight changes in the Earth's tilt and axis can bring about periods of high and low temperature. Let us not forget that the base temperature in the middle ages was significantly hotter than it is now...

[Codyisback]

Yes we are. It's about 38 or so years before we run out based on current growth rates.

Haha they've been saying we're gonna run out for years yet it never happens. I believe Sakeoe is right in the sense we should use fossil fuels until they run out (which will probably not be for many decades) at which point we should transition naturally to newer energy sources, especially solar and wind (which would be a godsend for countries like China where the burning of fossil fuels has created an almost inhospitable ******t air environment).

[Codyisback]

They had the exact same data trend of increasing CO2 back in the 1970s but they predicted another ice age. Now with the same data trend theyve done a 180. They have no idea what they are talking about.

There is a huge multibillion dollar industry around green everything. Auto manufacturers are making a fortune off it with massive subsidization from tax payers, on electric cars, on hybrids and on the cash for clunkers program. The solar panel industry is massively subsidized by tax payers. There is enormous money in it and it manipulates the truth. There is no funding available for any research that goes against the grain. People promoting science as this pure unbiased discipline are delusional or have no idea how university research really works. Nobody is giving grants out unless the topic agrees with the status quo.

The message has and always will be an alarmist message that the world is on the brink of no return and that point is always somewhere 10-15 years in the future. 2030 will come and go and it will be "omg the world is going to end in 2040 unless we subsidize the following companies with billions of dollars" and people will fall for it.

Agreed, their surmisements seem iffy at best, and they jump around alot. If they could agree on some specific talking points I would be more willing to look into it, but their observations about climate change seem to shift as frequently as the weather, it's all a bit absurd. Their is indeed massive incentives for new age car manufacturers behind a green approach, and I think alot of this money is being channelled into Japan and Germany where most of the world's cars are made, ironically these are first world countries, which doesn't fit in with the narrative of global warming being a third-world-improvement-initiative, so I'm not exactly sure...

True, the 'end of the world' date keeps shifting, and sadly alot of people will continue to buy into it, because some folks have a tendency to feel guilt more than others, even when it's entirely unjustified...

[Codyisback]

Umm, if there have been ice ages, but it's not an ice age jusr now (technically it still is), how did it get warm again if lobal warming doesn't happen?

Dude, as I alluded to in another post, the Middle ages were significantly hotter than the 21st century...

I think you you may be confusing global warming with climate change, they are completely different. Climate change (natural or man made) refers to transient changes in the Earths temperature, which may or may not contribute to natural phenomona like flooding, droughts, fires and ice ages. Global warming on the other hand is the theory human beings (rather than natural hand of time) are responsible for climate change.

[Codyisback]

Thanks brah, this cheered me up on a day I was down. Repped.

[wincel]

Haha they've been saying we're gonna run out for years yet it never happens. I believe Sakeoe is right in the sense we should use fossil fuels until they run out (which will probably not be for many decades) at which point we should transition naturally to newer energy sources, especially solar and wind (which would be a godsend for countries like China where the burning of fossil fuels has created an almost inhospitable ******t air environment).

I mean, look. Here's the thing, right? Many people model oil usage as some sort of logistic curve. But IMO, it is an inelastic demand thing tied closely to the growing population and industrialization. So, if anything, we will very rapidly start using more oil and continue growing rather than have the growth slow down. I think we will continue using it until it gets used up quickly. Even if we assume 1% annual growth in energy demand, which is below what we are currently at, and suppose there are only 1.7 trillion barrels of oil available to us, and humans currently use 36.5 billion a year, yeah it's going to all be gone in about 38 years. Should it fall off as you get close to the end? IDK. Maybe. If so, that would buy us more time. But I'm not sure that will even happen, at least not in the symmetric manner of the logistic equation. So, in a very real sense, we are running out of oil.

[Codyisback]

Human driven climate change is a straight up fact that poses an existential threat to human society. It’s a tossup between that and WWIII as to which is most likely to prevent us reaching our destiny of colonising other worlds.

