[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / abdl / animu / asmr / cafechan / mde / sw / vg / zoo ]

/k/ - Weapons

Salt raifus and raifu accessories
8chan Cup Finals - Saturday, January 19 at 08:00 p.m. GMT
Winner of the 65rd Attention-Hungry Games
/cure/ - Your obscure board for medical-tan appreciation

December 2018 - 8chan Transparency Report
Email
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


There's no discharge in the war!

File: 87cceddc881b14d⋯.jpg (49.57 KB, 511x185, 511:185, 20190102_155605.jpg)

bae566  No.637059

We all know, Earth is past the “Point of no return” when it comes to climate change.  In 2016, we reached 405.1 PPM of CO2 in the atmosphere,which is set to raise the global temperature 2 degrees Celsius by 2035, or sooner.  All scientists agree this is the point where CO2 levels are so high it throws the whole balance of the climate cycle into MAD chaos; making it more difficult to predict climate changes, causing sea levels to rise, glaciers to melt, severe tropical storms, drought and flooding.  The worst part is scientist have been warning against our self-destructive behavior since 1992, and as a society we have done little to help!    

 

We also know that movies (aka – Hollywood) mimics reality, so the horrible truths in this world can be slowly socialized into acceptable practices.  There are now two movies which I believe are bringing a new reality to the forefront as part of a ‘climate change culling’ as initiated by the Government.  The first movie is “The Happening” (2008) and the second is “Bird Box” (2018). Both movies speak to a “wind-like presence” that causes people to kill themselves.  It seems ‘coincidental’ the movies were released 10 years apart, as we are now on the verge of killing off Earth itself.   

 

The Government already has the technology to vaporize a deadly poison (like Ricin) and then weaponize it by attaching it to a timed explosive device. We also know LSD can cause massive hallucinations, which if given in an overdosing amount can cause people to kill themselves.   You put these two technologies together and you have a VERY deadly WMD.  What if the Government know this?  What if the Government plans to use these technologies as a ‘culling’ to thin the herd that is society; to “save” humanity?  What if the Government has already starting testing? How many of us out there have had people we know die unexpectedly, for no reason at all?  What if underground ‘bunkers’ have already been built to save the ‘chosen’ (leaders of the world, ultra-wealthy, professions, physicians, engineers, etc.)  Thus leaving the rest of us on our own.  Finally, the real question here is, what will be the first city, or small town the Government will deploy this WMD to?   OR really is this why Trump has befriended Putin and we are pulling out of Syria?  Is that where it will be tested?  The greater good of the Earth holds in the balance and the Government knows something must be done to save it.  It is only a matter of time before the culling begins.

6a2577  No.637061

What are you implying? The government has our best interests at heart. Take your meds weirdo.


43401a  No.637064

>>637059

Climate change can do the culling all by itself. Rising food prices and water scarcity will trigger wars of massive scale, as well as make it much harder to grow populations given decreased resources. In the first world, however, you'll be just fine. Shit's just going to get expensive and you won't be able to afford as much. Rest assured that as an American, you will not be facing food or water shortages anytime soon. You might get drafted, though.


3454f3  No.637065

>implying we'd have global warming if shitskins weren't allowed to multiply like rabbits due to free western foodstuffs and weren't allowed to operate heavy industry


b13dcd  No.637066

>>637065

>>implying we have global warming

Assertion not accepted.


69d887  No.637077

File: 73a55c36d13f2a6⋯.png (148.82 KB, 480x360, 4:3, ClipboardImage.png)

>We also know that movies (aka – Hollywood) mimics reality


cc41f9  No.637178

>muh climate change!

>>>/leftypol/


80f323  No.637270

>>637065

>if shitskins weren't allowed to multiply like rabbits due to free western foodstuffs and weren't allowed to operate heavy industry

Like so many things it is a self solving problem or potentially nothing. The areas that are predicted to be absolutely fucking purged by climate change are the ones that are overpopulated and overpolluted. The developed and prosperous countries of the world are mostly found in the north and south, away from the worst affected regions (and many parts of them may actually become more pleasant places to live as a result of higher average temperatures). As long as these wealthy nations can resist the calls that they destroy themselves in an attempt to save the damned and lesser nations they'll come through in a potentially better situation than they're in now. That's one hell of an 'if', of course, but it's better than nothing.

The largest problem is going to be that most cities are located along coastlines and lower elevation ground, but when you look at the majority of city dwellers out there we might be better off after they are … removed from the equation.


0da02c  No.637273

Shut the fuck up, you enormous piece of shit. As a society we did little to help? Fuck you. The biggest producers of CO2 are the industries. The biggest water wastes come from the industries. Who owns the industries? The jews. So don't tell me that I'm at fault because my shower time is a little bit longer than they tell me to be or because I use a motor car, because it isn't.


46f267  No.637274

>>637270

>The developed and prosperous countries of the world are mostly found in the north and south, away from the worst affected regions

This is actually a bad thing. Because if it were the case that the first world were suffering because of the third world we might get off our ass and do something about it.

>The developed and prosperous countries of the world are mostly found in the north and south, away from the worst affected regions

And here we have the crux of the problem. There won't be a debate or calls of pity from the third world. They will simply immigrate en masse to the first world. Because unless the first world completely unifies and agrees to kill any outsider on sight all it takes is one nation to open the floodgates.


66e24e  No.637282

File: 6e9d6e1d7a91c00⋯.png (38.02 KB, 1078x794, 539:397, it's for you.png)

>a weapon to cull climate change

Just remove the tards who shill for it.


43401a  No.637295

>>637066

>we have global warming

Yes, we do. Please read the scientific literature on the subject. I can answer a few questions for youse guys, as a service for the yoots.


f57050  No.637296

>>637295

> Please read the scientific literature on the subject.

The same (((scientific literature))) that says that all 37 genders are equal, that race doesn't exist but Whites are genetically inferior and that fucking children is okay?


f8aed0  No.637297

>>637059

>Climate Change Culling Weapon

Why not a series of nuclear depth charges detonated at continental fault lines to make the Arabian peninsula and all its filth sink back into the Tethys?

Is that even possible?


c74372  No.637298

>>637295

>yes we do have climate change!

>just read all these establishment articles about how the peasants have to live pre-industrial lives while the rich and powerful can still live jetsetting extravagant lives.

>>>/leftypol/


43401a  No.637299

>>637296

You realize there is a large divide between the "soft" and "hard" sciences, right? No, it's not the same scientific literature. They aren't even published in the same journals. And I'm not aware of any actual scientific literature saying there's 37 genders. That's just a tumblr thing.

>that race doesn't exist but Whites are genetically inferior and that fucking children is okay?

Again, no scientific body holds that to be the case. This is why you should read some actual scientific journals and get an education.


