Global Warming

you shouldnt care whether its real or not

infact you should care about it at all

Then provide the data.

Funny Tom Woods podcast episode i've linked before. He's a deplorable lolberg but does have nics guests sometimes, and he's a pretty based historian who wrote the politically incorrect guide to american history.

tomwoods.com/podcast/ep-559-greenpeace-co-founder-repudiates-organization/

He interviews one of the co-founders of greenpeace and they guy destroys leftist arguments for climate change. Needless to say he is a fucking pariah considered by the left to be basically a heretic.

Hint: politicians are making millions off renewable energy because of the high costs

find it yourself dude. I have no reason to convince you.

Global warming isn't a thing. Earth is not even globe.

Ultimately we do live on a planet with finite resources, so finding things that are renewable is a good thing if we want to stay here as long as possible. I fail to see how polluting our air (not talking about co2) is beneficial to us. Regardless of global warming there is no population in nature that can sustain exponential growth.

I can burn this old stuff and it's bad for the air we breath or I can harness the potential 1000w/ m2 that's beaming down on us from space. Seems like a no brainer really. I like the idea of independence.

...

Global Warming is a thing, it's also a cyclical event between warming and cooling periods.

Controlling for CO2 will do absolutely nothing because additional CO2 has negligible effects (images related)

No. The Jews are just being assholes.

Air Pollution is a thing.

A FREE SOURCE OF ENERGY? BUT WHO WILL BE MAKING ALL THE MONIES THEN?

What is the source for these images?

No. Now fuck off, you stupid motherfucking sack of shit. Lurk the fuck more.

Pollution ≠ global warming.

No, there has been no such increase.

Thanks for admitting you’re lying.

Yes its real.

No you can't do anything to stop it.

US govt military, and third world country economies are going to keep perpetuating it no matter what. All that could be done to stop it at this point would be to nuke india, china, and scrap all our aircraft carriers.

It's going to suck for men, especially for non whites at the equator haha, but nature goes on, changes, adapts.

I'm not lying. My point was that it was hardly an increase anyway. You're just trying to disagree with people you twat.

Kill yourself, kike.

...

Your point is that it increased, when it didn’t.

Fuck off.

If you don't care about nature you're one of them.

It has. The highest temperature recorded each year has a .20 degree Celsius increase per century for the last 2-3 centuries. Look it up yourself. If you're so convinced you're right, then prove me wrong with the data.
The scandal over the issue was that the data was homogenized to be .25 degrees Celsius increase per century.

Just google image laboratory CO2 vs temp on google images, plenty of laboratory tests on there.

You can always reverse image search them too.

The entire carbon credit/tax thing is a scam, and throwing money at impractical renewable energy like those shitty windmills isn't helping anyone either, other than cronies sucking the government's tit. I also suspect that deep down the whole thing is an attempt to unite the entire planet under a gaia worshiping eco-religion.

I mean if carbon emissions were really that planet threatening we'd be subsidizing the hell out of nuclear power, and in the process buying a ton of time without much sacrifice. Whole thing smells fishy.

Fission has obvious issues, Fusion has the issue of being incredibly difficult to pull off, not to mention the fast neutrons tossed off will produce low level waste in the containment vessels.

All energy types are shit tbh
Solar takes incredibly toxic chemicals to produce
Solar Thermal makes birds pop into flames
Windmills are just silly
Hydro and Geo is limited by local geo
Hydrocarbons ain't infinite and contain some real nasty shit
Tidal ain't reliable

Yeah, and I think it's largely man-made too. The solution of course is more of the evil white man's technology (nuclear in particular combined with 'renewable' sources) and the major contributors now are 'developing' savages.

What convinced me of the greenhouse effect was that the nights are warming faster than the day (thereby excluding the sun as the primary source) and the fact that we are actually pumping a shitload of carbon into the atmosphere.

None of this is reason enough to make retarded economic or geopolitical decisions. The environment will not be helped by allowing shitskins to overrun what's left of the civilised world. We just need more nuclear plants and wind turbines. This will also have positive geopolitical outcomes by reducing the need for sharia oil.

Also we should stop providing foreign aid, food and medical technology to savages that shouldn't be allowed to breed, let along overpopulate.