I respect your opinion though I must say I politely disagree, it's not a fact, but rather a conjecture, which is iffy at best. I think people in today's world have such high opinions of themselves that they attribute everything to the human race, because, what else could be the case. It's this megalomaniacal attitude which I believe is at fault here. People ought to accept some things are purely natural, and it is nobodies fault...

[Codyisback]

I mean, look. Here's the thing, right? Many people model oil usage as some sort of logistic curve. But IMO, it is an inelastic demand thing tied closely to the growing population and industrialization. So, if anything, we will very rapidly start using more oil and continue growing rather than have the growth slow down. I think we will continue using it until it gets used up quickly. Even if we assume 1% annual growth in energy demand, which is below what we are currently at, and suppose there are only 1.7 trillion barrels of oil available to us, and humans currently use 36.5 billion a year, yeah it's going to all be gone in about 38 years. Should it fall off as you get close to the end? IDK. Maybe. If so, that would buy us more time. But I'm not sure that will even happen, at least not in the symmetric manner of the logistic equation. So, in a very real sense, we are running out of oil.

Agreed 100%, it is not a logistical curve, and is more likely than not almost directly and congruently tied to increasing rates of population growth and industrialization.

True, since it ties in with pop/indus. growth, we will keep using it more and more rapidly, just as a snowball gathers size continually until it splatters at the bottom of the slope and nothing is left...

I think by the time we approach it running out (38 years seems like quite a sensible estimate, much moreso than the 10-20 year timeframe proffered by many liberal researchers), we will already have something new going (be it solar, wind, nuclear fission, hydroelectricity or something else).

True, we are indeed running out of oil, but a natural transition to other energy sources will probably take place rather than an abrupt situation where everybody goes "oh, we've run out of oil and we haven't put enough R&D into alternate energy sources and now we can't drive cars"...

repped for the informative post...

[wincel]

Agreed 100%, it is not a logistical curve, and is more likely than not almost directly and congruently tied to increasing rates of population growth and industrialization.

True, since it ties in with pop/indus. growth, we will keep using it more and more rapidly, just as a snowball gathers size continually until it splatters at the bottom of the slope and nothing is left...

I think by the time we approach it running out (38 years seems like quite a sensible estimate, much moreso than the 10-20 year timeframe proffered by many liberal researchers), we will already have something new going (be it solar, wind, nuclear fission, hydroelectricity or something else).

True, we are indeed running out of oil, but a natural transition to other energy sources will probably take place rather than an abrupt situation where everybody goes "oh, we've run out of oil and we haven't put enough R&D into alternate energy sources and now we can't drive cars"...

repped for the informative post...

Thing is you guys fight the "liberal" agenda to throw money at making new kinds of technology for energy resources. So, the result is we just end up sticking to what we have been doing. Nobody wants to untertake a massive project to explore something like fusion energy at cost. We are talking about something that would ultimately sink probably hundreds of billions to trillions of dollars to really get working. The way things are going, the "oh no" scenario is way more likely. We're fuked. Like even if you ignore climate change, we are fuked. But when you throw climate change in too, boy we are really fuked.

[Codyisback]

ahaha true, whether they're right or not, the U.S. seems to have a notably strong anti-science establishment; a notion which is still, in the 21st century, rooted in religious worship...

[SACHIRVA]

yes, I do believe in Global warming recently in the Amazon forest it happened.

[isingmodel]

Absolutely brilliant point, repped (srs). Though this must be an older documentary, as something like this would surely be lambasted by the leftist political agenda in today's world. Nonetheless like I said an excellent point.

Yes, climate change exists, but no, it is not a man-made mechanism. I think you're right in the sense that slight changes in the Earth's tilt and axis can bring about periods of high and low temperature. Let us not forget that the base temperature in the middle ages was significantly hotter than it is now...

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2...ing-the-world/

Here's a simple normie-friendly infographic that looks at factors like the Earth's orbit, solar radiation, aerosols etc. which deniers often claim are what really influences changes in the Earth's climate.

In the past ~150 years, they have had minimal effect on global temperatures. The Earth's orbit has fluctuated very little. Solar irradiance has actually decreased in the past 50 years and the upper atmosphere has cooled as a result. Yet surface temperatures have continued to rise.