43401a  No.637301

>>637298

>just read all these establishment articles about how the peasants have to live pre-industrial lives

There are actually conservative solutions to climate change. You don't actually have to live a pre-industrial life. That would defeat the whole purpose of implementing policy to prevent a lowering of living standards from happening.

>while the rich and powerful can still live jetsetting extravagant lives.

Eh, technically you in the first world will still be able to lead the life you lead. Climate change affects mostly poor nations, though things are going to get expensive for everyone.

Don't think of climate change as "catastrophic" as some leftist propagandists have made it out to be. It's not really that. Think of it as "expensive", which is what it really is. There are free market solutions as well as other policies that can help.

But that's beyond the point. Science is not politics. Anthropogenic global warming is a real thing, and so is the resulting climate change. What you do with that information is your business. You can do nothing. That's certainly an option (which might be considered the only viable one in some circles), but it doesn't change the facts.

I'm not the most versed in politics, so stick to the facts, and maybe we can have a nice discussion. Again, you can choose to do nothing with this information. That's beyond the realm of science.


66e24e  No.637302

File: 0fbd7e5e1fc181e⋯.jpg (191.22 KB, 783x1200, 261:400, yoda-read.jpg)

>>637295

>the scientific literature

Is not nearly as conclusive as you make it out to be and frequently contradicts itself. Even using the most conservative of the IPCC's estimates for temperature rise, the reality has consistently been more mild than what was projected. Further, even a cursory glance at the economic models used to predict climate change shows that they're effectively useless as predictors. There are so many free variables involved, and the range of acceptable values for each so high, that you can get the model to report whatever conclusions you want it to report and still have it be valid. When you look at the way detractors are treated in the climate community, it's clear that there's nothing scientific about the subject, it's just an end-of-the-world doomsaying cult. For instance, there's a report of a researcher who published a paper suggesting that muh climate change isn't responsible for increased intensity of tropical storms. Mind you, he still believed in rising temperatures, muh CO2 and advocated for a carbon tax and all of that gay shit, the only thing his research suggested was that maybe the climate change boogieman wasn't responsible for hurricanes. And for this minor deviation from the scriptures, the man was eviscerated by his peers, put on probation, and very nearly lost his job. The fact that you and other climate change shills turn to "scientific consensus" as your prime argument–an appeal to authority and popularity, from apparent scientists of all people–only makes this comparison clearer. And from scientists especially, this is rich–nearly all of the major discoveries in history are marked by a small number of detracting voices calling out the "scientific consensus" of the day. Gregor Mendell, Copernicus, Louis Pasteur, Charles Darwin, Robert Hooke, Watson and Crick, take your goddamn pick. All of them were the "climate deniers" of their day and age.

But let's assume all of this is bullshit. Let's pretend global warming isn't a fearmongering tactic to get dumb NPCs to accept higher taxes and give the federal government even more power over things that aren't its business. Even making that very generous concession, the proposed solutions are retarded. Carbon taxes don't fix anything, the UN proposals don't fix anything, and increased regulations don't fix anything. Deregulating the market and letting the Kuznets curve do its thing is the only viable solution to the non-problem of climate change. Jesus fucking Christ do some reading that isn't coming from good goy sources.

https://mises.org/wire/william-nordhaus-vs-un-climate-change-policy


5d0bcb  No.637303

>>637302

I'm glad you typed all that out, it was far more succinctly put than I could have managed.


43401a  No.637305

>>637302

>Is not nearly as conclusive as you make it out to be and frequently contradicts itself.

Please point out where you think this is the case. Before we go on any further, this one I think is a pretty bold claim.


3ade11  No.637306

>>637302

>>637302

Well put.

But!

>mises

>not good goyim


43401a  No.637307

>>637302

>But let's assume all of this is bullshit. Let's pretend global warming isn't a fearmongering tactic to get dumb NPCs to accept higher taxes and give the federal government even more power over things that aren't its business. Even making that very generous concession, the proposed solutions are retarded. Carbon taxes don't fix anything, the UN proposals don't fix anything, and increased regulations don't fix anything. Deregulating the market and letting the Kuznets curve do its thing is the only viable solution to the non-problem of climate change. Jesus fucking Christ do some reading that isn't coming from good goy sources.

You also did not read my previous post. I'm not here to talk about the politics, just the facts. If your solution is market deregulation and new technologies, then it's not that weird. It's a pretty common thought, and I assume there is some validity to it. However, it doesn't change the fact that global warming is real and is resulting in climate change.

>For instance, there's a report of a researcher who published a paper suggesting that muh climate change isn't responsible for increased intensity of tropical storms.

Name him and cite the paper. I can't just take you at your word.

>>637306

The singular of goyim is goy, goyfam.


66e24e  No.637309

>>637299

>You realize there is a large divide between the "soft" and "hard" sciences, right?

Climate science is a soft science. I'd even go as far as to say it's a social science as its implications are purely political and nothing else.

>>637305

The IPCC's own predictions have consistently failed to ber realized, like I just said. Beyond that, it doesn't take all that much digging to show that the "scientific consensus" (as shitty an argument as that is) is nowhere near as monolithic as you suggest. There are more than a few published papers that go against the climate change narrative, and you only have to do a quick web search to get a plethora of articles debunking the "97%" meme, showing that most of the studies included in that factoid aren't even climate scientists, and the compiler just tailored his data to spit out the factoid he wanted. Much like what the IPCC and UN do, funnily enough.

>>637306

Mises.org is anti-neocon, anti-leftist, anti-immigration, and one of its senior fellows wrote an article saying how much he hated jews because 90% of them are commies. You can disagree with lolbergism if you want but to call lolbergs good goys simply isn't true.

>>637307

>Name him and cite the paper

I read it three years ago. I'm not going to spend an hour trawling the internet to find the name and prove a minor point to some anonymous faggot, if you're that interested you can do that yourself. And if you're going to assume everyone who contradicts you is lying this conversation will go nowhere.


43401a  No.637312

>>637309

>Climate science is a soft science

It's not, but keep trying.

>I'd even go as far as to say it's a social science as its implications are purely political and nothing else.

No. It doesn't have to have any political implications. Now, if you don't like the solutions that might be viable, then that's fine, but it doesn't change the facts. In either case, the public has been misled about the effects of climate change. We're not looking at recreating Venus.

>The IPCC's own predictions have consistently failed to ber realized, like I just said

Yes, those have large margins of error, and have seriously fallen bellow the real numbers several times. This does not invalidate the scientific literature itself. The IPCC is not the only scientific body conducting climate research.

> Beyond that, it doesn't take all that much digging to show that the "scientific consensus" (as shitty an argument as that is) is nowhere near as monolithic as you suggest.

But I never mentioned the scientific consensus.

>There are more than a few published papers that go against the climate change narrative

Cite them.

>and you only have to do a quick web search to get a plethora of articles debunking the "97%"

You seem to think in talking points. Not once have I mentioned this precisely because it's irrelevant.

