[ art / civ / cult / cyb / diy / drg / feels / layer / lit / λ / q / r / sci / sec / tech / w / zzz ] archive provided by lainchan.jp

lainchan archive - /civ/ - 2822



File: 1478853398681.png (97.61 KB, 300x169, rare_aesthetic_stirner.jpg)

No.2822

i dont really care what trump does to america. Its all temporary and can be reversed by the next president if it turns out a particular policy was a mistake, no big deal.

Im not even too bothered about his appointed judges. They too will be replaced in 20 years or so. That isnt permanent either. plus, im not even american so those two things matter even less to me.

The one thing that does concern me is his attitude to climate change. I.e: he doesnt believe in it at all. Pence doesnt even believe in evolution. Trump has sworn to cut the ENTIRETY of the US's budget assigned to reducing emissions. He has sworn to back out of the Paris Agreement, which took years and years of delicate negotiation to achieve, and has promised to build the controversial Keystone pipeline and has the ridiculously childish policy that "i wont approve any new environmental regulations unless i can remove two for each one i accept".

im not super worried about the climate - i drive a car, i dont recycle enough, im pretty average in terms of my eco-consciousness, but i feel like Trumps decision to not even try at all on the environmental front is kind of concerning. The US is like 30% of global CO2 emissions, its a fucking big deal for the planet. Hes going to be dead before it all kicks off, so he doesnt care about making some quick bucks off of the environment, but I dont want to be dealing with another global migration crises when I'm in my middle age. Thats the only thing that actually concerns me about Trump.

Can any trump supporters assuage my fears and convince me it wont be as bad as i think it will be?

  No.2829

>>2822
yes, this is one of the very few things that concerned me a good deal about trump administration, even though I always preferred him to hillary. I'm not very much of an expert about climate change, but even if the evidences point out that it's really happening and the consensus among the scientific community is now more widespread, I think that's fair to say that the media made it look much more imminent than it is just to push their political agenda. Maybe we could already have a safe alternative in the space - mars- when climate change will really start becoming an existential threat.
Btw, remember that now peter thiel has a lot of influence over the trump administration and he's likely going to make some pressure so that they'll fund some futuristic project. It's gonna be interesting.

  No.2832

>>2829
Is there any evidence Peter Thiel has any influence over Trump?

  No.2833

>>2832
he just joined trump's transition team and he's the only big name of silicon valley that endorsed trump. He'll have a quite big political capital. I hope he'll spend it to push to administration to fund something like anti-aging researches.

  No.2834

>>2833
*the administration

  No.3025

Climate change isn't real and the more every one parrots that OH MY GURD THIS IS THE END OF THE LINE bullsoykaf the less people care.

  No.3029

>>3025
it's not the end of the line, but it's a big problem that needs to be planned for.

  No.3046

File: 1479453413613.png (24.8 KB, 200x180, going‮?.gif)

>>2832
>Is there any evidence Peter Thiel has any influence over Drumpf?
Plenty, Lain:
>http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/10/report-tech-investor-peter-thiel-will-donate-1-25m-to-Drumpf-campaign/
>http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/11/technology/peter-thiel-Drumpf-team/

Potential motives?
>https://news.bitcoin.com/peter-thiel-Drumpf-transition-team/

This in particular...
>"Thiel has repeatedly expressed the need for solid infrastructure around bitcoin as a currency"
Food for thought.

There's also this...
>http://www.inc.com/jeff-bercovici/peter-thiel-young-blood.html

Here we go...
>"Clinical trials like Ambrosia's can get blood from blood banks fairly easily for that purpose, but Ambrosia is a for-profit company. For it to begin selling transfusions as a service to patient clients like Thiel, it would presumably need to figure out a source other than non-profit blood banks."

  No.3047

>>3046
word-filters not letting us post accurate links? fu​cking really?

  No.3048


  No.3049

File: 1479456185290.png (288.48 KB, 200x200, understanding-earth-as-a-complex-system.pdf)

Climate change is legitimate. See attached source doc. Plenty more where that came from.

>>3048
>Climate change is a spook.
There's a drone with your data in it.

  No.3051

T.rump's position is pretty fuarrrking dangerous, but how would Clinton's TPP and imminent war with Russia help the climate more? It's pretty clear the establishment has doomed us, either way.

  No.3055

>>3048
If you are older than 15 and live closer to northern/southern poles, you can observe it with your eyes.

  No.3059

>>3051
>But Clinton this
The election is over, why bring her up ?
It's not like anyone still cares about her.

  No.3067

File: 1479486752531.png (89.25 KB, 100x200, all-seeing-why.jpg)

Murrican here.

Drumpf is the definition of a blowhard. He talks so big and contradicts himself so frequently that I don't think anybody really knows for sure exactly what is going through his head. We have no fuarrrking clue what he's going to do when he steps into the Oval Office.

We also have to remember that Drumpf doesn't have the entire Republican party behind him. It might have seemed that way towards the end of the election, but that's just how the election cycle works -- if someone doesn't get nominated, they don't have much of a choice but to try to ride on the coattails of the candidate that did. It's why the Zodiac Killer endorsed Drumpf and why SДИDЗЯS endorsed Clinton.

With this in mind, the Republican majority in congress doesn't seem so disconcerting. I predict that we'll have gridlock for four more years, and then Drumpf will be swept out of the White House in a landslide in the 2020 election as all his bluster comes back to bite him in the ass from which it came.

  No.3068

>>3051
Like >>3059 said, this is no longer about Clinton V. Drumpf, it's about opposition to the newly established order in Washington. An order that has now selected an attorney general who is strongly AGAINST all forms of drug use, he once claimed that the the only way he'd go against the KKK was if he found out they smoked pot.

Presently Drumpf is shaping up to be the candidate that is most likely to surround himself with Yeasayers and ass lickers in recent memory.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/Drumpf-administration-appointee-tracker/

  No.3071

>>3068
I think the best comparison is Ulysses S. Grant. Totally undisciplined, has no idea really what his underlings are doing, and has an administration corrupted beyond belief.

  No.3073

>>3071
That was actually my first reaction too, and grant was a divisive figure in a divided nation that did a lot of tarnish Lincolns legacy in the eyes of the north, and prove the point of a lot of the south who believed republicans were just using race issues as a way of furthering ulterior motives.

  No.3099

>>3068
The point I was trying to make is democracy has failed us. My biggest issue to take away from this election is the failure of the two-party system. Without good representation we cannot hope for meaningful change in our establishment. Ranked voting is a compelling alternative, for example.

  No.3146

File: 1479623375502.png (1.09 MB, 200x132, modern-system.jpg)

>>3099
>Without good representation we cannot hope for meaningful change in our establishment

How about increasing the ability of individuals to self-represent and vote directly on bills and amendments?

Seems like the more individuals a population gets, the less "representative" the representation becomes. How else do you ensure that alternative and minority voices aren't drowned out by populism?

How is it possible that one individual can possibly "represent" hundreds of thousands of individuals or millions when it's impossible for that many individuals to communicate effectively with the "representative"?

Moreover, how does a system where you can only vote for or against "representatives" you get to the original point of ensuring the proper debate of ideas and laws rather than "public personae" which are misleading by design? The current system of identity representation prevents everyone but politicians from having any say on laws which affect billions. It doesn't seem democratic or functional.

  No.3154

>>3146
These are exactly the questions we should be bringing up! These questions certainly would not be answered by allowing majority vote or keeping the two party/FPTP system, actually the points you've brought up is good criticism of the current voting system.

I like what I hear from ranked voting, but maybe we could do better?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE

Just to shoot off an idea: paid participation in voting, with basic education on a representative's previous achievements and pledges. The representatives we would vote for would be more akin to cabinet positions, not presidential. They would be of 'ranked voting' style, and would have representatives for each field for which the vote would count as a significant amount for (such as 40%), promoted by merit, of which this 40% in relevant fields would exclusively vote for. A head of cabinet would direct and approve of decisions from this group, of whom would be voted in the same manner as the cabinet members. All votes would be verifiable by a pseudonymous identifier accessible online.

  No.3160

>Pence doesnt even believe in evolution.
Belief in evolution is not evolutionary efficient strategy for the success of a group, compared to belief in a religion. It's one of reasons why the subconscious of a tribalist refuses to accept it. Mind of a person concerned with politics and territoriality usually only cares about evolution if it could feed their reward centers through tribalist programs (is it helpful for my group? is it helpful for my social status or will it make me ostracized? does it conform to the paradigm of my group that has proven to work?).

Interestingly, mind of an autist (concerned with factual information) would never be able to spin, appropriate and misinterpret the theory of evolution like tribalists in Nazi Germany did.

  No.3180

There's no evidence that climate change is man-made and if it is I don't think it's possible to get every fuarrrking nation on Earth to switch to clean energy without starting a nuclear war.

  No.3186

>>3180
>There's no evidence that climate change is man-made
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWXoRSIxyIU
(only 6min long)

> I don't think it's possible to get every fuarrrking nation on Earth to switch to clean energy


Fusion... will be ready when we need it. At that point it will become economicaly viable and technologicaly achivable!

  No.3190

>Donald Drumpf is poised to eliminate all climate change research conducted by Nasa as part of a crackdown on “politicized science”, his senior adviser on issues relating to the space agency has said.

Rip in piece, earth.

  No.3191

First it was global warming, but it turned out to be a scam so now it's climate change, certainly it's incoming doom, not just that some people have interest in pushing this to get more grants and donation. It's business

  No.3192

File: 1479900998346.png (40.32 KB, 200x169, figure1.jpg)

>The claim that anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for the current warming of Earth climate is scientifically insupportable because climate models are unreliable

http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/a-climate-of-belief/

In short - we can't make a good model that will tell us how raise of CO2 correlates with raise of temperature. Such models are unfalsifiable.

  No.3193

File: 1479902042069-0.png (49.99 KB, 200x66, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1479902042069-1.png (252.42 KB, 200x163, ClipboardImage.png)

>>3192
The guy didn't even use current models, claims uncertainty in his models are terrible, therefore all models are terrible.
"You (Frank) did not show any error propagation in a GCM - you showed it in a toy linear model that is completely divorced from either the GCMs or the real world. Statements you make about GCMs therefore have an information content of zero." [0]


[0] http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/what-the-ipcc-models-really-say/

  No.3194


  No.3196

>>3191
>First it was global warming, but it turned out to be a scam so now it's climate change, certainly it's incoming doom, not just that some people have interest in pushing this to get more grants and donation. It's business

it's always been climate change global warming was a media buzz word the caught on. global warming is the "hacker called 4chan" of environmental studies.

  No.3197

Drumpf will do no differently than any other republican president would do on climate change, and if all it takes is one republican president to send us over the edge, then we're already hopelessly fuarrrked.

  No.3198

Hello, I am Jon/Jan Smit, a random sample from the population.

I get the impression that there are arguments and sources and statistics and whatevers both for and against the claim that climate change has property X and Y and Z. Just like many of my peers, I am no expert on climate change, so the real scientific papers don't tell me much, not to mention I cannot differentiate them from journalism. For me, the whole climate change thing has come to a sort of "stall". Neither side can really convince me anymore, all their tools and wars are out of reach for me. I also have become vary of the topic as it seems to be riddled with all sorts of propaganda from all sides, from kindergarten to the cemetery, you see all sorts audiences being targeted with various, rapidly changing messages and intents. In a murky, propaganda and false-facts ridden landscape, not unlike quicksand, best not move or it swallows you up.

I have a college to get through, a job to perform well at, debts or rent to pay. I'd love to help, but I don't have all day and everyone seems to be working against each other. One side asks me to actively participate, invest time and energy into changing my ways and ideas, invest money in A++ Eco, do my share. The other party doesn't interact with me at all, we go about our business. I'm not sure if this is right or not, but I gotta get my soykaf together first.

  No.3205

File: 1479970006572.png (347.27 KB, 200x112, 2014-hottest-year?.jpg)

>falling for the climate change meme

  No.3206

>>3205
that graph looks like some pretty solid evidence for global warming...

  No.3214

>>3186
Don't forget, the Paris climate accord, and every country in the UN signed on (countries not in the UN don't have enough of an impact to matter). Unfortunately, conservatives want to back out.