It's really incredibly simple to refute the basic denier talking points. Never have they actually spent 5 minutes examining the data.

[Sakeoe]

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2...ing-the-world/

Here's a simple normie-friendly infographic that looks at factors like the Earth's orbit, solar radiation, aerosols etc. which deniers often claim are what really influences changes in the Earth's climate.

In the past ~150 years, they have had minimal effect on global temperatures. The Earth's orbit has fluctuated very little. Solar irradiance has actually decreased in the past 50 years and the upper atmosphere has cooled as a result. Yet surface temperatures have continued to rise.

It's really incredibly simple to refute the basic denier talking points. Never have they actually spent 5 minutes examining the data.

Exactly, it's incredibly simple to refute basic talking points such as that graph you linked. For example, have you ever wondered why this graph starts in 1880? What is so specific about that time period? The answer is that the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century mark the end of the third and final cold interval of the little ice age. The third interval began in 1850 and the period 1880-1910 marks the lowest points of this third interval, after which temperatures have been rising. It also marks the end of the little ice age as a whole.

Your graph, and all like it, serve but one purpose. To make even a monkey that looks at it note a seemingly obvious correlation between two lines rising together from a seemingly flat starting point. However any statistician can glance at that graph and tell you right away that while general trending at least happens in the same direction, there appears to be no obvious evidence of direct correlation between the two as peaks and troughs don't align, neither instantly nor with any kind of lag. While the greenhouse emissions theory provides a possible causal mechanic there is no robust evidence provided that there is causal relationship here.

Any climate-adept needs to argue three points.
1: Temperatures are currently rising, in a significant manner.
2: This rise in temperatures as explained in #1 is significantly influenced by human activity.
3: If #1 and #2 are found true, this is why we should take action to attempt to change it and these measures are effective at it.

Now point 1 I do believe there is enough robust evidence to show that temperatures are rising. However that does not mean I will deny anyone that claims otherwise such as the scientists I mentioned on page 4.

Point 2 is not sufficiently proven. First of all what is significant influence? Influence can range from 0.1% to 100%. What percentage are humans responsible for, what percentages are significant? Is some influence acceptable? If so, where would the exact cut-off be? Right now, as I have said before, point 2 hinges entirely on a loose correlation between a rise in temperatures, greenhouse gasses and the start of the industrial revolution. All at the end of an ice age. I deem #2 potentially possible, but largely unproven and hypothetical. An explanation based on natural factors that caused the little ice age to end and thus temperatures to rise with humans having some negligible influence provides a far more acceptable explanation.

Then we get to point 3, which is largely ignored. Almost no climate adepts make any attempt to argue the merits of point 3. Which is logical, because unless one holds some sort of complete purist ideal in which humans are not allowed to have any influence on the planet whatsoever there are no coherent arguments to be made in favour of #3. Even if we accept #1 and #2 as true, and consider #2 to be 100% caused by humans, there is still no realistic argument to be made as to why we should take action to end climate change as opposed to prepare and adept to it.

[chaunce54]

Even if u dont accept climate change, we still need to get off fossil fuels and switch to renewable energy. Srs. We are runing out.

We will as soon as it becomes economically feasible. Until then, enjoy your dino-juice. There's enough to last you a lifetime.

[wincel]

We will as soon as it becomes economically feasible. Until then, enjoy your dino-juice. There's enough to last you a lifetime.

No. It really isn't. It will never be economically feasible. You're just going to end up with mass famines, nuclear war, and death. Developing the new tech could costs hundreds of billions of dollars. Nobody is going to do it privately, and you idiots won't let the govt do it, so we are fuked.

[FoxMcCocks]

My Lord, is this you in the below video? bahahhhahahhahha

Fuking lmao, you probably also believe the Earth is 5k years old because that's what your "Lord" told you right?