Global warming is a thing but theres not much we can do about it besides returning to the stone age.
Resources are meant to be used otherwise we wouldn't classify them as resources

Man made climate change is a jewish/globalist hoax to promote further deindustrialization in the west and to cripple the white middle class with even more tax
also international jews are making billions of this shit…"carbon trading" "cap and trade" "environmental finance"
the more you look into what's actually being done the more you see Wall Street types and finance terms being thrown about

environmentalism is right wing, but AGW is bullshit - in the 70s these people cried about muh global cooling, and the population bomb

Kill yourself, kike.

Enjoy your lies.

Reported.

totallynotashill.txt

well thought out and persuasive arguments filled with logic and reasoning

Been over it a thousand times, you sack of shit. Learn how to do elementary math.

We have a thread about this at least twice a month, if not more. Learn to lurk, newfag, you might learn something.

I found them. Yeah, this is looking very damning for the warming theory.

Along with this:
informath.org/Contest1000.htm

The theory appears to be dead. GG climate "scientists."

The data in its entirety is fabricated.

WE ACTUALLY NEED MORE CO2

gotta adapt

...

Which one is the real one?

… really?

All of the global warming scare graphs are from the last few hundred years. With a lot of them only going back up to the 1950's. Do the global warming believers also think the medieval warm period or the roman warm period was caused by humans?

check out the other thread:

8ch.net/pol/res/5758584.html

And you're not asking the right question: even if global warming was real, how do you prove it's because of human activity and it's not a natural phenomenon? A thousand years ago the climate was warmer. 400 years ago the climate was colder.

It's true, but it's also proven that human actions only cause 10% of the global warming.
That means that if we stopped half of the pollution of the entire planet tomorrow, 95% of the global warming would still be there.

US media is turning it into another wage gap boogieman kind of thing, but if you google "human impact on global warming percentages" you'll find the truth.

also just am addition the polar ice caps arent melting
whats occurring is that less of the ice sheets are regenerating every seasonal cycle
the arctic and antarctic ice sheets naturally grow and recede during the summer and winter months, whats happening is that less of the ice sheet is refreezing during the winter cycle

In the 1990s, we were assured that the science was settled, there was no real debate, and that we were definitely going to have no polar icecaps by 2010 or 2015.

This was also when (((white NYT authors))) writing thinkpieces about global warming started talking about how they weren't going to have any more white children to cut down on the global warming

no

They said first that food would run out by about the 1980s. When that didn't work, they began talking about "global warming" that would be irrvesrsable by 1995 then 2000 then 2005.

Then they started on this climate change shit, and when you call that out they instantly transition to "weather extremes" because "oy vey last week's snow storm was really big huh goy".

nice last pic you have there of the seasonal melt and refreezing that occurs annually at the poles

Eat shit, shill.

Lol learn about electric universe, and astronomy. Compare the Sol with Earth. What do you think controlls weather again? Buy a farners almanac, it predicts A YEAR OF WEATHER for the entire country based on solar studies.
Eric Dollard
Ed Leedskalnin

Nope, both taken in August of each respective year.

strange how the hole in the ozone layer over australia just disappeared, was end of the fucking world news one day then complete silence on it since.

This was enough to convince me that there is some serious jewery happening in the climate sciences.

Would you settle for 1,400 gigatonnes of methane instead, if so all you need to do is wait.

Exactly. the more CO2 you plant, the more that the vegetation will thrive. If you just let the plants expand by themselves then they will spew out more oxygen.

But no, it's only the dangerous pollutants that remain in the air forever, the good ones are all transient goy.

Global warming as we know it, that is the idea that man's behavior is leading to the rapid (in a geologic sense) decay of the Earth's atmosphere, is utter bullshit.

Climate change happens naturally. The term was changed to "climate change" because climate change deniers (hmmm. I wonder who ELSE is called a "denier" when they dare to question the mainstream narrative?) sounds way stupider than global warming deniers.

The short scientific answer for this is: we don't have shit on volcanoes.

Which would be a point if not for humanities need to cut down as much vegetation as possible. Huge increase in methane would mean huge changes in global weather, many places that are considered the worlds bread basket would no longer be able to meet the water amounts needed to grow. We get a blue ocean event, the jet steam becomes erratic and then shtf.

Clearly the (((experts))) don't agree since they are pushing global warming, and now climate change instead.

Pollution and deforestation are bigger and legitimate issues, since they make beautiful American landscapes look like dumping grounds in India, but instead kikes talk about how we need to stop having children because of the "carbon footprint" or why worm meat is a good alternative to steaks.

It's not just co2, it's a host of other harmful shit, a lot of which lowers your testosterone levels which plays into the kike's wringing hands. Not only that but causes a host of cancers.