  No.3219

My totally uninformed guess is that CO2 has very little to do with climate change. Some, I guess, but it's part of a natural carbon cycle that self-corrects in an equilibrium.

What concerns me is that whatever else china and india are pumping into the atmosphere with their more or less lasseiz faire pollution regulations.

  No.3245

>>3219
>natural carbon cycle
technically correct
>that self-corrects in an equilibrium
wtf does this mean? please read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change

  No.3247

File: 1480134882394.png (46.27 KB, 200x107, index.png)

>>3205
There is a 95% scientific consensus on the issue. The climate is changing according to temperature data from the last century and most scientists would agree that CO2 emissions are the cause. Also, you shouldn't omit data just because it doesn't support your conclusion.

>>3219
>CO2 has very little to do with climate change.
It isn't the worst greenhouse gas there is but it is the most abundant.
>it's part of a natural carbon cycle that self-corrects in an equilibrium
Also the state of the carbon on earth is not in equilibrium. It is in flux due to the burning of the trapped carbon deposits (oil, coal, natural gas). While it is true that the total amount of carbon on earth is in equilibrium, where it is located is not and its effect on the environment are not.

  No.3281

>>3247
don't we have increasingly less and less reliable data the further we go back in history? do they account for that by pointing out that even a 100% consensus would have shaky parts?

  No.3282

>>3247
>There is a 95% scientific consensus on the issue.
You fell for yet another meme, dude.

>This number will prove a new embarrassment to the pundits and press who use it. The number stems from a 2008 master's thesis by student Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at the University of Illinois, under the guidance of Peter Doran, an associate professor of Earth and environmental sciences. The two researchers obtained their results by conducting a survey of 10,257 Earth scientists. The survey results must have deeply disappointed the researchers - in the end, they chose to highlight the views of a subgroup of just 77 scientists, 75 of whom thought humans contributed to climate change. The ratio 75/77 produces the 97% figure that pundits now tout.

  No.3303

>>3219
There is a CO2 cycle, but we've steered wildly off of it in the recent years. Also note that there are multiple cycles going on at once, and we're currently supposed to be in for a long, relatively mellow bit, which is being offset by [something], everything pointing towards human influence. CO2 is one of the least harmful gases, really, but it's present in absurd amounts, and it doesn't take a physicist to see potential effects of it.

>>3281
Well, we have increasingly less reliability for each separate data point, but the methods require multiple points, which show an undeniable cycle from the past. It's hard to vouch for any separate bit, but they are all bound by the laws of physics and the trend as a whole would need countless statistically unlikely occurrences for it to be thought as false or even generally unreliable.

>>3282
Your post contains nearly no elaboration of your opinion, so it's hard to respond to any arguments since you didn't make any. I will point oout that there was no "cherry picking" in the study you mention - only 3 146 of the scientists responded, 79 were climate scientists, out of which two claimed the temperatures were relatively consistent from, and from the remaining 77, two said the human activity wasn't a significant factor.

There have been multiple studies about the scientific consensus, and I'm yet to see one that doesn't have an overwhelming opinion towards climate change existing and humanity having a significant part in it, so if you'd like to show a proper counter argument, please, go ahead.

  No.3458

>>2822
Fuck all future generations. The only one that matters is alive right fucking now.
He doesn't care about all the nerds crying about greenhouse bs and fake holes in the ozone so they can milk funding for some shitty project. Nobody cares. Stop lying about your research.
I think it's about time he cut the bullshit about electric cars and useless spaceship programs that waste so much taxpayer money.
>Focus on the people and current situation, not some pseudo theory based on skewed stats and political side agendas that have nothing to do with 99% of the population

  No.3459

>>3458
>Fuck all future generations.

conservatism in a nutshell

  No.3461

>>3458
That's literally the Dumbest fucking thing I've ever heard. Whys should we concentrate on the now? That's literally what got us into virtually all of our modern problems because the past generation was selfish. We need ton constantly look forward with a plan because moving forward without having 5,10, 20 and 50 year plan leads to inevitable crashes and burns.
>>3282
Even if climate change isn't man-caused that doesn't change the fact it is happening, so we should prepare for it. It also doesn't change the fact that alternative energy sources make more sense than relying on non-renewable resources that environmental disasters every other week.

  No.3463

>>3458
if you believe pisspoor scientists push climate change agenda for profit, you should have no objection in believing rich industries push anti-climate change agenda for profit

  No.3464

>>3463
Everybody should buy a Ford F150 and see what happens. It's not like any side have liability.

  No.3469

File: 1480703949624.png (22.12 KB, 200x148, CvWfslPWEAAewN_.jpg)

>>3463
>believing rich industries push anti-climate change agenda
Good thing Trump is against the elites.

>>3464
>Everybody should buy a Ford F150 and see what happens
As long as it's made in the USA, that would be a good start.

>>3459
>lets waste taxpayer money on useless shit that benefits 1% of the 1%. poverty doesn't exist in a "global" economy (because an enslaved population doesn't count)
liberalism in a nutshell

>>3462
Thanks for the bump

>>3461
>past generation was selfish
Let's blame our parents for the worlds problems like a whiny little bitch and remain ignorant even after 28 years of shitty democrats. No the bu$h family do NOT count as republicans. Republicans do not start wars over stupid shit like oil pipielines and muh freedom police.

>>2822
>im not super worried about the climate
Keep this mindset rather than waste time everyday being a silly bitch about recycling or worrying about the climate change boogeyman. You'll be just fine as the rest of these idiots try to scam funding for useless science projects and make-work schemes with no real benefit to society.

  No.3471

File: 1480705158932.png (61.41 KB, 200x113, 1464303085670.png)

>>3469
>Good thing Trump is against the elites.
Prove it? He's done nothing but select elites for all economic related positions. That was just his faux populist pandering.

>As long as it's made in the USA, that would be a good start.

Ford makes shitty Trucks. Nissan and Toyota trucks consistently last longer. Besides, why would I support a country that consistently wants to fuck me?

>Let's blame our parents for the worlds problems like a whiny little bitch and remain ignorant even after 28 years of shitty democrats. No the bu$h family do NOT count as republicans. Republicans do not start wars over stupid shit like oil pipielines and muh freedom police.


Then when was the last "real" republican? Reagan? Nixon? Who started dumbass wars on drugs that cost more money and lives than oil wars? Who both repeatedly lied to the American people? Who both committed high treason against the country?

Do you just wait for Bannon and Co to tell you how oppressed you are and how the globalist boogeymen are out to get you and your good old American values?

  No.3472

>>3470
It's sad to see the global warming became the part of the liberal/conservative cat fights. No doubt Cruz is a great lawyer, but Mair should just say climate change (not using "global warming") doesn't necessarily means warm winters.

  No.3475

File: 1480708990483.png (176.06 KB, 166x200, CtVDvgsW8AAXjJG.jpg)

>>3470
Your post is the gayest thing I've read in a while. >What's it like?
I wouldn't know the feeling but I imagine it's like how you felt when Hillary lost.

>>3471
>Prove it?
no, pleb. look at the facts and prove it to yourself. Doesn't matter who he appoints, you guys would say the same shit about some guy off the street. Nothing has even transpired yet and you're all calling boogeyman.
>why would I support a country that consistently wants to fuck me?
Was this before or after Trump won? Just get the fuck out already you hypocrite.
>Then when was the last "real" republican?
You guys like to conveniently forget Lincoln, yeah, the original Republican President that freed the slaves but whatever. muh racism, muh oppression whispering, etc.

  No.3481

>>3475
>Just get the fuck out
Have you ever considered that maybe it is more difficult than that? People who complain about their country do so because it treats them like shit, meaning it is highly unlikely any of them could afford to just fly off and live somewhere else. And its not like moneys the only problem, they would have to start an entirely new life away from their friends and family along with a plethora of other issues.

  No.3484

>>3481

I forget what civil rights leader said it, but complaining doesn't effect change. Whining about your issues without trying to change anything isn't the 'american way'.

If you're so fucking salty about the trump win, start by working with your community to try to mitigate the perceived damage that dahnald is causing. Talk to some people who voted for him and ask them why. Try no to dismiss their opinions.

  No.3485

File: 1480715154271-0.png (356.7 KB, 200x198, 1422362742180.png)

File: 1480715154271-1.png (83.75 KB, 200x150, 1429069430972.jpg)

>>3484
>Whining about your issues without trying to change anything isn't the 'american way'.
>America was literally founded on pilgrims running away from religious persecution rather than staying in England and doing something about it

  No.3486

>>3475
>referring to Lincoln as anything other than "the single-minded son of the working class"
If we're going off of historical/cultural definitions then Robespierre and James Connolly were republicans. Bears very little relation to 20th century republican conservatism.

It's like saying Rothbard and Bakunin were both libertarians.

>>3485
So much this

  No.3487

>>3485
But running away is doing something about it.
...Or am I missing something here?

  No.3492

File: 1480723453053.png (53.86 KB, 200x118, Hiring Organizers to Fight Trump.jpg)

I'll just leave this here.

  No.3493

>>3485
>implying if there was still a frontier you wouldn't settle the fuck out of it

  No.3497

File: 1480725545926.png (11.74 MB, 200x151, Michael Crichton on Environmentalism as a Religion.webm)


  No.3498

>>3497
>we need a scientific approach

so.... we need to recognize that lcimate change is a looming environmental disaster?

  No.3500

>>3498
No. We just need to stop spreading memes that masquerade as baseless science projects.
Please, tell me again how we should invest in your technology to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Just don't call it "greenhouse effect" but instead use the term "climate change" so we don't look like lying pieces of shit.

  No.3505

>>3498
The whole point was that jumping to conclusions and referring to the theory of man-made global climate change as a looming environmental disaster, despite both significant lack of real evidence(not the sensationalized, politically biased charts and graphs which get passed off as real evidence) and real evidence to the contrary, resembles religious dogma more than it does science.

There have literally been people who committed suicide in fear of this supposed looming disaster. I am not making that up, but I cannot find citations at the moment. That is almost reminiscent of suicide cults. If this theory is finally and conclusively debunked one day, it will make us all in this time period look like incredible savages for doing this to people, for inducing panic and anxiety over an issue that turned out to be not as real as we thought it was.

I used to be an avid believer in global warming or the greenhouse effect back when we called it that, but after Al Gore released an Inconvenient Truth, a documentary that climatologists have criticized for its blatant exaggerations and misconceptions, I began to question the entire thing.

Socialists, Marxists, etcetera had been trying to get the general public to side against capitalism in the west for decades, but it never quite worked due to our deeply ingrained dependence on private enterprise. With environmentalism however, now there is an apparently scientific reason to hate the big bad evil corporations who pollute. That's all a bit too convenient.

The more offended people become form others picking apart environmentalist rhetoric, the more that serves as evidence to the idea of environmentalism as a form of religion.

  No.3511

File: 1480763367254.png (288.63 KB, 200x161, Madame de Pompadour.jpg)

>>3505
>>3505
>committed suicide in fear of this

Rebranded depression.

>Socialists, Marxists, etcetera had been trying to get the general public to side against capitalism


This is absurd. If it's a socialist agenda why Prius, Leaf and Model S is their (the light green) favored car? Of course we can look away in the hope, the Earth will still fine or just because our current lifestyle isn't sustainable and we isn't on a tiny island, so we are safe. Après nous le déluge.

  No.3512

Ttump said there's no climate change. Why would he lie?

  No.3530

>>3511
Well that's the funny thing about ideologies. They are developed, discussed, documented, and pushed by so many individuals, encompassing so many conflicting opinions under general causes, and used for so many different purposes, that there are always glaring conflicts of interests. That's just the ideological side. It goes without saying that every movement has its nihilistic pretenders or just those who do not care to contemplate it deeply.

At its ideological root, environmentalism may have vaguely become a part of Marxism, but remember that Marxism itself has been exploited and advanced throughout history for the profit of a few.

In your argument, which is true, you have come across one such conflict of interest where the reality of the movement strays away from following its ideology.

In its poetic conception among idealists(the way I thought of it as a child), environmentalism is about saving us from transforming the Earth into an apocalyptic hell while also pursuing a utopian vision of the Garden of Eden. The reality? We use environmentalism to sell merchandise, because money makes things move.