>I read it three years ago. I'm not going to spend an hour trawling the internet to find the name and prove a minor point to some anonymous faggot

Then we'll go ahead and discount what you said.

>And if you're going to assume everyone who contradicts you is lying this conversation will go nowhere.

If you contradict me with a claim, then you need to back up that claim. I can't just give you the pass. That's not how this works. If I claim that the guy you're talking about engaged in unethical practices and fudged data, would you believe me without evidence? Of course not, and neither should you.


43401a  No.637321

>>637309

>>637312

But let's go from talking to actual citations, shall we. The idea that atmospheric composition affects temperature is not a new idea.

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1897PASP....9...14A/0000014.000.html

It's actually more than 100 years old. So what does affect global temperature and climate as a result?

1. Insolation (solar activity, Milankovitchcycle, etc)

2. Concentration of aerosols (natural or anthropogenic)

3. Concentration of CO2 (methane breaks down into CO2)

Previously this wasn't the big topic that it is today, mostly because it pertained to research relating to Earth's past such as glaciations and so on. The science itself, however stands on very solid ground. But don't take my word for it, or any one scientis's word for it. Go look up on Research Gate (which is thankfully free), and try to find any article published in the last ten years rejecting climate change. You'll find that it's hard to do, and for every one you find, you'll find about 100 articles more that are far more cited than the one article. This is no longer a measure of consensus. It's a measure of how likely research is able to get through peer-review. As more data gathers, it becomes harder to be plain out wrong.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0270467617707079?journalCode=bsta


5d0bcb  No.637324

>>637321

No one's saying the climate isn't changing, I just don't agree that CO2 is the massive contributing factor they say it is or that the rapid and devastating changes being implied are going to be anywhere near as rapid or devastating as implied. That's the politicised bit.


f57050  No.637326

>>637299

>You realize there is a large divide between the "soft" and "hard" sciences, right?

And (((liberals))) are surely trying their best to mudden the threshold between them.


43401a  No.637328

>>637324

>I just don't agree that CO2 is the massive contributing factor they say it is

It doesn't matter whether you agree or not. CO2's absorption mechanism is well understood and has been for more than 100 years. It isn't only applicable to climate science.

>or that the rapid and devastating changes being implied are going to be anywhere near as rapid or devastating as implied.

In this you are correct. This is mostly media hype. We're not recreating Venus, as I've already mentioned.

>That's the politicised bit.

Yes, and unfortunately it means that many conservatives choose to ignore the science because they don't like the available solutions instead of coming up with their own. There isn't only one way to deal with this, if we choose to deal with it at all. As someone already mentioned, free market deregulation and the steady march of technology could very well be good enough. I'm not going to say I agree or disagree, but it is an answer.


43401a  No.637329

>>637326

It doesn't matter. You don't get published with shoddy research on climate science, or else any retard could make a paper and we wouldn't be having this conversation.


f57050  No.637335

>>637299

>Again, no scientific body holds that to be the case.

Wrong. Scientific evidence holds that to be the case. The "body" of the (((current scientific consensus))) had no qualms at all to fire and slander the very discoverer of the genetic code for expressing an opinion in agreement with said evidence.

I am personally not anywhere near being an anthropogenic climate change skeptic, because the greenhouse effect is real and there's a sound theoretical thermodynamic model behind it, but "science" that DEMANDS trillions of shekel every year for "further research" and most importantly social change is bad science and you must be a BigBang/Rick&Morty-tier science-fan to take seriously.


f57050  No.637336

>>637329

>any retard could make a paper and we wouldn't be having this conversation

>any retard

Now only left-lining retards are allowed to.


66e24e  No.637337

>>637326

You're not helping, gyros. Putting echoes around everything instead of addressing arguments makes you look like a retard.

>>637321

>You'll find that it's hard to do, and for every one you find, you'll find about 100 articles more that are far more cited than the one article. This is no longer a measure of consensus. It's a measure of how likely research is able to get through peer-review.

This only helps support the argument that climate science is an echo chamber-laden cult, and that gatekeepers prevent detractors from being heard.


5d0bcb  No.637340

>>637328

The mechanism isn't a single isolated one that represents the entirety of temperature fluctuation on this planet. And I don't think they've proven causality at all between the temperature on Earth and CO2 production.


f57050  No.637343

File: 7d772c38f75c4c2⋯.jpg (Spoiler Image, 1.15 MB, 800x1048, 100:131, IMG_4291.jpg)

>>637328

> because they don't like the available solutions

The solution would be to dump about 1 billion cubic meters more CO2 in the atmosphere.


f57050  No.637350

File: ada387213b4ddda⋯.jpg (323.93 KB, 768x1024, 3:4, pireus lion.jpg)

>>637337

> Putting echoes around everything instead of addressing arguments makes you look like a retard.

I am addressing that your (((arguments))) are politically charged new age mumbling and not actual science. If Al Gore and his academic circlejerk's models were anywhere near being right I would be typing this under the sea.


66e24e  No.637354

>>637350

>my (((arguments)))

Read my post again nigger, I'm not the climate change shill.


f57050  No.637357

>>637321

>It's a measure of how likely research is able to get through peer-review.

And the chances to get your research peer reviewed are (((totally not related to the author's political orientations))).


a2db57  No.637364

>>637059

>muh global warming!!!!

Why the fuck do even streloks fall for this shitty scare mongering?

>"Boo-hoo the sea levels will rise and cover everything, there will be no food, we will all die in a mad max-like apocalypse!"

How about you stop and think for two seconds, dipshit?

>temperatures will rise by 2 degrees

So sandniggers will have more deserts and your locality will grow more wine and bell peppers than before. Big fucking deal

>droughts

The moment they get serious, we'll just de-salinise sea water and use it to water our fields. Even far inland – if we can transport fucking oil from Caucasus all the way to Germany, we can transport water from the Baltic Sea to anywhere in Europe.

>floods

floods have happened for all of human history and people just lived with it. If you're so scared, just go live on a hill.

>sea levels rising

will only affect coastal areas, the majority of the landmass won't be affected.

The only danger are rapefugees using the situation to "flee" to countries with large gibs, and for that, the cure is a large amount of weaponry.


43401a  No.637369

>>637336

There are conservative climate scientists. Plenty of them. This denial seems only prevalent on American internet circles for some reason.

>This only helps support the argument that climate science is an echo chamber-laden cult, and that gatekeepers prevent detractors from being heard.

So because there are no papers arguing against evolution, this means that it's an echo chamber as well? You do realize that's a stupid thing to state, right? No, the reason things don't get through peer review is because there are mistakes, or outright contradict other well-known facts. If you're so adamant that it's ideologically-based, produce a letter of rejection on an anti-climate change paper. They state the reasons why the paper was rejected.