[isingmodel]

Exactly, it's incredibly simple to refute basic talking points such as that graph you linked. For example, have you ever wondered why this graph starts in 1880? What is so specific about that time period? The answer is that the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century mark the end of the third and final cold interval of the little ice age. The third interval began in 1850 and the period 1880-1910 marks the lowest points of this third interval, after which temperatures have been rising. It also marks the end of the little ice age as a whole.

Your graph, and all like it, serve but one purpose. To make even a monkey that looks at it note a seemingly obvious correlation between two lines rising together from a seemingly flat starting point. However any statistician can glance at that graph and tell you right away that while general trending at least happens in the same direction, there appears to be no obvious evidence of direct correlation between the two as peaks and troughs don't align, neither instantly nor with any kind of lag. While the greenhouse emissions theory provides a possible causal mechanic there is no robust evidence provided that there is causal relationship here.

Any climate-adept needs to argue three points.
1: Temperatures are currently rising, in a significant manner.
2: This rise in temperatures as explained in #1 is significantly influenced by human activity.
3: If #1 and #2 are found true, this is why we should take action to attempt to change it and these measures are effective at it.

Now point 1 I do believe there is enough robust evidence to show that temperatures are rising. However that does not mean I will deny anyone that claims otherwise such as the scientists I mentioned on page 4.

Point 2 is not sufficiently proven. First of all what is significant influence? Influence can range from 0.1% to 100%. What percentage are humans responsible for, what percentages are significant? Is some influence acceptable? If so, where would the exact cut-off be? Right now, as I have said before, point 2 hinges entirely on a loose correlation between a rise in temperatures, greenhouse gasses and the start of the industrial revolution. All at the end of an ice age. I deem #2 potentially possible, but largely unproven and hypothetical. An explanation based on natural factors that caused the little ice age to end and thus temperatures to rise provides a far more acceptable explanation.

Then we get to point 3, which is largely ignored. Almost no climate adepts make any attempt to argue the merits of point 3. Which is logical, because unless one holds some sort of complete purist ideal in which humans are not allowed to have any influence on the planet whatsoever there are no coherent arguments to be made in favour of #3. Even if we accept #1 and #2 as true, and consider #2 to be 100% caused by humans, there is still no realistic argument to be made as to why we should take action to end climate change as opposed to prepare and adept to it.

You could have saved yourself typing all of this meaningless word salad. We have been measuring the influence of various factors on global temperatures, including both human factors and natural forcings such as solar irradiation, orbital patterns, ocean cycles, volcanic emissions etc. and there is plenty of independent research into each of these aspects. Generally most of these natural forcings have shown little variability outside of a small, tightly self-regulated range in recent decades, and things like solar irradiation (which lots of deniers claim is the main cause of temperature increases) have actually decreased in magnitude in the past half century.



Thus the widest body of evidence points to around 100% of global temperature increase since around 1950 to be due to GHGs (+/- the margin of error). Human aerosols have actually counterbalanced this slightly and kept temperature increase lower than it would have been without them - meaning the actual figure may be higher than the totality of the observed temperature increase (up to 160% of it).

Now there are a couple climate researchers (such as Judith Curry, whom you mentioned) who disagree with the figure. But even she thinks the figure of human contribution is around 50% (the lower end of the margin of error), which is still very significant. And she only references a couple of sole papers (like Tung and Zhou's 2013 paper on atlantic ocean cycles) with flawed methodology that overestimate the significance of internal variability, and contradict the overall body of research/have been superseded by better research since. But even she, despite relying on a small amount of flawed research, still thinks humans are playing a very significant (the most significant) role, even if not quite as significant as the broad scientific opinion.

So no, an explanation based on natural factors does not sufficiently explain the rise in temperatures, in fact it most likely doesn't explain it even a little bit. Not sure why you're pushing so hard to die on this hill when it's obvious you have spent exactly zero minutes examining any of the evidence we have into the significance and impact of natural processes into recent temperature increases.

[chaunce54]

Fuking lmao, you probably also believe the Earth is 5k years old because that's what your "Lord" told you right?

Maybe you can explain to us how the CO2 levels in the atmosphere were five times higher than today 250,000,000 years ago, yet life on Earth flourished.