  No.3534

>>3500
>despite both significant lack of real evidence(not the sensationalized, politically biased charts and graphs which get passed off as real evidence) and real evidence to the contrary, resembles religious dogma more than it does science.

again, what lack of real evidence? Or are we getting to the point where climate change deniers simply say any evidence that climate change is happening and is bad(coral bleaching, measurable ice melting, pathogen-carrying mosquito range changes, etc.) is fabricated?

>There have literally been people who committed suicide in fear of this supposed looming disaster.


who?

>With environmentalism however, now there is an apparently scientific reason to hate the big bad evil corporations who pollute. That's all a bit too convenient.


Ever heard of "green capitalism"? It's all the rage. Most of the 'environmentalist left' is made up of social democrats, who don't want to get rid of capitalism but just want to make it work better.

>>3512
Why did Exxon lie? Because it's in their interests.

  No.3537

>>3534
There are different degrees of truth. I am not saying the evidence to support the theory of man made climate change is all made up in secret laboratories run by the Smoking Man from the X-files or something like that. The scientific method can be conducted in a completely legitimate way, but the research and especially reports on the findings can be skewed according to the biases of those involved, sometimes without such people even being aware. That's a human thing we are all prone to committing. I feel that people who absolutely believe in this theory have placed too much faith in journalism and academia. Journalists and climatologists may very well be accomplished and intelligent people, but they are still just people, and as such their opinions are no more valid than anyone else's to me.

I do not think these people are lying. They believe what they are saying, but belief can be blind. I am still an environmentalist at heart in matters other than climate change, so I understand the profound attachment and concern we have with nature. Because of that I know how much this emotional concern can distort our ability to confront the truth. It's inherently easier to not question one's own beliefs.

As for the thing about suicide and environmentalism, it's the kind of report I hear on the radio or read in passing but then months later can never find in a Google search, but I distinctly remember hearing and reading it. I was hoping another Lainanon would find some of that since I am unable. I remember when I was a firm believer in the greenhouse effect theory, I did get legitimately depressed by it, not to the point of suicide, but it was one of many compiled burdens that contributed to a feeling of helplessness and loneliness because seemingly no one else cared. That was over a decade ago though.

With eco-capitalism, I am honestly all for that as long as it does not need to be subsidized. Most of the mentality I know is from the 2000s, when eco-industry was not really anything other than a few pipe dreams on TechTV reports. Green capitalism needed to be government funded to get off the ground it seems, and that was the legacy of the Obama administration. It made solar panels more cost effective, so I cannot complain.

Oh also this is non sequitur, but has anyone ever heard of all the self-sustaining systems George Bush's ranch was built with? Passive cooling, solar panels, etc. I always found it ironic.

  No.3578

The climate has always been changing and the poles can change their positions in accordance with the climate change as well. Since there has been several major climate changes long before the industrial age, it does not seem likely that man made pollution is the main cause of the climate change.
However, man made pollution reduces the quality of the life experience for many people. In my own experience I can for example not drink or fish from several local lakes since they've been polluted and are no longer safe to drink/eat the fish from. In my country of residence they also use the climate fear mongering to introduce many environmental taxes, even though this country represents less than 1% on the global scale of pollution.

I don't recycle everything or go full on environmentalist but I still respect our planet and do my best never to pollute my environment with trash. If only more people could realize that our collective life experience would be better if we simply didn't treat our planet like shit. I don't think humanity is the main causation of climate change but humanity is responsible for making our environment worse. It doesn't seem to matter wherever you go but where there's humans, there's trash and other effects of the mistreatment of Earth.

I'm not sure where trump really stands on this issue but hopefully for the better. We'll see.

  No.3594

>>3578
>Since there has been several major climate changes long before the industrial age, it does not seem likely that man made pollution is the main cause of the climate change.

those changes are usually either much slower or much less pronounced than the climate change we're seeing now. For reference, here's a rough estimate of how much the climate has changed in the past few thousand years.

https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/earth_temperature_timeline.png

Now, this can't show very acute spikes, so there's a slight chance that we'll see the temperature spike in a few decades and rapidly go back down to normal levels. That's unlikely though, because that energy has to go somewhere and most of the processes that get rid of energy(radiation into the upper atmosphere, storage in various plant/animal life, etc.) are very slow.

>If only more people could realize that our collective life experience would be better if we simply didn't treat our planet like shit.


realistically I think it's because the various institutions in charge of things are more interested in other things(their own power, usually) than what the living environment of others is like, especially the lower classes who take the brunt of pollution-related problems.

  No.3612

>>3594
Precisely, climate change isn't inherently new to the planet, but the rate at which modern climate change is occurring IS new.

  No.3643

>>3512
Al Gore said there was man-made global warming. Why would he lie?

It's not like he's some sort of politician or anything.

  No.3644

>>3612
Then that means we should probably keep it from progressing so fast, eh?


  No.3648

>>3646
for the record, I've been steadily cutting meat and dairy out of my diet for the past year and a half or so.
My concern with political vegetarianism / veganism is that the actions of an individual are limited by their circumstances, and what institutions have made available to them.

In the United States, for instance, the meat industry gets massive subsidies from the federal government, so they can keep a monopoly on food. Also because they subsidize meat production, more meat is produced than is ever consumed, so this produces a ton of waste and emissions.
(agriculture gets these subsidies too)

What this changes on the individual level is the cost of meat. There's also the matter that it's hard to avoid meat when your survival relies on an institution or community which doesn't cater to vegetarian / vegan diets.

While it is still theoretically cheaper not to eat meat, and there's plenty of cheap vegan diets and meals you can find online, finding those guides also takes a degree of free time which people who have to work 12 hours a day on several part-time jobs don't. If you're poor, broke, or homeless, you don't get to choose a vegan diet because you don't have the money or time to pursue it.

This doesn't change the fact that avoiding meat is a good idea, but the attitudes I see taken by a lot of political vegetarians / vegans is that someone's a -bad person- for eating meat, which completely ignores the class-based barriers or other circumstances in someone's life preventing them from doing it. I feel like these mindsets cause a lot of people to shy away from veganism, and that shying away is often branded as making excuses. While it sometimes is, this is still ignoring the very real circumstances around people's diets.

  No.3649

>>3646
meat is my guilty pleasure.

  No.3652

>>3648
also, I immediately regret bringing up veganism on lainchan because it will almost surely turn into an argument between obnoxious vegans and even more obnoxious anti-vegans. Anti-vegans being the more obnoxious because vegans are actually motivated to do something, and are able to do it without being obnoxious, whereas anti-vegans are only motivated to yell at people who say they're vegan on the internet.

  No.3653

>>3612
The planet is what... 7,000,000,000 years old?
Ice core data goes back about 400,000 years.
This guy's >>3594 web comic evidence goes back 22,000 years.

>Tuesday - had light wind

>Wednesday - had stronger gusts
>Thursday - was calm
>Friday - had light wind
>Saturday - had a FUCKING TORNADO
>forecast for Sunday - TWO FUCKING TORNADOES
>forecast for Monday - ZOMG ARMAGEDDON

When climate "scientists" can make accurate predictions, a feat that has proven elusive so far, I'll start to take them seriously. Until then, they're just philosophers and useful idiots.

  No.3654

>>3653
>When climate "scientists" can make accurate predictions

a) they know more about this than you ever will, b) they do make accurate predictions. You know average global temperatures? Going up. You know rates of droughts? Going up. You know ice melt rates? Going up.

If you wait until the predictions come true, you're basically saying "I'm going to wait until the problem is unmanageable before I do anything about it", which is a really shitty way to make decisions.

  No.3655

File: 1481545466231.png (861.23 KB, 200x180, CMIP5-90-models-global-Tsfc-vs-obs-thru-2013.png)

>>3654
An appeal to authority right off the bat. Nice.

About 50 billion dollars of grant money flows annually into the pockets of those peddling anthropogenic climate change. If there is no anthropogenic climate change, the money dries up. This is a big money industry. Always follow the money, it tells a story.

As for predictions, where is the catastrophe?
The "problem" was already supposed to be unmanageable by now, wasn't it?
Yet polar bears still live, coastal cities and small islands have not been claimed by the sea, flora and fauna have not suffered mass extinctions, and neither have human populations.

Almost all predictions that have been fed to the public have been exaggerated... hence the distrust exhibited by many. It now seems likely that what is happening is the observation of a trend over a relatively short period of time and the recognition of politicians and scientists alike that this trend can be exploited for their own benefit.

As for shitty ways to make decisions, accepting draconian taxes and progress-crushing regulations to help maybe prevent a thing that may not actually be happening because of the reasons we think it's happening should top the list... unless you don't live in a developing country, in which case, I guess you can just tell those who do to fuck right off... they can't develop because you want to fight the boogeyman.

  No.3656

>>3655
yes global warming is surely a grand conspiracy that all politicians are in on ,never mind the fact they can't agree on the best tea making method in normal circumstance. All scientists are in on it too because they just want the funding money, money they would NEVER get doing any other research.

And we are all sheeple with minds poisoned to believe their lies. Apart from you, the chosen few, who can see through the lies with no independent research. Spreading the good word with low resolution, poorly labelled and unsourced graphs.

  No.3658

>>3656
People follow incentives. Climate change scientists have much stronger incentives to lie than to tell the truth.

  No.3659

>>3658
such as?

  No.3660

>>3658
Which scientists? Do you have a source? Do you have data that disproves climate change? Or an explanation as to why the climate is rising?

The burden of proof is on you chummer, and i feel like you have no idea what your talking about.

  No.3661

>>3658
It's easier to believe that scientist are following the money than it is believe that energy corporations and most manufacturing corporations for the last 100 years are lying about their carbon footprints doing irreplaceable damage to the planet?

  No.3662

>>3661
Maybe the corporations are following the money?

  No.3665

>>3655
>An appeal to authority right off the bat. Nice.

It would be disingenious to pretend like either of us actually understand the science and can be expected to know it all.

>About 50 billion dollars of grant money flows annually into the pockets of those peddling anthropogenic climate change.


if the fact that people get money is proof they're lying, then maybe youl should look into the money that flows into climate change denial lobbying firms. Unfortunately, that's not exactly public, so maybe you should be *more* suspicious. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/

>As for predictions, where is the catastrophe?


California is experiencing a 100-year drought right now. A couple months ago India had monsoon heat with no monsoon storm. And, like I said, if you wait until shit hits the fan to do anything about it, you're being an idiot.

>coastal cities and small islands have not been claimed by the sea, flora and fauna have not suffered mass extinctions


Arguably we are currently undergoing a mass extinction. I know that coral bleaching is becoming a major problem.

>As for shitty ways to make decisions, accepting draconian taxes and progress-crushing regulations to help maybe prevent a thing that may not actually be happening because of the reasons we think it's happening should top the list


It's called prevention. Do you think military planners ignore the worst-case scenario, even if there's a pretty good chance it won't happen? No, they plan for it and they take steps to mitigate it. The correct way to make decisions is, you plan for the worst-case scenario.

>image

doesn't really change shit. Science means your predictions are wrong all the time, but the more you're wrong the less the parts that *aren't* wrong are true.

Also, if anyone is interested, that image comes from this website http://www.drroyspencer.com/ He doesn't appear to think that manmade global warming is false, he just has this very defeatist and free-market attitude about it.

>The only part that is relatively settled is that adding CO2 to the atmosphere has probably contributed to recent warming.

>And it surely does not mean we can do anything about it… even if we wanted to.

  No.3666

File: 1481572249975.png (415.22 KB, 200x130, ottmar.png)

>>3656
You'd believe it if I said Exxon, WalMart, and Monsanto were behind some nefarious global plot.

>>3660
Actually, the burden of proof is on the people making the initial claims... you, the climate alarmists. You cannot prove that it isn't part of a natural cycle. If you could, this whole discussion would be over on its own merits and not because some charismatic leaders say it's over. All you have is the word of some "experts" and politicians who both have a vested interest in exaggerating... well, that and your unquestioning religious devotion to their dogma.

  No.3669

>>3666
>You cannot prove that it isn't part of a natural cycle.

Depends on your standards of proof. You can't exactly do a controlled experiment on the entire worldwide climate.

  No.3671

>>3665
>California is experiencing a 100-year drought right now.

I goofed a bit. This should read:

>California is experiencing a 100-year drought right now, and the last one ended in 1992.

  No.3672

>>3665
>It would be disingenuous...
We do agree on that. Yet one of us refuses to question authority.