>The mechanism isn't a single isolated one that represents the entirety of temperature fluctuation on this planet

You are correct. The other two factors are insolation and aerosols. As solar activity has actually gone down in the recent decades, we have to assume that it's either aerosols or CO2. We haven't massively decreased dust particles or other such things in the air, nor has there been a natural occurrence that does this. So we have to assume it's not aerosols. But we have had a dramatic increase in CO2. What do you think is the culprit here for recent warming?

>And I don't think they've proven causality at all between the temperature on Earth and CO2 production.

It doesn't matter what you think. It's a fact that CO2 absorption is a real thing, and it's a fact that a greater concentration of it results in more absorption. If you disagree, then would you please also try to disprove whole fields of physics, since climate science isn't the only thing reliant on this fact.

>>637343

No. That would definitely make the problem worse.

>>637350

Al Gore is not a climatologist, and as such isn't a source for any studies on climate change. This is a strawman.

>>637357

No, they're not related. There are liberal and conservative climatologists, and their research intersects with other fields of study across different countries and disciplines. Unless you're implying there's a 100-year old liberal conspiracy to create climate change out of thin air (kek), this is so unlikely that it's not even worth considering.


a2db57  No.637371

>>637329

>any retard could make a paper and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Because that would be simply unheard of, right?

https://www.nature.com/news/over-half-of-psychology-studies-fail-reproducibility-test-1.18248


43401a  No.637372

>>637371

Psychology is not comparable to climate science. One is based on concrete numbers and measurable results across multiple disciplines unrelated to climate science, the other is not.


f57050  No.637377

File: efb6d63a1ea74d9⋯.jpg (113.23 KB, 791x444, 791:444, 5845355.jpg)

>>637369

>Unless you're implying there's a 100-year old liberal conspiracy

It's actually over 200 years old.


43401a  No.637379

>>637377

Okay, you're fucking retarded and not worth talking to. You're literally implying that vast portions of well known scientific facts with relations other than climate change are made up just because they support it. Nice job.


f57050  No.637380

File: c394acfc8bd13c2⋯.jpg (285.19 KB, 783x1128, 261:376, (((ENTOMOLOGY))) 2.jpg)

File: d7cece0dafba166⋯.jpg (653.83 KB, 1167x1646, 1167:1646, (((ENTOMOLOGY))).jpg)

>>637369

>So because there are no papers arguing against evolution, this means that it's an echo chamber as well?

It pretty much is, yes, pic related. The difference is that evolution can be demonstrated as whole with a simple look at existing organisms and the fossil record and that natural selection is a pretty "fascist" theory that does not particularly help fortify the leftist narrative of (((modern academia))).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism

and as a matter of fact forces the Academia to make some extreme philosophical acrobatics to discredit the process with buzzphrases like "teleonomy" and "all extant organisms are equally evolved".


f57050  No.637381

File: 7941968474785a0⋯.jpg (194.85 KB, 900x530, 90:53, Octobre_1793,_supplice_de_….jpg)

>>637379

>bawww the vast majority of (((modern western Academics))) are not intellectually dishonest left-lining propagandists

>Royal Society's scientific method and its tendency to debunk millennia-old misconceptions did not attract droves of libertine scum that gradually took over the Academia and made debunking conservative values the main drive of "scientific" research

Guillotine yourself, rebel cum.


43401a  No.637382

>>637380

> natural selection is a pretty "fascist" theory

It's not. It's just a scientific fact.

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism

Bullshit discredited by other scientists that actually had research behind them.

>buzzphrases like "teleonomy" and "all extant organisms are equally evolved".

Those aren't buzzwords. And all organisms are equally involved in the sense that all organisms right now are modern animals that fit into their niche. This is a tautology. As if to say "the newest models of cars are all the latest models."


43401a  No.637383

>>637381

Yeah, none of those are true. And I'm just going to ignore you because conspiratorial thinking has no room in a scientific debate. If you have a problem with the facts, please cite them and why you think they're wrong.


f57050  No.637384

>>637382

>all organisms are equally involved in the sense that all organisms right now are modern animals that fit into their niche

That "sense" does not make sense because is downright wrong.

>all organisms right now are modern animals

A cyanobacterio genus that has existed since the oxygen catastrophe is by no means as "modern" as a bird simply solely for still existing.

> that fit into their niche

Invasive species exist for a reason. Norwegian Rats certainly seem to fit better other species' niches, especially when it comes to places like Australia that had been an isolate refuge for evolutionarily outdated designs like marsupials.


f57050  No.637385

File: ade32dd167a92b4⋯.jpg (17.73 KB, 151x255, 151:255, goldberg joos.jpg)

>>637383

>m-muh conspiracy theories


43401a  No.637386

>>637384

>That "sense" does not make sense because is downright wrong.

The problem is you don't understand the theory, not the theory itself.

>A cyanobacterio genus that has existed since the oxygen catastrophe is by no means as "modern" as a bird simply solely for still existing.

It is the latest iteration of the organism. As such, it's as modern as any other organism. More complex != more evolved.

>Invasive species exist for a reason. Norwegian Rats certainly seem to fit better other species' niches, especially when it comes to places like Australia that had been an isolate refuge for evolutionarily outdated designs like marsupials.

This is completely in line with the theory of evolution. An external organism came in and took over a previous organism's niche. This is natural selection. Go take a class and come back when you aren't retarded. This is middle school science.


a8416a  No.637389

Sure thing Al Gore, I'll be sure to send you more money right away


f57050  No.637390

>>637382

>It is the latest iteration of the organism.

Good job demonstrating you have not the slightest clue how taxonomy works.

> "the newest models of cars are all the latest models."

Just because old designs still work and have no reason to be removed that does not make them "modern". I gave you a very specific example too.

There are genera of organisms that have existed for tens if not hundreds of millions of years with minor physiological changes and then there are genera that have only existed for a couple of million years. Rate of mutation is a better "measure of evolution" than simply counting years of existence.


f57050  No.637394

>>637386

>This is completely in line with the theory of evolution.

Yes. And the theory of evolution demonstrates that more evolved organisms have a strong tendency to outniche less evolved ones, that why ectothermic vertebrates largely replaced endotherms and why amphibians are globally endangered. Same reason we don't have therapsids and anapsids walking around lately.

>An external organism came in and took over a previous organism's niche.

Yes. Because having evolved under higher selective pressure it was more evolved and therefore more competitive. How hard is that for your egalitarian mind to grasp?

> Go take a class and come back when you aren't retarded. This is middle school science.

And apparently ruminating what your middle school teacher blackmailed you for participation trophies is all you can recite on the subject.


43401a  No.637400

>>637389

As previously stated, Al Gore is not a climatologist or any kind of scientist, and as such, irrelevant.

>>637390

Again, you don't understand anything and are making the same mistakes I previously pointed out. Re-read my post until you aren't retarded.