Look at the air quality of China, they have seasons based on how much pollution there is. There are days where you can't even see and the government has to declare it too unsafe to go outside because if you breathe that much you'll fuck your shit up.

Yes we need to save mother Gaia you fucking kike enablers. All we ever cared about was getting ahead and now look at the state of the only planet we've got.

Have you been to whole foods yet today user?

CO2 is plant food. It does heat the planet a bit, but the effect is more than negated by the positive fertilizing effect it has on the entire global biosphere. Plant photosystems evolved in an atmosphere with low oxygen and high CO2, today we have the opposite. Increasing CO2 means plants grow faster, resist drought and temperature extremes better (especially warmer temperatures), longer growing season etc.

The Sahel (border area to Sahara, semi-arid) is greener than ever before, mature rainforest trees are growing faster than before etc. Our agriculture, mad as it is with how we treat our soil, is getting a boost from this.

Man has done nature a thousand wrongs, but carbon dioxide is not one of them. Rather, it is the incredible legacy of the industrial revolution, a greener and more hospitable future for our planet.

BUMP FOR KICKASS Holla Forums BREAD!!! YAYYYY

pathetic faggots

You'll see where your mentality gets you, human.

You must maintain balance.

how is co2 capable of heating the planet, given its present in minuscule amounts in the air?

The burden is proof in you. Show us your data.

The general accepted consensus is that it is real. You're the one disagreeing. You do it.

Uncertainty about global climate is not just a concern with the left. Many on the right have the view of concerns about it also. The difference is that right differ in what causes it, what effects it could have and what the level of disruption for civilization such changes could cause. Where as the left just use the issue to push forward bullshit agendas like everyone must move to electric cars, or we must all stop eating meat or other useless bullshit.

Modreate scientist are less worried about the level of CO2 rather than the massive amount of methane that could be released with even mild warming. Then must honest scientists will tell you they just don't know what would happen. Arms in the air all bets are off. It's 86 times stronger than CO2 and does not go away through plankton photosynthesis.

Climate change is real, considering it does get warmer in Europe I notice.
But it's more of a natural phenomenon than a man-made global pollution.

Climate change is a tautology. There is no such thing as a static climate. That's your first indication that any taxes imposed to fight climate change is a scam.

Climate is a chaotic system, which means we can't make any testable predictions based on the models we have. Think about it, we can't predict the weather two weeks from now with any statistical accuracy. What makes you think we he have the ability to predict the effects of a more complicated system years from now?

The argument I keep seeing paraded about is 97% of all climate scientists agree with the man made warming hypothesis. Whoop-dee shit! 99% of all physicists disagreed with Einstein's model before experiment proved him correct. Consensus is not science. And no climate scientist has any testable, falsifiable prediction or experiment that's statistically significant.

The media has framed this as a black and white issue. So if I were to voice my opinion on the street, people would immediately assume I'm of a certain political persuasion, or I'm in favor of poisoning the planet, or some such nonsense. There's certainly nothing wrong with alternate fuel sources, and being environmentally responsible.

But the majority of the climate change agenda is fear mongering, anti-science political grandstanding, whereby the solution is more taxes for the little guy.

Bullshit.

Which doesn't mean anything. You could have a more or less consistent warming for 500 years and it would not prove global warming because it could just be within natural variation (which there is not even enough data to establish that Vaseline using the methods they pretend to use). See here:>>6004267

...

This. Look at fucking China where people wear (wore?) gas masks every day in the cities due to a thick smog.

Its greatly exaggerated but there is climate change occurring. Its certainly not at apocalyptic rates but there's a slight change occurring.

I personally resent the people who keep acting like the worlds going to end and the ice caps will flood us all like waterworld. Environmentalism is a great idea, I strongly support national parks and emission control but these dicks had to come in and make everyone associate preserving the environment with con-artists and frauds.

There is also the fact that most climate scientists are worthless subhumans who can barely figure out a homogeneous differential equation. It is not surprising when all of their models are based on false assumptions or bad methodology.

Show us the data that there is a consensus then.

"We don't know", is the default. The person who wants to prove something must be the one to present data.

You're going to have to explain how high costs lead to them making millions, because that sounds retarded.

It has some reflective activity in the infrared band. It's not a potent greenhouse gas, it's in fact pretty weak at it. More importantly, the beneficial effect it has on plants more than compensates it's weak heating effect.

…
…
…
…
You saying that the gravitational pull of the Moon isn't reliable?
Or are you a dreamer who wants a power source that will outlast the eventual degradation of the lunar orbit?
or are you just a retard?