>money

and power

>weather events...

are not climate

>coral bleaching

That's a stretch and a far cry from the doom and gloom we've been fed for the last couple of decades.

>prevention

But not prevention of a political power grab. In fact, it enables that... almost like it's a feature of the whole thing.

>defeatist, free market boogeyman

His attitude somehow negates the validity of the data showing grossly overestimated predictions? Alarmists have actually said that the observations must be wrong if the contradict the models. Seems like a backwards way of looking at things... about the same as "If it's in my King James version, it's true."

>relatively... probably... does not mean we can do anything about it

I like when we agree on things.

  No.3673

>>3672
>Yet one of us refuses to question authority.

where'd you get that idea? I question authority, and through my questioning I decided authority was correct in this case.

>>weather events...

>are not climate

intrinsically linked. And increased incedence extreme weather events have been a staple prediction for decades.

>But not prevention of a political power grab. In fact, it enables that... almost like it's a feature of the whole thing.


nice sidestep. Whether politicians are using climate science to grab power has nothing to do with whether it's actually happening.

>His attitude somehow negates the validity of the data showing grossly overestimated predictions?


no, but the fact of the matter is, even your sources disagree with you. Manmade climate change is happening.

  No.3674

>>3673
>weather events and climate are intrinsically linked
Except when it's a mild summer or cold winter, right?

>manmade

See, that's the part for which there is no real proof.
That, on a planet that is billions of years old, climate changes in ways we have not yet observed is a perfectly reasonable position to hold.
That, with a maximum of 400,000 years of information to go on, we know exactly what is causing it and what must be taxed and controlled to help stop it is not so reasonable.

  No.3676

>>3674
>See, that's the part for which there is no real proof.

what is your standard of proof?

  No.3677

The notion that climate change is a purely political agenda motivated by government and/or corporate desires to tax the shit out of everyone (or whatever) is ludicrous. The various entities promoting climate change denial (and related disinformation) are far more numerous and resourceful than their opponents (or targets). They are, after all, the products of the most powerful institutions in the world: the controllers of oil and lesser fossil fuels. The discourse has been irrevocably poisoned, as can be seen from the amount of misinformation perpetrated even in logically-minded forums like this one.

Of course, it all doesn't matter, because the climate is already cooked (not to mention our other environmental problems). Catastrophe is inevitable and imminent. The only worthwhile response to climate deniers is "OK, wait and see".

  No.3678

File: 1481608247902.png (91.92 KB, 200x136, did a corporation do this.jpg)

>>3677
>purely political
Who said purely? But to deny a government's interest in crises as opportunities to increase the scope and breadth of its reach is as preposterous as suggesting corporations are somehow more powerful than governments.

And, indeed, let's wait and see.
I'm getting old, but I've got time. And after all, I'm still waiting on a killer bee invasion, acid rain to taint the world's water supply and turn my hair funny colors, the water tables to dry up, aerosol to eat a humongous hole in the ozone that will vaporize Australia, all sea life to perish, food shortages to wipe out hundreds of millions of people, nitrogen build-up to block out the sun...

Forgive me if I'm skeptical but I've heard things like anthropogenic climate change hysteria before. Not once has it played out like alarmists said it would.

  No.3679

>>3678
>Not once has it played out like alarmists said it would.

why not flip that logic on your own position? Since when has regulation and taxation ever ruined business?

  No.3680

>>3679
I'd hate to see a shitty thread get derailed and become an even shittier thread, so let's keep this brief, eh?

Existing large businesses may be able to weather strict regulation and heavy taxation. What is ensured is that new entrants to the market will be few and far between.

There's nothing good for the general populace in that scenario either. The only good is for the major players that already exist at the time of the implementation of said taxation and regulation.
"Major players" most definitely includes governments as well.

  No.3681

>>3680
I dunno, the existence of new companies which install solar panels that eventually allow people to *make* money off them certainly throws doubt on your speculation.

  No.3682

>>3681
Are you saying the regulatory environment and tax structures are anything like what doomsday greenies and other assorted crypto-Marxists are calling for?

Also... lol Solyndra

  No.3683

>>3682
>Are you saying the regulatory environment and tax structures are anything like what doomsday greenies and other assorted crypto-Marxists are calling for?

I'm showing the discerning reader your double standard.

  No.3780

File: 1482285850314.png (994.34 KB, 200x186, 6a01538f1adeb1970b0154373fa982970c.jpg)


  No.3781

File: 1482291058401.png (157.34 KB, 200x150, what climate change zealots actually believe.jpg)


  No.3785

>>3780
>>3781
Nice "argument".

  No.3796

File: 1482543855894.png (365.12 KB, 200x150, 1273933250288.jpg)

Jesus Christ. How many posts have mods deleted ITT?
>>3683 has been successfully refuted twice now and the posts keep disappearing.

Is that what goes on here?

Fuck that shit.
I'm out.

  No.3797

>>3796
IIRC the "refutations" were mostly shitposting.

  No.3798

>>3067
>All this LARPing
jej
Keep on dreaming faggot.

  No.3821

File: 1482894259993-0.png (2.12 MB, 200x154, some global warming statistics.png)

File: 1482894259993-1.png (2.2 MB, 78x200, global warming is normal.png)


  No.3825

>>3821
>We are in one of the coldest periods in the past 65 million years
Really not a convincing fact when homo sapiens haven't even been around for one million years. A global temperature change on the scale of over the past 2 thousand years may be a cause for concern. The images may be correct but thinking they're a reason to not worry about climate change was never proved.

  No.3865

>>3666
>You cannot prove that it isn't part of a natural cycle.
Correct, in the same sense it cannot be proven that the theories of gravity or evolution are correct. Like, all planets and generally objects with mass seem to follow the theory of gravity, but who knows whether it's true.

With regards to climate change, evidence can be presented that makes the relationship blatingly obvious. Like, if you want to convince anybody who knows what they are talking about that it's not anthropogenic, it can be done by refuting either of these two claims:
1. The greenhouse effect does exist, is an important driver of earth climate and (extremely simplified) earth heats up with increasing GHG concentration (GHG = greenhouse gases).
2. The records of CO2 and GHG since the industrial periods or for other periods of earth history are accurate and humanity is currently emiting 40Gt of CO2 and other GHG per year into the athmosphere which leads to an increase of athmospheric GHG concentration (roughly +120ppm since the industrial period, from 280ppm to now 400).

You'd have to basically deal with these two and sources therein (random pdfs coming up after a google search):
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/tar-03.pdf
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter6.pdf
However, if the claims above are true, it's silly to reach at any other conclusion than "climate change is anthropogenic". How would you even argue otherwise?

To all the idiots proclaiming how there's an industry behind modern climate science and all the academics are part of a massive conspiracy to build up this hype of climate change for personal profit: You realize the most prestigious thing a mainstream climatologist could possibly do is to conlusively disprove the idea of anthropogenic global warming? They'd win all the nobel prizes. But if they want to do that in a way that the global scientific community takes seriously, they would have to come up with a better explanation for the evidence. All the evidence.

>>3825
>>We are in one of the coldest periods in the past 65 million years
If the person who wrote that had any clue what they are talking about, they'd know you cannot compare general earth climate in the Quaternary (current period, since 2.5Ma) with the climate in the tertiary (65-2.5 Ma). Ye, since there's glacials and interglacials since 2.5Ma, it's colder than it has been for the preceding 63 Ma. That's why these are considered different eras in the first place.

  No.3866

>>3865
Oh, and it is correct that climate has changed very often in earth history, and many times to a much bigger degree than it is currently doing, as pointed out in >>3821. The issue is not that it is changing, but the speed with which it happens. Natural changes take much longer and usually, when climate in the past has changed as quickly as it does now, there have been (mass) extinctions. The ecosystems/evolution are not able to cope with such drastic changes. Even the switches between glacials and interglacials in the Quaternary have been comparatively slow.*
I'm not saying we'll get mass extinctions or anything to that degree, I'm saying "climate in the past has changed all the time" is not a very good argument to legitimize current developments as something we need not be worried about.
Actually, that notion is ridicoulus anyway. Climate change is something we need to be worried about because it impacts us humans and the ecosystems we are dependent on. That is the case irregardless of how often things changed in the past or who is actually the cause of it.
The planet on a big timescale is going to be fine regardless of what we do, I'm sure we don't have that much of an impact.

* A good comparison to current developments is the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum occuring about 55 Ma BP. Page 10, Section 6.3.3 of https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter6.pdf goes slightly into detail (it's a pain to quote because of newlines and stuff). No mass extinctions, at least on land. Certain carbonate Sea organisms got royally fucked over due to increased ocean acidity, which currently is rising as well.

  No.3867

The general feeling I get when it comes to discussions on the coming ice age / the greenhouse effect / global warming / climate change is that in 40 years the Earth will look mostly the same and they'll just rebrand the idea again. The point of it is to scare you into voting for Marxism.

It's clear to me that very few of the more influential people who push this idea actually believe it. If I literally believed that the world faced imminent destruction, I would not focus on anything else. I'd be hoarding food and potable water and building a shelter, not marching next to a grown man in a polar bear costume.

  No.3871

>>3867
>to scare you into voting for Marxism.

What?! Marxism is on the ballot?!

Fuck, I should really register to vote then.

  No.3872

File: 1483576182738.png (258.44 KB, 147x200, мой ниггер.png)

>>3871
Kyahahh. Mah comrade.

  No.3877

File: 1483826736320.png (161.9 KB, 200x88, crymoar.jpg)

I normally wouldn't feel the need to point this out, but generally when a person says, "Give me the maximum amount of control possible over your life or else the world will end," it should be obvious that he is lying to you.

>>3871
I don't care how they brand it or what linguistic gymnastics or euphemism they engage in to hide their true intentions. Asking you to vote for a system that would ultimately transfer control of the means of production to a government is fundamentally Marxism. Marxism is the ideological root of 21st century environmentalism. Show me 100 leading environmentalists from post 1970, and I'll show you 90 communists among them.
>But wait! Marxism is <insert some incredibly specific, arcane understanding of Marxism that only appears in academic literature>! Even though this is merely a variation on the No True Dutchman fallacy, you must admit you are wrong!
>mfw

>>3872
You know, if I were posting images of Hitler on this site I'm pretty sure the moderators would ban me. It's always been curious to me why images and iconography of a far worse regime are treated with such neutrality.

  No.3880

>>3867
Do you have anything to base that off of? It is insanely dangerous to just write off scientific discoveries under the premise of "eh it's probably all designed to try and trick me so I may as well ignore it"

  No.3881

>>3877
>"Give me the maximum amount of control possible over your life or else the world will end,"

????

Where on earth do you see this? Environmental legislation is focused on businesses that produce carbon, not private citizens. How is changing energy policy to favor say, building windmills instead of coal plants "controlling every aspect of your life"?

But you do bring up a good point, which is that fear mongering is really dangerous. And fear mongering about some unspecified group of people trying to "control your life" and using it to justify distrust in scientists and instead believe monied interests and lobbyists, is just straight playing with fire.

  No.3883

>>3877
Trump is a Nazi

>b-but he doesn't have a moustache!

  No.3884

File: 1483841871553.png (180.08 KB, 200x134, windmills are the future dude.jpg)

>>3880
> It is insanely dangerous to just write off scientific discoveries under the premise of "eh it's probably all designed to try and trick me so I may as well ignore it"
And how is blindly adhering to "scientific discoveries" simply because they were told to you by an authority figure not immensely more dangerous? Every murderous regime of the last 100 years predicated its killing on some kind of bullshit science. I'm willing to take my chances.

>>3881
>>"Give me the maximum amount of control possible over your life or else the world will end,"
>Where on earth do you see this?
Carbon tax. The power to tax is the power to destroy.
Take a moment. Inhale. Then exhale. What are you doing? Producing carbon.Now ask yourself how often do you do that. Any party with the power to regulate or restrict the production of carbon would be able to regulate or restrict literally every human activity. Couple that with the perceived threat of extinction should that power be restrained. You may scoff at the idea now, but that is the logical end of the global warming argument. The fact that there currently are environmentalists advocating for population reduction and---yes---genocide, is not shocking to me at all.
>lol dumb conspiritard
Link to an academic book written in 1977 that proposes poisoning staple foods with sterilization drugs and forcing women to get abortions: https://ia802705.us.archive.org/23/items/Ecoscience_17/JohnHoldren-Ecoscience.pdf
>Okay so some nut co-wrote a book in the 70s, that doesn't mean anything.
Except that nut went on to become the "science czar" of the Obama administration.