[Sakeoe]

You could have saved yourself typing all of this meaningless word salad. We have been measuring the influence of various factors on global temperatures, including both human factors and natural forcings such as solar irradiation, orbital patterns, ocean cycles etc. and there is plenty of independent research into each of these aspects. Generally most of these natural forcings have shown little variability outside of a small, tightly self-regulated range in recent decades, and things like solar irradiation (which lots of deniers claim is the main cause of temperature increases) have actually decreased in magnitude in the past half century.

Thus the widest body of evidence points to around 100% of global temperature increase since around 1950 to be due to GHGs (+/- the margin of error). Human aerosols have actually counterbalanced this slightly and kept temperature increase lower than it would have been without them - meaning the actual figure may be higher than the totality of the observed temperature increase (up to 160% of it).

Now there are a couple climate researchers (such as Judith Curry, whom you mentioned) who disagree with the figure. But even she thinks the figure of human contribution is around 50% (the lower end of the margin of error), which is still very significant. And she only references a couple of sole papers (like Tung and Zhou's 2013 paper on atlantic ocean cycles) with flawed methodology that overestimate the significance of internal variability, and contradict the overall body of research/have been superseded by better research since. But even she, despite relying on a small amount of flawed research, still thinks humans are playing a very significant (the most significant) role, even if not quite as significant as the broad scientific opinion.

So no, an explanation based on natural factors does not sufficiently explain the rise in temperatures, in fact it most likely doesn't explain it even a little bit. Not sure why you're pushing so hard to die on this hill when it's obvious you have spent exactly zero minutes examining any of the evidence we have into the significance and impact of natural processes into recent temperature increases.

You're misunderstanding. The argument is not that natural factors are now causing the complete change in temperature, it is that temperature is recovering from the natural factors that caused the little ice age to happen (high volcanic activity, solar minimum and change in thermohaline circulation). Of course you wouldn't see much activity on these fronts in "the last few decades" as you call it. These are factors that happened hundreds of years ago and the world has largely recovered from them.

And indeed as you said, part of the warming we see now is caused by less aerosols and the ozone hole closing. You could argue that is "human warming" but I rather see it as reduced human cooling.

Still skipped over #3 entirely.

[isingmodel]

You're misunderstanding. The argument is not that natural factors are now causing a change in temperature, it is that temperature is recovering from the natural factors that caused the little ice age to happen (high volcanic activity, solar minimum and change in thermohaline circulation). Of course you wouldn't see much activity on these fronts in "the last few decades" as you call it. These are factors that happened hundreds of years ago.

And indeed as you said, part of the warming we see now is caused by less aerosols and the ozone hole closing.

Still skipped over #3 entirely.

The recovery from the LIA that saw increases in solar activity and decreases in volcanism played some role in temperature increases prior to around 1950, but not since then. As I said, solar irradiation has decreased in that time. The stratosphere has shown a very marked cooling trend, yet the troposphere and surface temperatures have continued to abnormally increase. Even the few skeptics among climate scientists conclude that humans are still causing over half of the warming since that time.

"Recovery from the LIA" is not in itself a metric to measure. We have to actually measure changes in each individual natural factor which a recovery from the LIA would lead to, and continue to measure them to see if they are still having a major impact on temperature. We have done that, and the conclusion is they are not, for around 70 years now.

As for #3, again not sure what this word salad is supposed to mean. If we have demonstrated #1 and #2, which we have, and we can observe the consequences of this on sea levels, agriculture, extreme weather, natural ecosystems etc. then determining how to limit the human impact will of course be paramount. If you determine that smoking causes lung cancer then the best way to address the problem would be to stop smoking, not continue smoking as much as you want then try to find the best treatment to keep you alive once you have a metastatic tumour.

[Sakeoe]

The recovery from the LIA that saw increases in solar activity and decreases in volcanism played some role in temperature increases prior to around 1950, but not since then. As I said, solar irradiation has decreased in that time. The stratosphere has shown a very marked cooling trend, yet the troposphere and surface temperatures have continued to abnormally increase. Even the few skeptics among climate scientists conclude that humans are still causing over half of the warming since that time.