Global warming is real and you shouldn't care about that. Earth is more healthy when its warm, less deserts more rain more plant life.

I doubt CO2 is the boogy man they make it out to be but even if it is I don't care, also plants love it.

We are still exiting an ice age, which is something earth has not been in through most of its history and is really bad for wildlife. Yes sea levels will rise back to there natural levels, deal with it.

>>>/fit/

Exiting an ice age would not be possible without warming.

Even if the climate change (which is real but apparently very unpredictable) was man made, it's still used to push all sorts of shady globalist fuckery.

Global warming as in "everything warms" is not real, but massive climate change as in some regions will get very hot, others cool down while seasons become much more extreme is very much a thing.

The gulfstream for example could be supressed by rising water levels, stopping the warm water flow to europe, while the mediterran sea is said to become a cesspit for strong tropical-tier storms in the future.

I've been noticing that the seasons seem to have shifted by a few months. Winter seems to start in late December or January now.

No.
The Earth is flat.
The Sun is actually smaller and closer than what scientists claim.
It's just the jewish chemtrails that modify the climate.

If you believe the "Global" bullshit then you support the "jew globalization"

Retards will defend the Moon landing and their NWO NASA.

Not that user, but putting anything in the ocean is asking for it to break. Animals embedding themselves into the mechanicals, salt water eating the structure, piracy or physical contact damage from other ships, etc.
Id argue the reliability of the device is not worth taking funding away from nuclear, and the reform of IIHS and EPA.

The ONLY way to prevent immediate global catastrophe (and BTW we're all under 3 metres of sea water now according to the 1990s alarmists) is to pay more for energy.
Not use less.
Just pay more.

Who could be behind this?

what is thorium for $400, alex

this 100%

smh fam

Well, there ARE islands where the indigenous people have to move their villages upwards even though they had not to the last several hundred years while the beaches get swallowed.

So something does indeed happen, maybe not a warming, but something is happening.

Again, a few decades warming trend proves nothing. Even a few hundred years trend proves nothing because these are not significant time frames on the scale of climate cycles.

Fission is the best we're likely to get anytime soon, faggot.

When exploring the usefulness of an energy source, you have to look at energy return on energy invested. Back before all the close-to-home, easily-accessable fossil pools were depleted, ERoEI on them was like 100:1. Now it's 10-20:1, and falling fast.

Nuclear has much larger return margins. Regardless of whether climate change is anthropogenic or not, you can't burn the remains of dead plants forever. At least you can find all other kinds of energy sources out in space, unlike hydrocarbons, so investing in nuclear fission (and hopefully fusion too) is the only sustainable strategy, unless you are fine with society collapsing simply because you think every change to the status quo is "kike lies".

I fucking hate having to share this board with contrarian fuckheads.

Carbon dioxide isnt a major problem. However I have a problem with water and soil based pollution. Tailing dumps, chemical spills, methane leaks, fish kills etc are actuall environmental and political problems, rather than "abloo abloo vote for me and I'll shut down all those evil coal plants and their co2 emotions for good!"

The newest types of fission reactors, especially the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors, have way fewer issues than you'd think. Their fuel source is also readily available. Vid related.

Definition of heat:
The form of energy that is transferred across a boundary, when either a positive temperature difference or positive temperature gradient exists. Heat is a transient phenomenon.

Heat only flows from hot to cold. Never from cold to hot. The idea that the colder atmosphere adds heat to the warmer surface is a lunatic idea, that breaks almost every major law of physics. It is by definition wrong. There is no "greenhouse effect" adding 33k to the surface of the earth. The atmosphere is not a Watt multiplier.

When this is pointed out to a Klimate Klown, they sperg out and start waffling. They then change their definition of the greenhouse effect to the atmosphere "slowing the rate" of cooling of the surface. This is more plausible but also wrong.

Rate of cooling is called the laspe rate, can be calculated by -g/cP where g is gravity and cO the specific heat capacity of the atmosphere. The specific heat changes according to the composition of the atmosphere. In dry air the lapse rate is 10k/km. In 100% humid air this drops to 6.1k/km. CO2 making up 0.04% of the atmosphere and with a specific heat of ~0.9, simply does not affect the cooling rate much at all.

In short the greenhouse effect and global warming are bullshit.

Perverted Jewish science.