Ask yourself, do you think any of the authors of that book would voluntarily submit to sterilization? Do any of the people who advocate any of this stuff change their lives significantly? No, they continue to fly around in their carbon emitting jets, going to conferences and marches that produce tremendous amounts of waste, living a totally unsustainable lifestyle, and having kids. That's how I know they're completely full of shit.

>distrust in scientists

This used to just be called "skepticism" and once upon a time was a cherished virtue of the scientific community. Now try publishing a paper that goes against the global warming narrative and see what happens to your career.

  No.3885

>>3881
Also
>building windmills
Oh man I am so glad you brought this up!

>Windmills are incredibly deadly to wildlife, particularly endangered wildlife who tend to reside in the exact areas they want to put the windmills in.

"Birds perceive areas traveled by spinning blades as open space, unaware that blade tips are moving at up to 180 mph. Many are focused on prey. These factors make wind turbines “ecological death traps,” wherever they are located...by 2030 our wind turbines would be killing over 3 million birds and 5 million bats annually. But this is shy of reality by a factor of ten, because 90% of casualties land outside the search perimeter and are not counted. We are thus really talking about an unsustainable death toll of 30 million birds and 50 million bats a year – and more still if we factor in other hide-the-mortality tricks documented by STEI."
>http://savetheeaglesinternational.org/new/us-windfarms-kill-10-20-times-more-than-previously-thought.html

>Windmills present a hazard to human health.

"In December 2011, in a peer-reviewed report in the Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, Dr Carl Phillips – one of the U.S.’s most distinguished epidemiologists – concluded that there is ‘overwhelming evidence that wind turbines cause serious health problems in nearby residents, usually stress-disorder type diseases, at a nontrivial rate’. According to a study by U.S. noise control engineer Rick James, wind farms generate the same symptoms as Sick Building Syndrome – the condition that plagued office workers in the Eighties and Nineties as a result of what was eventually discovered to be the Low Frequency Noise (LFN), caused by misaligned air conditioning systems."
>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-2199284/Wind-farms-Are-wind-farms-saving-killing-A-provocative-investigation-claims-thousands-people-falling-sick-live-near-them.html

>Windmills do not significantly reduce emissions and are not cost-effective.

"Bennett and McBee looked at more than 300,000 hourly records from 2007 through 2009. Their results show that the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) and other wind boosters have vastly overstated wind’s ability to cut sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxide, and carbon dioxide.Indeed, the study found that in some regions of the country, like California, using wind energy doesn’t reduce sulfur dioxide emissions at all. But the most important conclusion from the study is that wind energy is not “a cost-effective solution for reducing carbon dioxide if carbon is valued at less than $33 per ton.” "
>http://www.forbes.com/2011/07/19/wind-energy-carbon.html

>Wind farms generate such pathetic amounts of energy that they sometimes draw electricity from the grid instead of producing it.

"The wind farm, which was hugely controversial when it was built at a cost of £50 million on the site of Romney Marsh in Kent, is the largest in the south east of England. Its supply last Thursday was equivalent to the boiling of just 43 kettles - or 0.002 per cent of its maximum capacity of 59.8MW."
>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/energy/windpower/10264185/The-wind-farms-that-generate-enough-power-to-make-a-few-cups-of-tea.html

But hey, Leonardo DiCaprio said it was a good idea, so it can't be bad, right?
Hey Leo, what were you doing with all that money anyway?

>>3883
Cool non-sequitur, bro.

  No.3886

>>3884
>The power to tax is the power to destroy.
that seems obtuse.

>Take a moment. Inhale. Then exhale. What are you doing? Producing carbon.Now ask yourself how often do you do that.

Due to this wonderful thing called common sense, nobody is trying to tax your breathing.

>You may scoff at the idea now, but that is the logical end of the global warming argument.

anything taken to its extreme is stupid. Skepticism is stupid when taken to the extreme, as you are doing.

>Now try publishing a paper that goes against the global warming narrative and see what happens to your career.

you'll get funded beyond your wildest dreams by oil companies.

>>3885
>non-sequiter
actually, it directly follows from your argument about Marxism. Trump is a Nazi, because I don't like him. Any attempt to explain that way should be met with hostility.

Saging because this thread was shit when it started and it's shit now.

  No.3887

>>3886
s/explain that way/explain that away/

  No.3888

>>3884
Are you fucking serious? You're argument is that you're worried someone will try and tax your breathing? How fucking stupid are conservatives in 2016, christ.

Go back to watching Alex Jones and leave the rest of us alone.

  No.3889

>>3877
Your post will get deleted by that whiny anti-Trump mod just for posting his image.

>>3886
>perfect example of how a modern day slave thinks

>>3888
>1970: nah they can't tax emissions coming out of cars
Yet, here we are.

More taxes coming and all you need to justify them is some semi-plausible reasoning while labeling any critics as extremist knee-jerkers.
>muh tinfoil hat
You don't even need to prove anything anymore. We have enough pseudo-intellectuals in this world being dismissive rather than engaging. Pretty much how an overbearing government wants you to think.
>slave

Enjoy your new taxes.

  No.3890

Not long now til Master Führer.
Sit back liberals, your time is now.

  No.3891

>>3888
When people talk about "breathing tax" it is never supposed to be taken literally, but with a dash of irony.
It is a colorful way to illustrate the ever squeezing tax hand of the Government.

But I wonder, why do leftists mention the year we are in? As if nobody knows what year it is (was) and you have duty to do so as a walking talking calendar. See? I could the same way interpret that as literal, but I understand the "its 2017 mayn" is a shorthand for "we have come so far with progress its shameful that today we have petty medieval squables and think like this" which isn't a really argument. It just sounds like whinning.

Also, just on end note. Aren't leftists less religious? Whats with invoking Christ?

  No.3894

>>3891
Mentioning the year is a verbal equivalent of a facepalm. It's a "are you for real dude". Because you've managed to steer the conversation away from climate data and into arguing about nonsense topics like breathing taxes, a topic you know full well is just a red herring because you built in a "lol it's just a joke bro" defense for when you get caught out on it.

Because even now you're trying to do that by pointing out a random lexicon thing and trying to start a new argument about religion, all the while totally avoiding the actual point being made that you recognized the need to watch out for arguments specifically structured to scare people, and then immediately jumped into unsupported claims that governments would use the newfound power to control carbon emissions to tax your fucking breathing, and have been yelling "slave!" at anyone who isn't on the same page as you

  No.3895

>>3889
>I don't need to actually respond to his points because he's obviously wrong!

  No.3896

>>3492
Lol, Washington CAN is street canvassing company based out of Seattle.

You make about $12-$14/hour standing on various street corners reciting a script and trying to get people to sign whatever petition the company gives you. Its a stressful job because it makes you comidfy people as you have a qouta to fill.

  No.4046

File: 1483941682453-0.png (52.1 KB, 200x150, RUSERIUS.jpg)

File: 1483941682453-1.png (158.37 KB, 200x198, SERIOUSFACE.png)

>>3886
>actually, it directly follows from your argument about Marxism. Trump is a Nazi, because I don't like him
Dear sweet Summer child, that wasn't even remotely close to my argument about environmentalism and Marxism. One can correctly assert that 21st environmentalism is Marxism because of two points:

1. Virtually all of the major policy proposals put forward by environmentalists are some formulation of "relinquish the control of the means of production from private ownership to a governing body." Any halfway bright high school student would understand that to be Marxism. Anyone who would argue otherwise is attempting an obvious No True Dutchman fallacy.

2. Virtually all of the leadership of the environmental movement since the 1970s have been Marxists. The entire Green movement was essentially an outgrowth of 60s communist movements. Hence why the movement is littered with little "coincidences" like Earth Day falling on Vladimir Lenin's birthday, why marches protesting climate change are invariably populated with Marxist groups, and why all of their rhetoric is couched in class warfare.

If you can make a similar argument vis a vis Trump---that is, if you can demonstrate how his platform advocates the supremacy of the Aryan race, and if you can show which members of his team are or have been associated with the Third Reich---we can talk about that perhaps later. Incidentally, as far as I can tell, all he has advocated for is the enforcing of legislation Americans already passed decades ago. So, unless you believe you've been living in Nazi Germany for your entire life, perhaps you could take a break from calling me a conspiracy theorist and instead re-evaluate your point of view.

Bonus point: The clearest indication that this "green movement" really has nothing to do with environmentalism is that the so-called environmentalists do not give a shit about results of their policies, as exemplified by >>3885 and other such projects that end up producing no solutions other than further complicating environmental problems. When faced with these failures, rather than re-evaluating their position and returning with a different approach, they just double down on the same bad idea. Someone might say that's nutty. But when you realize that it has nothing to do with environmentalism and everything to do with attacking capitalism, their actions cease to appear irrational.

>>The power to tax is the power to destroy.

>that seems obtuse.
Well, then I guess roughly two centuries of the US government's own understanding of taxation is "obtuse."
>“That the power of taxing it [the bank] by the States may be exercised so as to destroy it, is too obvious to be denied...That the power to tax involves the power to destroy … [is] not to be denied” - McCulloch v. Maryland, 1819
It's a simple logical process: Every human activity produces carbon. If you have the power to tax carbon production, what human activity can you tax? If there's some activity that you believe should not be taxed, can you provide a justification for not taxing it that takes into account THE EXTINCTION OF MANKIND?

>>3888
>>Are you fucking serious?
>MFW
I was told that this board expects posts to contain content (read: logic and evidence). Either refute my arguments with facts or, you sir, are not a gentleman.

  No.4047

File: 1483942896795.png (67.49 KB, 143x200, trump_card.jpg)

>>3894
>Mentioning the year is a verbal equivalent of a facepalm. It's a "are you for real dude".
Actually, it's variation of the Bandwagon logical fallacy. It's an attempt to shame a person into believing something simply because it is the popularly held belief of a given time and place.

>Bro, I'm not sure if the Sun revolves around the Earth.

>Dude, come on! It's 1618!

>Bro, I seriously doubt that diseases are caused by miasma.

>Dude, come on! It's 1840!

>Bro, I don't know if I accept the current explanation for the origin of species.

>Dude, come on! It's 1857!

>Bro, I'm not sure if there is a "master race."

>Dude, come on! It's 1941!

  No.4050

File: 1483948515449.png (27.07 KB, 200x200, 1397016690525.jpg)

>>4046
>I was told that this board expects posts to contain content (read: logic and evidence). Either refute my arguments with facts or, you sir, are not a gentleman.

Oh you're not even actually from here, you wandered in, found the first thread mentioning Trump and went to town. That explains a lot actually.

  No.4051

>>3894
You are arguing with at least two people. The guy who posted the original point about the carbon tax and the guy who used "slave" as a pejorative are not the same person, because I am the former.

Please take careful note I did not say that people will be taxed "for breathing." What I said is that if you accept the premise that carbon emissions can be taxed, then literally (not figuratively, literally) every human activity can be taxed, since you cannot divorce carbon emission from any human activity. Even decaying corpses emit carbon. That is the brutal logic of the matter. If you think that's false, please explain why.

The argument is that without a carbon tax, the sky will fall on our heads and kill us all. Any regime with that kind of mandate could justify literally any kind of draconian measure. No legitimate defense could be made against them since all their tyranny would be for the sake of "saving the planet."

>>4050
>2. Anything presented as fact requires sourcing; beware that the nature of one's source will always be in question.
>4. Avoid using logical fallacies, failure to construct a cohesive argument will result in a ban. For a list: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

>Durr you're just a trumpdard hurr

>Hurr you're not a real cyberpunk durr
Nice ad hominem you got there. Would be a real shame if someone banned it.

  No.4053

>>4046
environmentalism is inherently non-capitalist. it deals with renewable resources and limiting the domain of production. it requires that the government asserts power over private entities or it's impossible to enforce.

  No.4062

>>4053
>thinking in terms of capitalism vs. government

this was your first mistake.

  No.4063

>>4051
oh boy, are we posting links to yourlogicalfallacyis? Awesome, that's so fantastic.