"Recovery from the LIA" is not in itself a metric to measure. We have to actually measure changes in each individual natural factor which a recovery from the LIA would lead to, and continue to measure them to see if they are still having a major impact on temperature. We have done that, and the conclusion is they are not, for around 70 years now.

As for #3, again not sure what this word salad is supposed to mean. If we have demonstrated #1 and #2, which we have, and we can observe the consequences of this on sea levels, agriculture, extreme weather, natural ecosystems etc. then determining how to limit the human impact will of course be paramount. If you determine that smoking causes lung cancer then the best way to address the problem would be to stop smoking, not continue smoking as much as you want then try to find the best treatment to keep you alive once you have a metastatic tumour.

You've heard the bell ring but don't know where the clapper is.

You can't observe something that hasn't happened yet. Sea levels, agriculture, extreme weather, natural ecosystems are all still within known levels of the past 5000 years and nothing unique.

As for the future, climate change if following predicted trends will have a booming effect on agriculture in most of the Northern hemisphere. Ecosystems won't collapse due to climate change on any short-term. For now, any climatological changes are still within Holocene values and as such should not by itself threaten ecosystems. And even if that weren't true, I have written this post before on that topic:
https://forum.bodybuilding.com/showt...post1588668341
The real danger to ecosystems and the natural world as a whole is destruction of natural habitat by human activity. Something we should absolutely do something about. But that's an entirely unrelated topic.

Your comparison to lung cancer however, falls completely flat. A "Word salad" as you call it.

As such, you still haven't provided a case for #3.

[MoeBettuh]

Probably, these climate researchers' papers are best described as "pal reviewed" studies. There is little critical analysis of actual results, as long as it fits the narrative then you will get a big green tick for your paper from your climate science pals.

Also, the IPCC is not some unbiased, all-knowing, apolitical body. It was the brainchild of Maurice Strong (who is strongly socialist and globalist), and in the charter they are to take climate change AS A GIVEN. Their only role is to find supporting evidence of climate change, and suggest how governments spend their money.

Take a look at the head of the IPCC, Rajendra Pauchari, who is a railway engineer - real strong background in climate science lol. And let's not forget Michael Mann's infamous 2001 hockey graph which was cobbled together using two different data sources and included in an IPCC report.

I have very little trust in anything I hear after decades of fear-mongering - remember Prince Charles telling us we have ten months before we reach an irreversible "tipping point"? That was in 2009...or David Cameron telling us we have 100 days to save the planet back in 2005.

Also, it is career suicide to go against the narrative. Professor Peter Ridd, who is an expert with 30 years of studying the Great Barrier Reef, was sacked from his job for going against the climate change narrative.

The onus of proof is on the people saying the change in climate is caused by humans - and I have yet to find any compelling evidence.

It has gone from global cooling and a coming ice age in 1972, to global warming in 1998 when temperatures peaked, to a "pause" in global warming when temperatures stopped rising, and now we are calling it "climate change" because world temperatures are steady. This way any extreme weather event can be attributed to climate change: fires, floods, hurricanes - doesn't matter that these events have been occurring throughout recorded history.

It just doesn't past the logic test that a trace gas (CO2) which makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere and is rising at an annual rate of 3 parts per million is solely responsible for all extreme weather events across the world.

These scientists are dealing with a complex, chaotic, non-linear system - they cannot categorically rule out every other cause of change in the environment. Off the top of my head - what about solar flares? It gives me the ****s to hear that "the science is settled" and "scientists agree".

Do a little research for yourself bro, and don't take what Greta tells you at face value.

all of this

[chaunce54]

No. It really isn't. It will never be economically feasible. You're just going to end up with mass famines, nuclear war, and death. Developing the new tech could costs hundreds of billions of dollars. Nobody is going to do it privately, and you idiots won't let the govt do it, so we are fuked.

Damn bro, you'll believe any propaganda the media throws at you.

People want AFFORDABLE green alternatives, meaning there will be money to be made, which means private industry will develop them.


I mean, just look at Elon Musk...