How is carbon dioxide not a problem? CO2 levels are one of the closest correlating factors to temperature levels in earth's history. A sudden increase by around 40% in what amounts to an instant on a geological scale is somehow not a problem? I am not a climate scientist, but changing the level of anything GLOBALLY, in that short a time, is bound to have repercussions.

The mechanism by which carbon dioxide, methane and water increase atmospheric temperatures is well understood physics, and was first proposed all the way back in the 1890s with the intense work being done in spectrography and blackbody radiation. The sun heats the earth through higher energy radiation, so the net difference is absorbed by falling frequencies - the warm body always emits light of longer wavelengths than that which has heated it up. Since carbon dioxide tends to scatter the mid-to-short range infrared, what is basically happening is that the surface is getting heated, but the radiation it emits back is scattered and heats the atmosphere rather than go out into empty space. All other factors being equal, an earth with a higher atmospheric co2 content will invariably be warmer than one with a lower. This part is just physics.

The only real point of contention is how much is the process being accelerated in a feedback loop, i.e., do effects of this warming serve to dampen it or accelerate it. This is part of climate science and is something determined by looking at very large samples of very varied data, and then looking for very complex patterns so I won't comment on any of it - I simply don't know anything about the specifics. But arguments like co2 isn't bad or we aren't to blame for the co2 are bullshit. CO2 causes warming because of simple physics. CO2 isn't being released by anything to an amount even close that we are - a popular culprit, volcanoes, produces 2 orders of magnitude less. Humans emit roughly 8 billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere yearly (current estimate). This would translate to roughly three times as much carbon dioxide - so let's say 20 billion tons. If we open up kikepedia and do a bit of independent searching - find a list of all major eruptions in the 20th century. Doing some quick math by adding together the significant figures, we over the course of the 20th century, volcanoes have ejected perhaps 70-600 cubic kilometers of material onto the surface. Assuming Pinatubo as a baseline, we get 25 million tons of co2 per km^3. How much does that leave us with? 1.75 - 15 billion tons. Over a century. 17.5 -150 million tons per year. Which is 2-3 orders of magnitude less than the first figure, no matter which way you cut it.
It makes no difference so long as the order of magnitude is right, because we're not looking at similar values, we're looking at entirely different scales.

Ha, so I guess I better throw out my laptop since it's sorcery, and burn anyone using a digital camera for witchcraft.

More harmful gases are farted into the atmosphere by cows than by cars and shit.

I don't want it in the hands of Jewish corporations. They're going to find a way to kill whites with it.

Methane, yes. Carbon dioxide, I don't think so tho I'd be happy to stand corrected in this simply because of how stupid it sounds.
Cars are a non-issue. If all we used fossil fuels for were cars we would never have even heard of global warming, climate change or whatever.
The and shit part is the crucial bit. Namely, the biggest culprit by far, coal powerplants, followed by energy intensive industries like industrial agriculture (the US is by far the biggest offender in this. Growing food in the fucking desert) and various materials mining procedures - aluminium electrolysis, iron smelting, rare earth mineral extraction. Cars are truly a cow's fart by comparison.

Forgot pic. Note that "transportation" includes shipping (huge ass marine diesel engines burning crude), trains and every other sort of large haul system.

The biggest problem I see with nuclear is that it it too heavily reliant upon civilization. You have to hope that civilization continues chugging along as it has in perpetuity.

Any decline or regression can end up being disastrous if the ability to service the reactors diminishes. Like, say, if your government suddenly decides to replace its higher IQ white population with a bunch of African niggers from the Congo.

If society collapses, expect a massive contraction in human population regardless of how technologically complex our energy infrastructure is. Most readily available high-energy-density fuels are already depleted. Without complex social structures, you are just as unable to extract and transport millions of barrels of oil as you are to operate a nuclear reactor.

What we should be focusing on instead is preventing the collapse in the first place.

I am not talking about population contraction. That is a given. I am talking about failures in the reactors and containment systems resulting from this or something else (such as aforementioned congoid idiocracy).

And no, we want the collapse.

Most reactors will simply shut down if not used properly.

I don't think you quite understand what I mean by collapse. I don't mean "civil war SHTF all the kikes hang". I mean a death spiral like the one Rome fell into, complete collapse of civilization. Because if that shit happens, you ain't rebuilding anything. There simply aren't any sufficient sources of energy that can be obtained sufficiently easily to do so. Fossil fuels propelled the industrial revolution, but they're largely gone. Ok, there's plenty of coal, but good luck building the equipment necessary for mining the required amounts of coal to produce and operate, well, the equipment necessary.