Well, to begin with, let's pop this up here.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy

Now then, let's get into this
>What I said is that if you accept the premise that carbon emissions can be taxed, then literally (not figuratively, literally) every human activity can be taxed, since you cannot divorce carbon emission from any human activity. Even decaying corpses emit carbon. That is the brutal logic of the matter. If you think that's false, please explain why.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope

All sorts of things are taxed once they reach a certain rate, and tax attempts on carbon emissions include these caps where the amount of carbon is taxed. No human could produce enough carbon to reach the taxable rate.

But you know that, and yet still you're trying to claim that these measure will result in us somehow taxing breathing. That's pure absurdity.

Not to mention, taxing isn't even close to the only way people have proposed to reduce carbon emissions. But please keep trying to spread as much fear as possible.

  No.4066

>>4063
>oh boy, are we posting links to yourlogicalfallacyis? Awesome, that's so fantastic.
Actually I was just copy and pasting the forum rules, which include that link.

>But you know that, and yet still you're trying to claim that these measure will result in us somehow taxing breathing.

I can write it out for you, but I can't read it for you.
>Please take careful note I did not say that people will be taxed "for breathing." What I said is that if you accept the premise that carbon emissions can be taxed, then literally (not figuratively, literally) every human activity can be taxed, since you cannot divorce carbon emission from any human activity.
All I am trying to point out is that there is no human activity that you can argue could never be taxable.
>All sorts of things are taxed once they reach a certain rate
Because no tax has ever changed in the history of taxes, right? Taxes are always just some flat rate and remain that way from the day of their inception to the heat death of the Universe!

  No.4067

File: 1484022351049.png (169.75 KB, 200x87, fakenews.png)

>>4063
Also

>muh slippery slope

I think your understanding of this fallacy is incorrect. If I said "Don't get married, because if you get married...<25 steps later>...and then you could get murdered!" that would be a slippery slope fallacy, since the final result is extremely removed from the initial step. However, "We should tax carbon emissions. All human activity emits carbon, therefore we can tax all human activity," is a self-evidently sound syllogism.

Furthermore, this isn't a logical fallacy here because nanny state progressive politics are basically the "slippery slope" turned into a political movement. Take a moment to see how smoking legislation evolved in NYC over the last 30 years: They didn't start by saying, "Smoking should be illegal in New York City." First they put a tax on cigarettes. Then came the ban on smoking in bars and restaurants. Then they banned smoking in parks. Then they banned flavored tobacco. Then they raised the smoking age to 21. Then they banned smoking in public residences (aka "projects"). Now they want to ban smoking in private residences, effectively making smoking illegal in New York City. All of this done because a "scientific discovery" made decades ago showing a link between second hand smoke and cancer.

OH WAIT
>http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/12/12/study-finds-no-link-between-secondhand-smoke-and-cancer/#3bf481eb623f

Yet despite the fact this entire policy is based on outdated science, the city continues to pursue increasingly draconian measures to crack down on cigarette sales because it boosts tax revenue. This ultimately culminated in the murder of someone who was trying to evade these laws. The murder was retroactively sanctioned as legal.
>http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/dec/7/garners-widow-says-husband-was-targeted-illegally-/

>But please keep trying to spread as much fear as possible.

Well, my side of this argument isn't going around telling kindergartners that the Apocalypse is imminent, so you can take that fearmonger pejorative and stick it someplace dark and wet.
>One out of three children aged 6 to 11 fears that Ma Earth won't exist when they grow up
>http://www.treehugger.com/culture/no-kidding-one-in-three-children-fear-earth-apocalypse.html

  No.4068

>>4066
>>4067
So you admit that you're not even actually trying to argue about taxing breathing yet you keep bringing it up, and defending your use of it?

None of this even addresses the original point, that climate disruption is a legitimate worry and Trump has steadfastly ignored it at best, and claimed it was a "Chinese Hoax" at worst.

What is your actual point here?

  No.4069

File: 1484028883007.png (41.55 KB, 200x105, settled science.jpg)

>>4068
>So you admit that you're not even actually trying to argue about taxing breathing yet you keep bringing it up, and defending your use of it?
For the third fuarrking time, I am merely arguing that a tax on carbon effectively allows you tax all human activity. You cannot divorce carbon emission from any human activity. Hence, if you can tax carbon emission, you can tax any and all human activity. You either accept that, or you don't. If you don't, please provide a reason. I'm not going to continue holding your hand on this. I could not be explaining this any more simply unless I wrote it out in crayon.

>>None of this even addresses the original point, that climate disruption is a legitimate worry and Trump has steadfastly ignored it at best, and claimed it was a "Chinese Hoax" at worst.

>>climate disruption is a legitimate worry
>Begging the Question
I think what you've missed---somehow---is that I am more sympathetic to Trump's view on the issue. My argument throughout this thread has been that global warming (and the environmentalist movement more broadly) is basically a facade for imposing Marxist politics on people. My evidence for this is that the environmentalists clearly care more about imposing their will on people than helping the environment. That is made evident by their advocacy for population control, their attacks on capitalism, and their pushing crap projects like >>3885 despite a record of failure.
>climate disruption
Out of curiosity, why don't you call it global warming?

>What is your actual point here?

Okay honeycakes...Look, I was just called a fearmonger. Yet when I point out that it's actually the climate alarmists who are inspiring fear in children, the response I get from you is "What is your actual point here?" I don't believe you are arguing with me in good faith, so I don't really feel a need to continue.

Like I said before, I can write it out for you but I can't read it for you. If you're not getting it, then you're not getting it. I've been sourcing my claims throughout this exchange. No one has responded to my points with any counter evidence. Instead I'm getting "Dude come on it's [the current year]!" and two word responses like "that's obtuse." Yet I'm supposed to think I'm the one being unreasonable here? Please.

  No.4072

>>4069
>tax on carbon effectively allows you tax all human activity
No, physical activities that cause more breathing are an extraordinarily tiny amount of what humans contribute, so the tax would be insanely tiny.

>basically a facade for imposing Marxist politics on people

This would require actual proof. Environmentalists caring about imposing their will more than environment is something that needs to be proven. Asking for population control, depending on the severity, can be perfectly reasonable, attacks on flawed economic systems aren't any proof and just because that there are bad or badly made projects don't imply anything beyond the failure of the specific projects.

>global warming

Probably because people get caught up on the name of the phenomena - nobody really that that the earth would have a higher temperature in every spot all the time, which meant they got a lot of anecdotal evidence for no good reason, which is why climate change is the name they use now. Climate disruption is another similar case where some people use it because people just look at the name and say "oh, things just change, this doesn't mean that humans do it", which is why we got a more descriptive title in use.

  No.4073

>>4072
>Environmentalists caring about imposing their will more than environment is something that needs to be proven.
Okay, so given the fact that windmills...

1. Do not significantly reduce carbon emissions.
2. Are hazardous to the health of humans who live near them.
3. Remain a lethal danger to bird and bat populations, especially endangered ones.
3. Are not a sufficient source of energy. (sources: >>3885)

...why do you believe environmentalists continue to push for them to be used? Specifically, why would they demand the transfer of wealth from taxpayers to a technology that simply does not work?

  No.4074

Even is you don't believe in global climate change, why do you want to live in a world of smog and black sludge lakes?

  No.4075

>>4073
The evidence for damage to human health is extremely poor, it's not impossible but there's really no plausible mechanism for a windmill to harm human health

The number of birds that are killed by them isn't actually significant when compared to other human made constructions, buildings kill many times more birds and bats than windmills

  No.4078

>>4074
Because I like it like that?

  No.4082

>>4078
I hope you're joking.

  No.4088

>>4073
[citation needed]

  No.4091

>>4082
>not wanting dystopian future
>on somewhat cyberpunk imageboard
Go schway yourself fam

  No.4094

>>4091
being a cyberpunk doesn't mean being a dumbass who romanticizes dystopian life. The opposite, in fact.

  No.4104

>>4094
>anyone who doesn't think like me is a dumbass
Egocentrism and short sightedness out of pure anger?

But do tell me, why I wouldn't want to desire having smog and sludge lakes? Please enlighten me.

Nah, just pulling your little tail, but in all honesty I couldn't care less about pollution.

  No.4109

>>4104
>lol who cares about pollution

Are you trying to participate in a discussion here, or just getting your kicks after you get home from school each day?

  No.4122

>>4073
Well, these are reasons why you might think that they _are_ trying to impose their will. The problem is that most of those particular things are either things that they couldn't have predicted before with reasonable accuracy (birds), are anecdotal or failures for specific windfarms (small energy output) or are just fairly dubious finds (human health).

I don't think there is reason to believe in them just wanting to exert their power over people instead of the windfarm situation being somewhat messy, depending on the location.

Either way, this is one of the reasons why there is a push for so many different ways of getting energy - from waves to solar.

  No.4125

>>4109
You said
>Even is you don't believe in global climate change
Which makes a hypothesis that "if pollution doesnt cause global climate change, why would you want it?"
And I said sincerely that I couldnt care less about it then

What is provocating about that?

  No.4128

>>4125
>Which makes a hypothesis that "if pollution doesnt cause global climate change, why would you want it?"

wat?
What is provocating about that?>>4125

  No.4130

>>4128
Read
>>4074

Its not "why would you want", but "why wouldnt you care".
And since I believe that global climate change isnt made by pollution then I could care less about smog in big cities and sludges in industrial areas. I dont care because it doesnt affect me :p

  No.4135

>>4130
Hold on, you both don't care about smog, sludge lakes, toxic rain from a personal standpoint like concerns about air quality, carcinogens, or heavy metals in your near environment, and you also don't believe that adding carbon to the atmosphere can affect global temperatures...

Are you by any chance an anti-vaccer? Fluoride whiner? Do you purchase homeopathic remedies?

  No.4140

>>4088
>>4088
Lack of reading comprehension: the post

Seriously, asking for citations in a post that contains citations. This how I know you argue in bad faith. You're not interested in knowing the source, you only want to discredit dissent.

  No.4141

>>4075
Something like 90% of the flying animals killed by windmills are not counted because they land away from the site. Furthermore, the areas where windmills are placed are often in the same place as endangered species or other rare animals.

As for whether you believe the windmills cause health issues (I guess entire towns of people are lying?) why don't you go live next to one and find out? What's the worst that could happen? :^]

  No.4146

>>4141
>Something like 90% of the flying animals killed by windmills are not counted because they land away from the site
What? Other things aside, this is a claim that can't be anything but absurd - if they're not counted, we don't know their proportion, since they'd need to be counted to make that claim.

  No.4147

>>4135
wat

anti-vac, anti-floride types are ALWAYS concerned about the environment. So much so that it discredits legitimate debate because environmentalists get lumped in with wingnuts. If you're going to resort to ad hominems, at least use logic.

  No.4169

>>4147
That wasn't an ad-hominem, it was more examples of people ignoring scientific consensus. If you're a climate change denier why not level up and ignore all science as a field?

>>4140
What? Where? You posted a list of "facts" about windmills without any sources

  No.4170

>>4146
> if they're not counted, we don't know their proportion, since they'd need to be counted to make that claim.
Except more than one organization does the counting. Groups that want to paint a rosy picture of windmills limit the size of the area they count in to keep the number as low as possible. Groups that care about bird and bat populations will go outside that tiny area to get a more realistic number. This point is detailed in the sources which I provided---and which you obviously did not desire to read---here >>3885

While I am willing to concede that the pro-bird side may be exaggerating the numbers a little, it is almost certainly the case that the true number is somewhere in the middle between these two claims. That does not change the fact that the pro-windmill side is at best wrong, or at worst being deliberately deceptive.

But this entire argument over whether or not windmills kills larger numbers of birds and bats is completely moot because windmills are not, have not been, and will not be a viable source of renewable energy. In other words, every bird and bat killed by one of these things is being killed by a machine that does not do what it's supposed to. To put it even more simply, these animals are dying for no goddamn reason whatsoever---there is no net benefit. And to that point I cry, "Where are the environmentalists fighting to stop this!?"

At this point I feel I've beaten this windmill horse in excess.

  No.4172

>>4169
It surely was an ad hominem but not towards me because I'm not the climate change denier. The point is that people concerned about vaccines and flouride would still believe in climate change because it fits with their paranoias about man-made... well man-made everything.