>>637394

>more evolved organisms

There is no such thing. Kill yourself.


f57050  No.637405

>>637400

>Again, you don't understand anything and are making the same mistakes I previously pointed out. Re-read my post until you aren't retarded.

>the only reason I had my non-arguments debunked is because just like Rick&Morty's comedy they were misinterpreted by low IQ people

>There is no such thing. Kill yourself.

Whatever helps you sleep at night, amoeba-boy.


fc3013  No.637407

File: d678fc036f9fef8⋯.jpg (606 KB, 3000x2000, 3:2, chinese air.jpg)

(An) answer is to bring manufacturing back from China, to Western countries that give a shit about environmental regulations and don't just dump all their shit into the sea/sky. Of course this would require more protectionist trade policies as well, for the obvious reason that everyone manufactures shit in China because it's cheap, and it's cheap because the Chinese don't give a fuck about the environment.


5d0bcb  No.637408

>>637407

We used to buy a lot of Honeywell stuff from Canada, you can tell that it's no longer manufactured there anymore.


f57050  No.637409

File: e77ae1202106485⋯.gif (77.71 KB, 600x306, 100:51, reforestation.gif)

>>637407

>doing something that would actually hurt (((their))) pockets instead of just blaming plant-food dumping White people for all the planet's problem

BAD GOY!


3a9601  No.637435

>>637407

But dude, are you implying that Apple should just make 800$ less profit on every electronic, manufactured by child slaves and ship them over here afterwards of course with giant container ships where each pollute the air moreso than 10k 70 year old diesel cars?

Are you some kind of Fascist-Communist?


174b40  No.637458

File: 87c13383c7408e3⋯.png (351.05 KB, 511x513, 511:513, Titanburger.PNG)

>>637059

>the world will freeze over by 1970!

>the world will become a desert and starve out by 1990!

>the world will flood by 2010!

>the world will be destroyed by storms by 2020!

Its all so tiresome.


b13dcd  No.637467

>>637295

>Please read the scientific literature on global warming

I have assessed the issue. As stated, I reject the assertion you take for granted.

>>637301

>There are actually conservative solutions to climate change.

Don't carry water for the enemy.


a81c45  No.637473

>>637295

>earth is coming out of an ice age

<global warming is an issue guys!

Wew lad. The real issue is pollution but that can actually be solved so it's sidelined.

>>637458

I distinctly remember being told back in 2009 the ice caps were going to melt and flood the world by 2014. Funny how that works.


43401a  No.637488

>>637458

You keep getting your science info from tabloids. Stop doing this and you'll stop being confused.

>>637467

>I have assessed the issue. As stated, I reject the assertion you take for granted.

You say this, but what exactly seems to be wrong or contradictory with current views on climate change?

>Don't carry water for the enemy.

I mean that's not a solution. That's just how you deal with problems stemming from it.

>>637473

>Wew lad. The real issue is pollution but that can actually be solved so it's sidelined.

You don't understand the issue. Yes, we are coming out of an ice age. The problem is that in the time that solar activity has actually gone down, temperatures have gone up. The current model is the explanation for why this is happening.

>I distinctly remember being told back in 2009 the ice caps were going to melt and flood the world by 2014. Funny how that works.

I distinctly remember none of that being published in a reputable scientific journal. Stop looking at CNN for your science news. Check sources and read the literature.


173f05  No.637492

>>637488

>doomsday climate change is real

SHTF scenario finally realized, and I get to justify my years of prepping. This is a positive outcome.

>doomsday climate change is false

Things continue as usual and humanity adapts to a changing world, as we've always done.

>climate change is false

Things continue as usual and humanity doesn't need to adapt.

The real question is, why should I care about climate change?


f57050  No.637495

>>637488

Modern Academia is a glorified tabloid.


b13dcd  No.637497

>>637435

>You say this, but what exactly seems to be wrong or contradictory with current views on climate change?

In case you haven't noticed, this topic has been rehashed to death for decades. You actually seem excited about the prospect of recapitulating "global warming argument #374298" where everyone goes through a choreographed argument reciting previously multitudinously discussed points. No one is going to convince the opposition at this point. In fact, we've gone through this in this very thread.

Allow me to reform you original retort:

>>637295

>>Jesus was only a man, if he existed at all.

>Jesus is your Lord God. Please read the holy bible on the subject. I can answer any questions you have about establishing a personal relationship with Christ.

How would that discussion unfold? Would either position learn anything new or sway their opponent? No. Same thing here.

I made my initial rejection of the assertion known to counter OP's blanket assertion of his faith as fact.

Again: assertion rejected. Tiresome debate declined.


fd2a71  No.637505

>>637302

Regardless of the existence of climate change, it is more than evident that the actions humanity has taken have greatly disrupted the ecosystem. We are currently in one of the largest extinction periods this planet has ever known as a direct result from pollution and development. Is that not enough to encourage environmentalism?


f57050  No.637507

>>637497

>it is more than evident that the actions humanity has taken have greatly disrupted the ecosystem. We are currently in one of the largest extinction periods this planet has ever known as a direct result from pollution and development

Welcome to 11,000 BC, mofo!


fd2a71  No.637514

File: fbf85fdbdf6a1e8⋯.png (5.16 KB, 243x190, 243:190, 1426115952036.png)

>>637507

>it going on for thousands of years somehow excuses it


fcfd0a  No.637518

Earth's climate changes by itself, we're too small to significantly affect it. Earth isn't going to get hotter, it's going to get colder. There will be another ice age, though not sure if it's going to be as bad as the last one.

Plus, the earth's climate was warmer during the middle ages according to scientific research.


66e24e  No.637519

File: 055c9f1a3b93a76⋯.png (170.47 KB, 600x450, 4:3, ClipboardImage.png)

>>637505

Pollution was an unavoidable part of human development and is what has allowed us to enjoy this immensely high standard of living. There's no need to "encourage environmentalism" through policy change, as once people reach a certain level of wealth, they begin to value the benefits of a cleaner environment more than the benefits of industrializing, and the level of pollution goes down through market forces. This is the only viable solution to muh pollution, because it's the only one that doesn't fly directly in the face of the incentives.


f57050  No.637527

>>637514

>somehow excuses it

That "somehow" is technological progress, increase to life expectancy and overall better quality of life.

If you don't prioritize those over your "carbon footprint" you are free to live in a cave like the dirty marxist hippie OP is.


43401a  No.637528

>>637492

> adapts to a changing world

The problems is that adaptation may mean more war, bigger expenses for the same or lowered standard of living and so on.

>The real question is, why should I care about climate change?

It's not that you should care. It's that you should accept facts as they are instead of trying to dream up conspiracies. If it doesn't affect how you live, then so be it. There is no standard reason to care about relativity, but since it isn't a politicized theory, you don't hear anyone here bitching about it when they have no expertise on the matter.