But that's not true. Coal is there for centuries to stay and it's a renewable resource, as is oil and methane. Furthermore, the origin of oil is still not fully understood. Obviously, it is created through degeneration of biological material. However, if abiogenic origin gets studied and described reliably, then there exists chance of oil being cheaply produced. High pressures were attainable by even low-tech industrial societies.

In worst case scenario involving temporary technological blackout (but not death of white people), we'll resort to using coal that's hard to mine or grow fuels like ethanol, harvest methane. It depends on how well would the current storage devices be preserved to allow quick recap of lost knowledge to engineer more difficult power sources.

The knowledge Rome had was not completely lost, only scattered. Their astronomical observations were used in medieval ages, their maths was actual as could be and their element studies began alchemy. Europe did not stop scientifically when Rome fell, it only regressed into thousands of small-time researchers instead of one aglomeration of knowledge. It is never that when society collapses, everything is gone and all that remain are the ruins. The civilization that rises after the one that has fallen retains the artifacts and the disciplines of famous minds. Medieval Europe didn't start over from neolithic society when Rome fell. Rome didn't start out from living in caves when Greece fell.

If there were reliable, cheap DNA computers and databanks prior to collapse and there were places where one could store them in optimal conditions without much involvement, then we could store data for hundreds or thousands of years. From there on out, it wouldn't be that hard to maintain or re-build nuclear power plants, if they still remain usable at all after decades, centuries of no operation.

Civilizations may fall, but we do not regress when we do. Society changes and sometimes the inhabitants, but white people have generally built over their failures with more sturdy designs. It is the niggers who lived, live and will live in shit huts permanently until they get put out of their misery.

barely negligible, CO2 emissions should not be of anyones concern at all, you literally just plant fucking trees to get rid of it, It doesnt need fucking international agreements (not that you should just dump EVERYTHING into the air like a mindless chink)
most greenhouse effect is from methane anyhow

inevitable
its what really be focused on in "climate change" and its not
there will be a day where all the coastal cities will be flooded and look like pic related, and the farmland be too cold and the prime soil be underneath a bunch of shitty chipboard condos some dipshit put up 50 years ago, no one is planning for this

actually a fucking thing and extremely dangerous (we already figured out how to counter it)
most of the US during the early 20th century turned into a fucking desert, it was the largest ecological disaster since the akkadians turned the middle east into a barren salted wasteland

They still have the fuel though.

I don't want industrial civilization though. It is inherently degenerate and anti-heroic. A permanent agrarian state would be ideal.

...

That was my point the whole fucking time. That's the reason I didn't want to look it up as it didn't mean anything to you anyway.

I even stated this earlier in the thread here

This is why nobody will take you guys serious. Even if they're trying to agree with you, you guys fucking try to make an argument out of it. EVEN THEN, when you do make an argument out of it, you just call each other names and refuse to do any research yourselves.

I miss how 8/pol/ started, when most of the threads were just hypothetical discussions. People also discussed things, even if they suspected that a person was a shill.

If you guys are so sure you're right, then you should have no fucking qualms with proving people wrong. Instead, you just bitch and name call like the people you hate.

...

SWEDEN YES

The problem is that large portions of the bioshpere that would greatly benefit from and negate the increased CO2 in the atmosphere, most notably in tropical areas, are being cut down, such as in the Amazon and in Indonesia.

I like people dying from polio because it is eugenic. Vaccines are degenerate, which is why they were invented by Jews. They allow subhumans to live and pass on their genes.

Sooooooooooo whites should all die from malaria and yellow fever?

And it was already pointed out in this thread that CO2 is irrelevant because it is already absorbing most of the photons it will after concentration is 20ppm. A jump from 200ppm to 400 ppm is irrelevant because it works on a logarithmic scale, not linear.

I thought vaccines were fine if not for the extra shit they put in there?

The weak one, sure. Most people with bad immune systems are liberal. Ever noticed that liberals are always weak and catching colds? These are the people who should have died in infancy but were saved by Jewish vaccines.

Im okay with medical aid in first world countries

It's total BS, just a giant fucking marketing scheme to sell bullshit that isn't even eco-friendly
Sure, we got Tesla out of it, but besides that, fuck the bullshit.
It's a fake environmental crisis stemming from a fake energy crisis.

The problem with dealing with warming is it needs global agreement and global enforcement, but liberals would opt to go it alone in lieu of that and cuck us, ruining our competitiveness.