It's not like the world is divided easily into pro or anti-science ideology. The anti-vac types are more into fake science, they wouldn't call themselved anti-science. I'm afraid your fedora is showing. OOPS an ad hominem, tee hee!

  No.4173

>>4172
uhm no? Why are you telling me what my own point was?

  No.4174

>>4173
That wasn't at all the point you made. Work on your language skills maybe.

  No.4175

>>4174
Why is every comment you post an ad-hominem? You misrepresent what people say, and every time you get caught out on it you just go "oh well I guess you're dumb"

Are you trying to convince anyone here, or just stir shit up? I'm not seeing evidence of you actually being interested in talking with people.

  No.4177

>>4175
they're pretty obviously brewing soykaf.

  No.4178

>>4177
I'd like to hear them say it.

  No.4179

File: 1484486915856.png (68.76 KB, 200x160, 1456463552961.jpg)

I would like to point out that global warming is recognized as a real thing that is actually happening right now by most countries in the world. In my experience, it's usually the murricans who are the most passionate, defensive and vocal about it being a hoax. Almost as if though even entertaining the idea (let alone simply acknowledging the vast, almost completely unanimous research data supporting it), that the current standard of living in developed countries is unsustainable as fuck and needs to be moderated, would crush them.

Recommended for your viewing pleasure:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt_(film)

It shames me that we are turning a home to incredible multitudes of life's permutations into a dead, industrial wasteland. But to quote George Carlin: "The planet is fine. The people are fucked." It just sucks we think we have the right to take so many species with us.

(sorry for possible mistakes, not a native speaker and I've been awake for far too long for my brain's talky-parts to function properly)

  No.4180

>>4062
I think they mean it in the sense that environmentalism requires a certain amount of regulation that would clash with free-market ideologies (which is what capitalists are pushing for).

  No.4182

>>4178
>>4177
apparently it's working, whatever the goal was

  No.4183

Wow, incredible that there's climate change deniers on lainchan. Anyhow...

I don't think Trump makes that big a difference with regard to climate change in the large picture. Nothing civilization does can stop climate change. The only viable option seems to be to bring down civilization and go back to hunter gatherer societies.

http://deepgreenresistance.org/

  No.4184

>>4183
never gonna happen... even if the nations bombef each other back into the stone age, there's still strngholds like the Svalbard seed bank and other repositories of knowledge around the world, prepared to get mankind and civilization back on it's feet. It might be horses and windmills for a while but the old knowledge we have now would be ready for when we get to the point of using it again.

  No.4185

>>4183
Yes, let's murder like half the world population.

  No.4186

>>4169
>What? Where? You posted a list of "facts" about windmills without any sources

From the post (>>4073) you are referring to:
>(sources: >>3885)

Note the keyword there, "sources."

See, the sources are listed here: >>3885

Really, you can't be bothered to look back at the very post you were critiquing to check and see if you had made a mistake?

I know you're arguing in bad faith, which is understandably annoying for me. But I do appreciate you making it so abundantly clear for everyone else how utterly disingenuous you are.

  No.4187

>>4072
>No, physical activities that cause more breathing are an extraordinarily tiny amount of what humans contribute, so the tax would be insanely tiny.
>so the tax would be insanely tiny.
>the tax
So you concede that breathing *could* be taxed. Now we're just arguing over price.

  No.4195

>>4187
He was working off a premise YOU came up with.

>>4187
lololololol THOSE sources?! From back in that comment?! Those don't support any of your points!!

Let's run through them real quick, starting with the Daily Mail link. First off,

>The Daily Mail


but did you even read that article? It's just one woman who claims the windmills affected her, without any actual evidence. Her testimony is worth just as much as thousands of people who are fine with windmills on their property.

That article does mention a study, although it doesn't name it other than a '2011 December study published in the Bulletin of Science'. It's very difficult to find this particular study because of the journal it was posted in...

The Bulletin of Science publishes a lot of anti-windmill studies, in fact is basically the only sort of study they publish. They are a hilariously unprofessional journal that basically only serves to be a dumping ground for poor quality anti-windmill studies.

this http://www.aweablog.org/quality-of-research-on-wind-farms-published-in-the-bulletin-of-science-technology-and-society/
is a good breakdown of just how biased and bizarre this journal is. Makes sense the Daily Mail would quote it, it's purely agenda driven.

Being a Trump supporter you should be a little more cautious about political bias in publications, but I guess not.

The "savetheeaglesinternational.org" link... uh well I dunno man. First off it's difficult to corroborate the claims of anything on this site, it's mentions tons of studies but links to none of them other than other pages within the site. But secondary to that, didn't you claim you didn't care about the environment or pollution? Why do you care about Eagles all of a sudden? It kind of seems like you just looked up one of Trump's tweets where he talks about bird deaths and didn't look up anything for yourself.

This article about wind farm efficiency is just laughable. Obviously in some areas a wind turbine is less efficient... don't put wind turbines there...

Ontario receives 20% of all energy from wind farms. Costa Rica produces almost 300MW. power production is a product of how windy it is in the area, that's not news to anyone but you.

And I can't access that Forbes article without disabling my adblocker, which I'm not doing.

Did YOU actually read any of your sources? It's a hilariously inept attempt to make a case against wind turbines.

  No.4196

>>4183
>climate change deniers
Whenever I hear (read) X-deniers it makes me think that it's a tag used to ridicule people who don't fall for the "official" or "mainstream" version.

  No.4199

>>4184
The problem is, what do you do when oil and uranium run out? I used to think that civilization would just switch to nuclear and go on with that for the next couple centuries or so, but some projections suggest that it will deplete rather rapidly:
http://energyskeptic.com/2017/peak-uranium-from-ugo-bardis-extracted/

Of course it's just a projection, and it may all be drawn out much longer. But it will happen eventually, even if it takes some more centuries. Dreams of colonizing Mars and whatnot are fine and dandy except when you consider that we have no idea if it would actually work and the way we're going, it's becoming not a fun dream but an actual *necessity* to find other planets whose resources can be extracted. If civilization depletes the resources on Earth, and simply can't find another planet to harvest in the meantime, we'll hit a brick wall and be fucked. The theory of DGR is that 1. this will indeed inevitably happen, 2. the current system which is based on mass-harvest of natural resources is genocidal both on humans and other animals, so civilization hitting a brick wall would actually be *beneficial* because the *aftermath* will be much less bloody, and per this logic it would actually be better to grind civilization up against the brick wall as soon as possible instead of waiting for it to happen naturally. Hence their suggestion of beginning to wage Decisive Ecological Warfare right now.

Maybe it's not a theory that's so strong as to get something like 99% scientific consensus, but it's a very compelling theory, which is why I like to spread it around a bit already; better start right now because even if it were fully obvious you'd have a *very* hard time convincing people to believe it. Because it's really unbelievably, ridiculously depressing in some ways if true.

>>4185
More actually. Lierre Keith has a passage on this in "The Girls and the Grasses":
http://dgrnewsservice.org/resistance-culture/radical-feminism/lierre-keith-the-girls-and-the-grasses/
>The grasslands have been eradicated for agriculture, to grow cereal grains for people. Because I want to restore the grasses, I get accused of wanting to kill six billion people. That’s not a random number. In 1800, at the beginning of the Industrial Age, there were one billion people. Now there are seven billion. Six billion are only here because of fossil fuel. Eating a non-renewable resource was never a plan with a future. Yet pointing that out somehow makes me a mass murderer.
(Whole article strongly recommended read, although it starts out rather abstract.)

  No.4200

>>4196
It's fair to criticize such labeling. Recently I discovered that a cousin of mine is obsessed with "fake news" and thinks that virtually *every* single Islamist terrorist attack in the west including and since 9/11 was staged, faked, etc. (He's German and we have a bit of a traumatic past with discrimination against foreigners so I guess they really don't want to believe that foreigners could ever do something wrong?..) In the course of the discussion I went like "heh, I had a coworker who was also into stuff like that!" and he asked, "into what exactly?" and I had to respond, "err, umm, chemtrails for instance." And he inquired very clearly, "what does that have to do with the topic I'm talking about?" and it hit me before he even completed the sentence. I just put him into the "conspiracy theorist" category immediately, even though he was talking about a topic that was entirely new to me. It was like oh shit he got me, that's a cognitive bias...

And yet, most of the time, you're still dealing with loons in the end...

Anyway, regardless of any other "X deniers" being right or wrong, there's scientific consensus on human-induced climate change and it would require the pulling off of a conspiracy of absurd magnitude to fake this. Or is your claim that it's organically spreading misinformation rather than orchestrated centrally? Because that's something that actually happens very often IMO, e.g. white supremacy, patriarchy, capitalism, etc. are, in my view, organically growing systems which end up looking like a perfectly orchestrated conspiracy. Exactly like cancer.

Even if that were your claim though, I don't see why a social cancer such as belief in human-induced climate change would spread. It's more comforting for all the people in power to believe that it doesn't exist. For social cancers to grow, they need to be aligned with the ideology of a ruling class, as I see it.

(I believe another word for these cancers is "hegemony" but I'm not sure if it means exactly the same thing as what I have in mind.)

  No.4201

>>4200
>we should be careful about the labels we use because of cognitive bias

>SOCIAL CANCER

  No.4202

>>4201
>>4200
unless that was just tongue in cheek, that's a pretty inflammatory term, anon.

Secondary to that, what would you>>4199
want it called? Climate Change/Climate Disruption/Global Warming whatever is as accepted by the scientific community as anything else, and you're claiming it's a conspiracy to impose 'Marxist politics'...

  No.4203

>>4201
>>4202
LOL, I guess the contemporary 4chan usage of the term "cancer" makes it sound tongue in cheek or something. No I quite seriously thought it was a nice term to describe the phenomenon.

I mean let's start on a few assumptions that are presumably agreed upon by everyone in the discussion:
- white supremacy is very harmful and destructive
- ideals of white supremacy spread / reproduce organically in an uncontrolled fashion within society, rather than being centrally orchestrated
Doesn't that sound just like cancer? But sure, if one were to disagree that X is destructive, then calling X a type of "cancer" seems very inflammatory.

In short, I didn't mean to use the phrasing "X is social cancer" in a context where I'm trying to convince people that X is bad, but rather in a context where everybody agrees that X is bad, and my intent is to just distinguish it from things that are also bad but are orchestrated rather than spreading organically.

  No.4204

>>4203
To elaborate on this post: I was asking whether, in the view of the climate change deniers, belief in climate change is a "social cancer" rather than a conspiracy.

And I do believe in human-induced climate change. So I certainly didn't just make up the term "social cancer" to be inflammatory. I don't actually agree that belief in climate change is a social cancer; I was just asking the lainon whether, according to them, that's what it is.

  No.4219

File: 1484716483683.png (2.02 MB, 200x150, ▶‭‮.gif)

>>4203
Aren't all forms of social supremacy harmful to egalitarian ideals?

  No.4220

>>4203
All ideals/culture can spread organically without central planning. Anything you don't like could then be framed as "cancer" in your stupid definition. It IS inflammatory because it's meaningless. You might as well just say "bad ideas".

>>4219
Egalitarian ideals are harmful. Egalitarianism is a cancer. Woo boy this sure is some philosophizing I'm doing.

  No.4223

File: 1484752669274.png (149.53 KB, 196x200, 1484650070485.jpg)

>>4219
Egalitarianism suggests that people deserve to be treated equally EITHER because we are all equal or can become same sort of people under same enviromental factors.
People are not equal, and different people NEED different kind of treatments. A lazy man needs to be treated dofferently than a hardworking person.

Egalitarianism is a sham for a common people to believe in, to make them more docile. People have, and always will be, treated differently because of social, economic or genetical background.

  No.4230

Not sure why we're so off-topic but if people are cool with it then I'll go along:

>>4223
>A lazy man needs to be treated dofferently than a hardworking person.
This depends on what the hardworking person is working for. If he's working hard on nothing that actually improves the human condition, he could as well be a lazy bum.

Apart from treating people with approval or disapproval depending on their amount of commitment to improve the human condition, the only reason to treat people differently is for the sake of equitable treatment.

For instance, female people need sanitary facilities different from those needed by male people; if they aren't provided by society then society is creating unjust inequality by disadvantaging women in the public sphere. People with a disability that puts them in a wheelchair need different transportation facilities than people able to walk well. If those facilities aren't provided, society is unjustly disadvantaging them.