>>637495

You have no idea, as you're obviously uneducated.

>How would that discussion unfold? Would either position learn anything new or sway their opponent? No. Same thing here.

The difference is that climate change has independently verifiable evidence and mechanisms known outside of climate science, and predictions for well over 100 years. One is a verifiable fact, the other is not.

>>637505

This is a political question. It has no bearings on fact. As Ausanon already pointed out, he doesn't care, so he does nothing. This is as valid a choice as any other. It all depends on your value system. It, however, doesn't change the facts.

>>637518

This is all wrong. The medieval warm period was a localized event, not a global phenomenon.

>we're too small to significantly affect it

Drink some cyanide. A small portion will not affect you.

>Earth isn't going to get hotter, it's going to get colder.

Not according to literally every scientific paper on the subject in the last 20 years.


f57050  No.637529

>>637528

>You have no idea, as you're obviously uneducated.

You tried this again on the very same thread and had your ass handed over to you, amoeba-boy.


173f05  No.637531

>>637528

>The problems is that adaptation may mean more war

That's a bad thing?

>bigger expenses for the same or lowered standard of living and so on.

We're already living beyond our means, so a forced restructuring of our economy and expectations, while painful in the short-term, is necessary.

>It's that you should accept facts as they are instead of trying to dream up conspiracies.

I haven't done that in this thread. Perhaps keep your shitflinging to the Greek.


b13dcd  No.637532

>>637528

>One is a verifiable fact, the other is not.

Assertion rejected that your faith is somehow fact based, "unlike those other religions".


303352  No.637553

>/k/ - climate change

Man made climate change is a myth, and the notion that the planet's temperature rising a few celcius will lead to some sort of apocalypse is fucking stupid and wrong. I know this because unlike listening to modern "scientists" like the word of God, i'm not a historically illiterate retard and am aware that back during the Roman empire there were vineyards in the british isles, and the world didn't fucking end. It's almost as if the planets' temperature rising is counteracted by water vaporizing further, leading to increased moisture in the air which leads to more clouds and rain, which makes plants grow faster and in places where they weren't before, creating less carbonmonoxide and more oxygen in the air.


5902ae  No.637729

Climate change is real, but not man made. The Earth's axis rotates 1 degree every 72 years. That's whats called Procession. Watch Carl Munck's The Code. polite sage.


43401a  No.637761

>>637532

>quantifiable measurements and extrapolations from that are the exact same as believing in the sanctity of Jesus Christ.

First, that's retarded, and second, it's heretical. The whole point of faith is that you don't have evidence. It is why faith and doubt are two sides of the same coin. Those looking for evidence of God do not have faith. And those looking to create science out of faith, do not have evidence.


fd2a71  No.637778

>>637527

Technological progress doesn't need to always entail using gross amounts of resources. In fact, most investments are now in developing ways for using resources efficiently. Otherwise, you'll end up with shitholes like China, where over-development has actually harmed the quality of life.

>>637528

>This is a political question. It has no bearings on fact. As Ausanon already pointed out, he doesn't care, so he does nothing. This is as valid a choice as any other. It all depends on your value system. It, however, doesn't change the facts.

Of course it has huge implications. It means that we'll have to put even more resources into simple things like agriculture, waste disposal, and disease control.


f57050  No.637802

>>637778

>Technological progress doesn't need to always entail using gross amounts of resources. In fact, most investments are now in developing ways for using resources efficiently. Otherwise, you'll end up with shitholes like China, where over-development has actually harmed the quality of life.

Agreed but polluting and near-irreversible environmental degradation are pretty much proven inevitable before industrialization achieves a degree of well being where the populous starts giving essential fucks about conservation. See:

>>637409

Even soulless chinks have started rapid reforestation at this point.


43401a  No.637803

>>637778

>Of course it has huge implications

That may be, but some people don't like them, so they deny the facts. Others are quite okay with the implications and give no facts. Science can't tell you what you ought to do, only what is.


75f116  No.637866

File: 0614543a5b5cc8f⋯.jpg (264.34 KB, 2031x819, 677:273, maunder minimum.jpg)

>>637488

Despite how pretentious you sound, you have failed to actually provide sources for your claims. In particular, I'd like one for your claim that solar activity has "gone down" and what exactly what year you're using for your reference. From what I understand, solar activity has increased since the industrial revolution.

Most people here will not dispute that greenhouse gasses have an effect on climate. What is being contended is that there is a "runaway" warming effect. Whether this is due to the bullshit and unfounded theory that the planet's warming is allowing for a greater quantity of water vapor to accumulate in the air which in turn accelerates warming or the more reasonable one in which permafrost "caps" on methane deposits melt and cause release. I have also seen very little on how the stabilizing effects of changing global ocean currents impact this "runaway" effect.

Considering there have been much more volatile periods of Earth's history and ones with a significantly higher atmospheric CO2 concentration (the carboniferous period, to name one), it will be a tough sell to justify spending political capital on when more pressing environmental issues exist.

Again, consider using less pretentious language if you want people to take you seriously.


b13dcd  No.637867

>>637761

>it's heretical.

Oh, that's hilarious. Thank you for that. Notwithstanding, I have rejected the global warming faith as well as Jesus. I have assessed both of these faith debates and rejected their propositions.


e13183  No.637873

>>637298

I hope you mean that man-made climate change isn't real because climate tends to change every now and then with mini ice-ages, or periods of warming.


621a28  No.637879

>>637873

Well yeah, of course the climate changes. No shit. But global warming is a load of crap. There's been, what, 0.6 degrees of warming over the last 200 years? CO2 doesn't seem to do jack shit, solar activity is what matters. And it just so happens that there are fuck all sunspots right now.


2752ce  No.637885

>>637065

>This

We need to de-industrialize the 3rd world by force. We need to develop pure fusion bombs so we can take out their cities and industrial infrastructure, then unleash modified ebola virus on them


f8aed0  No.637932

>>637885

Just build a massive naval minefield+drone sentry network+walls around the Subsaharan part of the African continent and create an UN resolution forbidding anyone from entering or leaving lest they wish to be publically executed following a military tribunal, that should be enough to get subhuman population levels back to early 20th century levels within a few decades.


56c95d  No.637986

File: 484b9692c7d4e38⋯.jpg (30.03 KB, 550x578, 275:289, dont_do_that_2081.jpg)

>>637059

Imagine having such a gay opinion/understanding of LSD, and unironically thinking Trump and Putin are in cahoots.

It's much simpler than your tinfoil nonsense - we're killing the planet and can't share what's left. Eventually two (or >7 billion) tigers can't share the same mountain.