Yeah pollution is some shit, and 90% of the companies hucking earth frirndly shit are destroying the environment

yeah that guy was totally retarded
facepalm.jpeg

That's largely true. Different gasses have different effects, however. A ton of gasses being spewed into the atmosphere that have greenhouse properties by man-made sources. These gasses are not being created by natural sources that are uninvolved with human activity. Methane, for example, is being spewed by factory farms. A counter argument to this is that as the planet goes in a warming trend, frozen methane will melt and contribute to increasing temperatures.

digging or peat releases methane
Permafrost thawing from a record high summer releases methane

Thorium!
You can even use nuclear waste as fuel and it immolates it!
This entire energy crisis is just a sham. Important nuclear research is illegal.
Oil companies are still marketing nukey power as bad, just like 60 years ago, and raking in YUGE profits.

Incoherent shilling: [x]
Fuck off back to the middle east with your holohoax reparations or oil money as appropriate.

Digging by individual animals and peat do not contribute much for the massive amount of methane being released. Digging enmasse as part of construction projects could be part of the methane release, though.

For once, not the jews?
I'm gonna say OPEC

Remember to report all shills

Are you stupid? Pic related.

Except none of this is happening.

CO2 increases LAG temperature increases, genius.
No, because as has been shown by every single temperature reading ever taken, THE EARTH IS NOT FUCKING WARMING.
1. Then if you actually believe what you claim to believe shut the hell up, since you have no authority to speak on the matter.
2. Good, because they’re not actual scientists.
And yet it isn’t, as has been shown.
0%.
You’ve already been proven wrong, shlomo.

Reported.

Kill yourself.

...

You missed my point. It is difficult to extract any resource in the quantities required without sufficient manpower and organization.
No. Not because it cannot be done, but because of thermodynamics.
High pressures are attainable, yes.
BUT IT TAKES ENERGY TO DO THIS
What you are arguing for is basically the same load of crap that the HHO crowd is pushing - they want to simply burn hydrogen. How do they plan to make hydrogen? By electrolysis, of course! There is just one, tiny, little problem, you cannot get out more energy of a closed system than you put in. This isn't even one of your ((jewish sciences))), this is the second rule of thermodynamics. Energy is always conserved. A chemical bond stores a certain amount of energy when created, and releases the exact same amount of energy when broken, and vice versa. Even if your process of producing hydrocarbons was 100% efficient, and you could then burn 100% of the created fuel and convert 100% of the heat released into electricity, you would still only end up with just as much as you started. That's like running a hydroelectric plant by pumping water uphill and then letting it run down hill - it's not a power source, it's energy storage.

As for how it is created, judging by the geological depth it is at, regardless of the specific mechanism involved, the process would have taken millions upon millions of years. What is oil, coal? It's just millions of years of photosynthesis-stored solar energy compacted into liquid and solid hydrocarbons respectively by the pressure, which was in turn produced by millions of years of nuclear fission, tidal forces and leftover kinetic energy from the formation of the solar system, at the earth's core. There's an absolutely massive amount of chemical potential energy in fossil fuels, and there's a reason for it - took an absolutely massive amount of energy to create these reservoirs.
I know all this, but the population and energy available to the individual fell into the dump, as did any possibility of scientific progress and doing shit like, I don't know, colonizing the fucking stars, for about a thousand years.

Rome wasn't an industrialized civilization, btw, so it didn't deplete any energy sources that weren't readily replenished - mainly just timber and simple sugars in food. What sets an industrial society apart from a pre-industrial one is the ability to harness more energy than can be effectively procured from whatever we can harvest (quite literally) from ongoing photosynthesis. So while the forests and wheat fields would recover easily from being overused, replenishing at a constant rate as function of plants harvesting solar energy (at incredibly shitty efficiencies btw), the same cannot be said for the incredibly condensed reserves of fossil fuels. Rome did not have the technology to use more energy than could be recovered in a year. Industrial societies do. Refer to my earlier post here to see that the energy required to acquire more fossil fuels is growing exponentially as we use up the easiest sources first. Supposing a roman-level collapse, our descendants would be hard pressed to create a new industrial society, simply because these develop exponentially, and so does their resource consumption.

Why nuclear? Well, despite what other Barry might say in your head, not everything widely believe is a lie. Coal DOES pollute the environment, coal DOES release greenhouse gases - which can lead to wildly unpredictable effects on the climate, and coal has a low energy density, meaning that a society has to be very well established before it can manage to use it as an energy source, simply because of the mass required and the economies of scale in heat capture. You are not transporting the volumes in pic related by hand, and you are not going to manage any kind of system without thousands of people involved, even today.