Are we on the same page, or in what other ways do you think people should be treated differently?

  No.4231

>>4230
>For instance, female people need sanitary facilities different from those needed by male people

The example fails here, since women don't need different sanitary facilities.

  No.4233

>>4230
> society is treating them unequally and disadvanting them
Actually, no they aren't in both examples.
Transport (buses, trains or railroads) are private companies that treat their customers the way they want. It has nothing to do with "society". Unless we are speaking about state owned transport in which beaurocratic douches that want to cut costs for more tax money into other things are at fault, not society. In this manner you should protest and call in a local or regional TV news channel to get people riled up about how tax money is being spent.

Similarly goes with bathrooms.

No "society". Just individual people. Thats what i ak talking avout when I say "different people different treatment". I dont expect for "society" to go back to treating blacks the way they did. I want to people to stop believing that everyone is the same and that the only reason the "under" group is not in same economic, social level that others are is because structural disadvantages or widespread injustice.

  No.4234

>>4233
>I dont expect for "society" to go back to treating blacks the way they did. I want to people to stop believing that everyone is the same and that the only reason the "under" group is not in same economic, social level that others are is because structural disadvantages or widespread injustice.

Just chiming in to say I agree with this point.
It's very weak reasoning and comes down to blaming others.
While structural disadgantages may well play a role, they aren't the only significant factor.

  No.4237

>>4231
LOL lainon, you could have kindly asked why I said that instead of being patronizing. In many underdeveloped countries, girls skip out on school during their period because they don't have the necessary sanitary products (but OK, "facility" is the wrong word for that), preventing them from keeping up with the curriculum, making many of them just give up and drop out. Another reason is male violence: in the west, women fought for women's bathrooms in public spaces because public bathrooms were "de facto" men's bathrooms; a woman using a public bathroom would endure harassment with very high likelihood. The same problem exists currently in underdeveloped countries.

>>4233
How is a private company not a part of society? If it holds monopoly over transportation, then it's *the* transportation part of society.

So yes, in both examples society is failing to address the needs of a class of people, causing them disadvantage in the public sphere.

>I want to people to stop believing that everyone is the same and that the only reason the "under" group is not in same economic, social level that others are is because structural disadvantages or widespread injustice.

If you're a black girl born in a Detroit ghetto surrounded by pimps, prostitutes, and drug dealers, your chances of ever attaining a high economic status are roughly between zilch and nil and no amount of hard work can change that unless you have extraordinary amounts of luck.

On the other extreme end, if you're the son of Donald Trump, you could be the laziest bum on Earth and you'll still swim in money throughout your life, unless extraordinary misfortune befalls you.

The biggest differences in social status are the result of systemic inequality. Individual factors such as talent, willpower, and luck have a relatively tiny effect at the face of the absurd amounts of structural inequality there is.

  No.4281

>>4195
This much "your sources are bad because I say so" strikes me as really lazy.

  No.4282

File: 1484958272462.png (2.61 MB, 200x113, Presidential_Oath_of_Office_-_Donald_J.webm)

>>4237
>How is a private company not a part of society?
It is, but you are not blaming a single company or group of people for things that have been happening to other people, but you are balming "da system mayn". You are trying to imply its EVERYONES fault for a bus of privately owned company to not have needs for dissabled.
What I am saying is there is no omnivous "they". "Society" is just a placeholder for you to say "see that bad stuff happening there? I wont do actually anything to rile against that, I will just hate on the da system mayn, and try bully others into doing something and giving their hard earned cash for the things I think are rightous".

My question at end of day is, who are you to say what is injustice. My question at end of day is, how come you can claim systematic disadvantages when a girl is born into poor hood because of her parents but the same you cant claim that affirmative action is ripping the asian students off by 40 SAT points to brake even against blacks. Affirmative action is real way of systematic oppression, where laws have been put in place to disadvantage everyone except one small protected group.

And tell me, how is it "da system"s fault for Donald Trump having wealth and wanting to give the best life possible for his children? And if its the systems fault for him being priviledged white person, as I assume you are, how come you dont give your "priviledge" to blacks directly?

What you are trying to imply is that all those pimps and drug dealers in Detroit never made a personal decision to be those things, that the girls parents never thought of moving away from Detroit, that ALL these people dont have agency but that Detroit shit conditions are caused by DA SYSTEM.

Now I ask you, how do you think more of DA SYSTEM is going to fix shit? Do you think democratic socialism can male things right? And what is right/injustice in this story? Dont people with money have right to try and help their children have more money? Dont people at the bottom have the right to try and make things best for their children?

  No.4284

>>4282
So your argument is that people living in poverty, who often resort to crime because it's often the best way of making ends meet, should just stop living in poverty? Good to knows.

  No.4288

File: 1485013905694.png (171.2 KB, 169x200, 217058fb626d03fe81e343ad31fd132197a5dd1e200fd06c069a9a23e726ad92.png)

>>4284
What i am saying is that there are a lot of people in poverty.
Some DECIDED they would want to do crime.
It isnt fault of DA SYSTEM that other people live in high crime areas, or that their parents didnt try opening a business or even try having some new skills to compete in bussiness world.

  No.4289

>>3025
>Climate change isn't real
Yes it is, independent sources have been recordings its effects for years now and the trend is only getting worse.

>THIS IS THE END OF THE LINE

The planet won't go up in flames, but food production will suffer, migration and hunger crises will follow, more species will go extinct, etc.

If you believe a politician's statement over that of a scientist you are part of the problem.

  No.4290

>>4289
>Yes it is, independent sources have been recordings its effects for years now and the trend is only getting worse.

Not him, but the recorded statistics so far are meaningless.
Though they do indicate rising temperatures etc, the time range in which we have been making our measurements is too narrow to be any proof of structural global warming.
It could just as well be an anomaly of a few hundred years of warmth.

Let it be clear though that I haven't taken a strong stance when it comes to the matter.

  No.4292

File: 1485020753503.png (1.3 MB, 200x114, myD0x3b.gif)

>>4290
>the recorded statistics so far are meaningless.
Most people just call it the "weather" but these so called environmentalists like to cry wolf to push taxes and make people buy expensive shit like electric cars.
"Totally worth it 'cause you know, saving the planet and stuff. Guy in a lab coat with a graph told me so. Same guy that said raising oil prices is okay cuz we mite run out of oil tomorrow."

  No.4294

>>4292
The discussion of environmentalism is to heavy towards cars and the weather.
Clean energy impacts the air quality for production. Look at China's smog problem.
No one disputes that smog is real.

  No.4308

>>4290
That's utterly untrue. Again, as people in this thread seem to keep forgetting, very nearly all scientists who look at temperature data agree that the trend is a rapid increase towards dangerous levels.

  No.4309

>>4308
A trend in a couple of centuries of recorded data, yes.
You clearly didn't get the point.

  No.4310

>>4309
the warming trend is recent, yes. That was my point...

Are you sure **you** didn't get the point? You're arguing against the entirety of scientific consensus and you're not catching basic things

  No.4346

Anyone like animals but not give a shit about the environment? I'd never hurt a cat or a dog but at the same time I couldn't care less about endangered species. I think tigers are cute... in a zoo. But if industrial civilization requires paving over their natural habitats that's fine by me. I don't see the point in preserving nature in it's original state, and I don't see the point in preserving nature in any way whatsoever outside of areas like parks or zoos, ie. places where man comes to be entertained by nature.

Thoughts?

  No.4347

>>4346
our biosphere is part of much larger and more complicated process than we yet understand and taking a dismissive attitude towards that which we don't know much about can't end well. especially considering the knowledge we have and damage we have done without it.

you might, however, appreciate this essay: https://ensorcel.org/hello-from-the-wired-an-introduction-to-cyber-nihilism/

  No.4350

File: 1485169338258.png (2.33 MB, 200x110, anarchy_achieved.gif)

>>4347
>>4349

wrt: https://ensorcel.org/hello-from-the-wired-an-introduction-to-cyber-nihilism/
>the form of the Internet (meta-meatspace), it must be stopped. Fascist movements forming on the Internet must be destroyed from their roots in meatspace, and all forms of digital fascism must likewise be cast back into the mud.

That's a bit grandiose don't you think, given the anarchists' pathetic showing at the Trump riots?

  No.4352

>>2829
>the consensus among the scientific community is now more widespread,
this is the main argument that most people have who support climate change. it's really frustrating to deny it based on that kind of fallacy, because people don't accept the reasoning and just assume you're an idiot if you don't believe in climate change. i wouldn't be surprised if we did have an impact on the environment, but until more people can actually cite evidence that justifies their claims, there will still be people who continue to be skeptical or flat out deny it.

  No.4354

>>4350
Those particular anarchists. They don't represent the entirety of anarchists. There were also anarchists who punched Richard Spencer at those riots, which is basically a universal good.

  No.4356

File: 1485195437431.png (3.02 MB, 200x146, Richard Spencer Gets Punched (We Will Rock You remix).webm)

>>4350
They're making barricades, you dofus.

>>4354
.webm related

  No.4357

File: 1485195479210.png (53.52 KB, 200x200, punching-nazis-works.jpg)


  No.4358

File: 1485196701103.png (139.88 KB, 200x134, garbage-can.jpg.size.custom.crop.1086x725.jpg)

>>4356
He sucker punched Spencer in the head and didn't even knock Spencer off his feet. Very, very impressive. Some barricade you got there, pic related.

  No.4359

>>4357
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rh1dhur4aI

Are anarchists allergic to lifting weights and calisthenics?

  No.4360

>>4346
I don't think we should make animals go extinct if we can help it.

That said, pandas are evolutionarily retarded and deserve to go extinct if they can't diversify their diet.

  No.4361

>>4359
Neither physics.
That punch's angle was ridicolous.

  No.4362

File: 1485201795966.png (4.75 MB, 200x113, Richard Spencer Face Punch Slayer Edition.webm)

I can practically taste the salt

  No.4363

File: 1485202090573.png (46.25 KB, 200x154, e6b4004e6f7377fc2427eb6abea800a3ccd3739ce84429d86770ed50c0a383ca.jpg)

>>4357
Left is loosing the ideological war.
The pendulum is swinging back full force, and violence wont help you.
The more violent left becomes, more people will see how "love trumps hate" is a lie and farce, how reasonable the right wing is.

Richard Spencer is a flamming faggot and kike enabler, not to mention a huge LARPER.
He isnt "alt right". Al right never existed. It is just a name given by jewish media to collection of groups that are mutually exclusive. You cant combine The Daily Stormer and Milo or anyone from Kikebart. Those jews are just riding the waves of pendulum swing.

  No.4364


  No.4365

>>4363
>the ideological war
>THE COLOR OF HIS SKIIIN

  No.4366

>>4363
>loosing

yeah I'm sure the illiterates complaining about black people on the internet are totally the ones about to rule the world.

Richard Spencer literally calls himself alt-right. At this point there's more people I've heard "aren't REAL alt-right" because every time some alt-right moron gets called out everyone else scrambles to disown them.

Richard Spencer is loved by Trump supporters, the real people in charge right now, so good luck convincing people you're separate from him.

  No.4367

>>4358
The most that people know about the Richard Spencer and the alt-right currently is videos of a literal Nazi getting punched set to music. That's impressive enough for me. It's T+3 days into Trump's America, we're doing pretty good so far.

  No.4368

File: 1485212450698.png (70.24 KB, 200x134, cheetah.jpg)

>>4367
Hey if you're happy with your little "victory" that's cool, be happy with what you have I guess. It's not really my concern what your movement takes pride in.

>>4360
You misunderstand lainon, I don't think we should go out of our way to kill wild animals. Preserving them on the other hand is a very low priority for me. What I think is a good idea is that if an ecosystem is slated for destruction DNA samples should be taken from lifeforms unique to that particular ecosystem. Also live specimens should be captured and put in zoos, if practical.

  No.4374

>>4349
>I haven't noticed my life get any worse due to this mass extinction so forgive me if I'm sceptical that I ought to care about the next quarter million.
you were just talking about "industrial society" and "man" in the general sense but now you've retreated back to the experience of one person. That's a very different conversation than the one you seemed to want, and I think you'd be disappointed to have it.