88aec0  No.638051

File: ce918e348f64090⋯.jpg (198.3 KB, 550x410, 55:41, global warming thermometer….jpg)

File: 8f724f19f6600ff⋯.jpg (168.36 KB, 960x720, 4:3, global warming3.jpg)

File: feefaa9c27468d6⋯.jpg (108.8 KB, 1116x528, 93:44, Global Warming Cyprian 3rd….jpg)

File: 5f139499ecb9b77⋯.jpg (682.34 KB, 1316x827, 1316:827, global warming thermometer….jpg)

File: 4b5251df1614392⋯.jpg (186.17 KB, 454x340, 227:170, global warming thermometer….jpg)

<We all know, Earth is past the “Point of no return” when it comes to climate change.

It was past the point of no return four billion years ago when it formed, since then the climate has never stopped changing.

Although climatologists did predict that there would be no ice in Greenland or on the north pole by 2016. That prediction is about as true as peak oil predictions in the 80s which gave us such fun movies as Mad Max.

<all scientists agree

Faggotry on my /k/

>The worst part is scientist have been warning against our self-destructive behavior since 1992, and as a society we have done little to help!

Actually "scientists" have been warning about mankind destroying nature since before ancient greece.

In the 70s it was peak oil nonsense and lack of food due to desertification giving us such movies as Mad Max and Soylent Green.

In the 80s it was pollution and d-d-demons!

In the 90s it was global warming giving us such movies as Waterworld.

Then in early 2000s it was global cooling giving us movies like The Day After Tomorrow and Absolute Zero.

From 2010-2015 onwards due to the climatologist files getting leaked showing everything they said was bullshit, they started promoting the idea of…. just… CHANGE. Because something changing in the future is a pretty solid bet, and they can be right forever. This mentality gives us such fun films as Sharknado…


88aec0  No.638055

>>637505

>We are currently in one of the largest extinction periods this planet has ever known

No we aren't. The current extinction period is actually lower than the background extinction rate between the great mass extinctions.


b13dcd  No.638059

>>638051

>This mentality gives us such fun films as Sharknado…

Possibly the one good thing to come from all this hoax and hysteria.

Any streloks remember the dotcom era, where everyone was making scads of money buying stock in any startup that had the word "web" in their business plan? I was very young but thought "WTF, this company's sole product is its stock price with no viable way to ever make money. Why are all these smart people saying this is the future of business? I must be missing something." Dotcom crash. They were wrong.

How about the rolling blackouts & brownouts in California back in the early 2000's? All the "smart" people said it was due to government dereg and overconsumption. I thought, "WTF, how is this suddenly a major problem? I must be missing something obvious that they just haven't mentioned." They were wrong. It was caused by secret manipulation of the market by Enron.

This GW shit is the same. That said, I won't argue against us building loads of nuclear fission power plants of a standardized design (and generally getting around to surpassing science and engineering from the 20th century), but "conveniently" that is completely off the table and only scams to fleece the taxpayers, like wind and solar power, are allowed.


43401a  No.638102

File: ec069f19120bb43⋯.png (396.13 KB, 2889x2209, 2889:2209, TvsTSI.png)

>>637866

Please explain this graph.


43401a  No.638103


f57050  No.638113

File: dbeb03bb7df2580⋯.jpg (37.07 KB, 445x500, 89:100, SIMITIS2.jpg)

>>638059

> where everyone was making scads of money buying stock in any startup that had the word "web" in their business plan? I was very young but thought "WTF, this company's sole product is its stock price with no viable way to ever make money. Why are all these smart people saying this is the future of business? I must be missing something." Dotcom crash. They were wrong.

My entire fucking country fell for that shit.


2d175b  No.638125

File: 5ed5ef924f049fc⋯.jpg (40.88 KB, 582x600, 97:100, laughing_murica.jpg)

File: 62ca6d5061b6ad7⋯.png (46.92 KB, 347x419, 347:419, the calamitous permian-tri….png)

>>637505

>We are currently in one of the largest extinction periods this planet has ever known

POST YFW YOU WILL NEVER BE THIS MUCH OF A LYING PIECE OF SHIT

>>637885

>>637932

>all this bullshit

>instead of just embargoing gibs


f8aed0  No.638129

File: a4b13c03291e3fa⋯.png (659.75 KB, 1200x877, 1200:877, mediterranean_sea_politica….png)

File: 1ab43f6b73b6d98⋯.jpg (166.03 KB, 838x559, 838:559, african troop transport la….jpg)

>>638125

>embargoing gibs

<what are pics related

Granted niggers are dumb as fuck but (((some))) would still put in the effort to ship them towards the promised land, citing the lack of foreign aid as a casus belli instead of some middle eastern civil war.


73e3d7  No.638306

>>638125

The holocene extinction event is not shown because it's not over yet, dumbass.


73e3d7  No.638307

>>637059

>Earth is past the “Point of no return” when it comes to climate change

Nigger you wot? We currently have technology to terraform entire fucking planets, we're not doing it because there's no point in it. If conditions on Earth are going to get shitty, you can bet your ass we will start terraforming it back to normal.

>fiction mimics reality

It's called "fiction" for a reason you double nigger.

>gas weapons

There's a very good reason nobody's using them you quadruple fucking nigger. The reason is that they require bullshit amounts of materials sprayed - by the fucking truckload per person, it's too expensive to kill people that way, not to mention the hazardous material fallout. Nobody's gonna do that crap, they'll just use bullets.

>>638102

>11 years

Wow it's fucking nothing. Cosmos exists on a scale of millions of years.


43401a  No.638330

>>638307

>Wow it's fucking nothing.

You know, if you read the scale at the bottom, you'll realize it goes back all the way to 1880.


73e3d7  No.638332

>>638330

Not sure where I even got the 11 years. Anyway the argument still holds. It's not even 100k years, so it's entirely meaningless on a cosmic scale.


433770  No.638345

I'm gonna be so pissed when the world goes to shit before I have a chance to die just because so many people are dumb enough to think climate change is a myth.


f57050  No.638404

File: a47ab184195b80d⋯.jpg (120.59 KB, 800x600, 4:3, The-End-is-nigh.jpg)

>>638345

>imagine constantly crying at the top of your lungs that the world is ending for half a century


f57050  No.638406


a2bac1  No.638416

>>638059

>That said, I won't argue against us building loads of nuclear fission power plants of a standardized design (and generally getting around to surpassing science and engineering from the 20th century), but "conveniently" that is completely off the table and only scams to fleece the taxpayers, like wind and solar power, are allowed.

^^^This. Nuclear power is the cleanest, "greenest" shit there is, but of course that would solve the problem and cause oil and coal prices to plummet if actually implemented, so instead they demonise nuclear waste as though it's a fucking doomsday device. It's not. The waste is limited, encapsulated in concrete containers that can literally take on a train without breaking, and then shoved deep underground. There is no fucking danger unless you're willfully retarded with its storage.

>muh Chernobyl

Caused by several different unlikely factors and severe breach of both construction parameters and operational procedures

>muh Fukushima

Well, what can I say, don't build nuclear power plants in places experiencing frequent earthquakes and tsunamis?

Nuclear power IS the optimal power source of the modern age, but it's not something kikes can profit at too much (certainly not as much as selling solar panels to hundreds of millions of dumb goyim). Austrians are the funniest fucking people – they protest against our nuclear power plant for decades because "it'll meldown and kill us all!", they even stick fucking roadsigns along the border calling for us to shut down the plant… WHILE BUYING FUCKING ELECTRICITY FROM US BECAUSE GUESS WHAT, THEIR SHITTY (((GREEN))) PLANTS DO NOT SUPPLY ENOUGH POWER TO SUSTAIN THEM


433770  No.638418

>>638307

>We currently have technology to terraform entire fucking planets

If this is true and yet we have neglected to even begin to change our planet for the better, then I have lost faith in humanity. Luckily, it's not true. All we have to do to make a positive impact on the world is turn our thermostats down a few degrees in the winter, turn them up a bit in the summer, maybe go slightly out of our way to produce less waste, ride bikes or walk instead of driving when a destination is within a few miles, etc.


b13dcd  No.638422

>>638345

I'm gonna be so pissed when you try to spin these statements you made back in CY+4 when nothing major has happened in 2050. "Gotta keep the faith," you will think, "the climate apocalypse is just around the corner! Our historical numbers were just a little off, but we fixed that now! How can't people believe?"

And you will wonder why you get compared to the people who read the bible and predict Jesus will return on date x, then "recalculate from the holy scripture" and realize it was supposed to be date y all along, then date z, then…


a2bac1  No.638424

>>638418

>Europe cucking itself to death with regulations and taxes in a twisted messiah syndrome to save the world

>China negates all those efforts in less than a year while its economy only grows stronger

Fuck you.


433770  No.638426

>>638422

I'm not saying there's gonna be an apocalypse in a meager 31 years. I'm just pretty sure that there are going to be major negative impacts on humanity by the end of my lifetime (50, 60 years). Sea level rise will displace millions of people, climate change will disrupt agriculture as we know it; surely the poorer nations will suffer first, but within our lifetimes it will begin to affect us in some way. Maybe it won't reach full-swing for a few hundred years, or even a thousand years, and maybe it won't cause a mass extinction, but we're only making it worse by doing absolutely nothing right now.

>>638424

I certainly don't believe that government interference is the correct way to solve the problem, as any government/corporate policy will be for the benefit of said government/corporation. The change we need will come from the masses making small sacrifices because they'd rather be safe than sorry.

Honestly, it's like a doctor has found a spot on your lung. You got 50 different opinions, and nobody seems certain exactly what it is, whether it's benign or malignant, or whether it will kill you, but they all agree that eating a certain diet or taking a certain free drug will cure it if it's malignant and cause no side-effects if it's benign. Humanity is refusing treatment because the diet contains a food they don't like or the pill is kinda hard to swallow.


a2bac1  No.638431

>>638426

You missed the point of my damn post. Literally nothing you do for the environment will matter whatsoever, because third world shitholes will make up for it a million times. You will ruin your country's economy just to delay your doomsday by a month or two.

Fortunately, global warming is fucking bullshit as other anons have pointed out, so it won't come to that. Oceans full of plastic and fish species going extinct, however – that is a real problem that won't go away until the shitholes are re-colonised


433770  No.638438

>>638431

>Oceans full of plastic and fish species going extinct, however – that is a real problem

Well, at least we can agree on that.

Let me ask you, because I'm interested in finding some common ground: do we have a pollution problem in general (not just the seas)? Could the problem be alleviated somewhat by using less fossil fuel? Could small sacrifices by the masses (using less electricity, driving less, etc.) and using sustainable energy generation techniques lead to using less fossil fuel?


a2bac1  No.638460

>>638438

>do we have a pollution problem in general (not just the seas)

we, as in Europe, USA, and civilised countries in general? No. At least as long as we aren't talking nigger ghettos and similar, but those are a different issue entirely.

>Could the problem be alleviated somewhat by using less fossil fuel?

In Europe, USA, etc.? There is no problem to alleviate. The filtration techniques used to minimalise the pollution from burning fossil fuels are advanced enough to render the issue moot. Still, you can never go wrong with nuclear to lessen your dependency on the oil jew.

>Could small sacrifices by the masses (using less electricity, driving less, etc.) and using sustainable energy generation techniques lead to using less fossil fuel?

Not in a significant amount. The idea of solar power plants and wind turbines and all that shit tends to ignore the fact that those things need to be manufactured, which causes significant pollution alone, and how inefficient they are. Do you really want to see coastline filled with nothing but those retarded windmills? I don't. As for people doing less of X… Even if you did that, remember that every time you choose to turn the termostat a degree down and shake with cold all day like a retard, there is at least a hundred chinks turning the termostat to 28 degrees celsius and keeping it on even when out on errands. You are literally the modern equivalent of a flagellant.


f57050  No.638479


f57050  No.638480

>>638426

>Sea level rise will displace millions of people,

Wasn't that supposed to have happened like a decade ago? Because every year I go to the same beaches and there's no visible change.


43401a  No.638510

>>638480

>Wasn't that supposed to have happened like a decade ago?

No. Stop reading tabloids.

>Because every year I go to the same beaches and there's no visible change

Yes, because clearly if you can't see something, it must not be happening.

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

>This. Nuclear power is the cleanest, "greenest" shit there is, but of course that would solve the problem and cause oil and coal prices to plummet if actually implemented, so instead they demonise nuclear waste as though it's a fucking doomsday device.

This is a problem, but there is a large portion of the scientific community, mostly conservative scientists, that advocate for more use of nuclear energy. Professional organizations exists for this kind of advocacy. You should get involved if that interests you.


43401a  No.638513

>>638332

> It's not even 100k years, so it's entirely meaningless on a cosmic scale.

Well, you are half right. It isn't that long a scale. The problem is that the rate of rise in temperature is quite high for this time span. What you think validates your beliefs actually discredits them. If a mountain grew in your country in the span of 50 years, I'm sure you'd like to know how that happened.


f57050  No.638521

>>638510

>don't believe your own eyes goy!

>believe the .gov instead


e458b5  No.640176

File: 0ad358cfd693594⋯.jpg (95.59 KB, 628x353, 628:353, klima modell.jpg)

File: 2e89dfe4e02f58c⋯.png (164.58 KB, 872x526, 436:263, klima One.png)

File: 48cbd30b983ff92⋯.png (370.55 KB, 1151x850, 1151:850, klima greenland_temps1.png)

File: 9077d63406b0700⋯.jpg (78.79 KB, 582x240, 97:40, klima human global-warming.jpg)

>>638510

>muh tabloids

Never the true Scotsman.




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / abdl / animu / asmr / cafechan / mde / sw / vg / zoo ]