This. People are too scared shitless to do the research that would help to liberate mankind from the human condition. Human cloning and discovering a permanent power source are among these.

THanks, I wasn't entirely sure you were a kike shill, but now that's all cleared up.

No goyim, it's meat. Everyone must be vegetarian except for the elite we still get to eat meat

...

Are you retarded or something? Where did I say any of that. Check my ID you faggot, and you'll see all I am suggesting is transition to nuclear.
I just might if you pinky promise to learn basic math.

Your life.

Oy vey, if we get rid of all the non-kosher meat, the world will be saved from global warming!

Try again.
What’s 2-2, nigger? Because you’re getting a bigger number, rather than a smaller one. You’re physically incapable of comprehending what is happening to the climate. I’d call you a nigger if I didn’t know they couldn’t form sentences that well.

Daily reminder, the number 1 shilling tactic on this board is coming into any thread where a meaningful discussion is taking place and start calling everyone a shill.

Filtered.

Mhmm.

Daily reminder that AGW is disproven and that anyone who claims it exists is a shill.

You would only be liberating people in the wrong direction. Instead of transcending you fall to subhumanity. All technology past a point serves to reduce humans. That is why there is a direct correlation between industrialization and degeneracy.

No it isn't.

Coal is not sustainable. REGARDLESS of its renewability

It's a dirty product with too much waste.

JUST USE THE NUCLEAR REACTORS THAT ACTUALLY EXIST TODAY YOU FUCKING NUMPTIES

Yeah, coal is shit. Can't even eat tuna anymore without getting brain damage because of it.

Ok, so I filtered two ID's which had posted obvious D&C one-liners. Looking back at the thread it is quite apparent what they are doing. Look at the rate of fire on those things.

what about charcoal?

Good. Effectively a deadman switch.

Modern nuclear reactors are extremely safe though. Even if a bunch of niggers ran it into the ground, automatic failsafes would render it completely deactivated.

Fucking this. While developing new nuclear reactors is fine, we already have the technology for pretty much perfectly reliable reactors, lying around since the 70s. In the US it was throttled because of the three mile island bullshit, and a ton of regulations.

Tuna is shit anyway, along with most seawater fish

walleye and catfish FTW

Remember to report AGW believers.

So would you prefer to live with nature, then? There's no other way for mankind to transcend its current cage here on Earth and in their bodies.

You’re mentally ill; I’m sorry.

It's different to coal. It's less toxic and it's being touted as having a potentially carbon-neutral cycle i.e. Growing plants uses CO2, burning charcoal made from said plants releases CO2 for a net zero carbon release. (Biochar, bio-oil, syngas etc)

I can't see it as being something useful for global energy requirements though.

The only transcendence comes from heroics.

Reducing yourself to a subhuman machine is not the way. Why do you think all transhumanism is Jews? Because they want to reduce the rest of humans to their subhuman level.

Charcoal is better than coal as far as pollution and very-long term sustainability is concerned, but the energy return on investment is far, far lower since you have to pyrolize wood first, which takes time, space, and tons of heat. It is not nearly as expedient as a primary energy source. There is also the added problem of potential deforestation at large enough scales.

As far as thermodynamic considerations are concerned, coal is probably the single best resource to propel a society into the industrial age. But it comes with a ton of drawbacks. The only real, feasible alternative to fossil fuels we have is nuclear fission.

Which, as we have pointed out here six million times, is irrelevant.

Basically, the cost of implementing the energy solutions that are proposed to combat climate change (global warming, global cooling, etc) are really expensive.

This is because the technology underpinning them is not really there yet in terms of actually powering a large country.

But companies that manufacture these half-baked solutions sell them to politicians who sell them to the public as a means of saving the world. This creates large profit for the green tech firms at the tax paying expense.

what about "muh solar"
a household can run all its power needs off of it if its not a shitty rainy place like london or washington

how many resources would really need to be consumed to produce them? they pretty much dont need replacement right?

To what? I'm not part of your shitshow.

Relevant to our thermodynamic environment? Very much so.

What the fuck. What's with the ad hominems?
You completely ignored my point about renewable fuels like methane or bioethanol. Both can be incorporated in post-apocalyptic economy almost immediately and both are tied to power and population growth of any given faction. When a true apocalypse happens and there are a handful survivors, they effectively have as much land as they can get. Ergo, they can use it to farm animals and grow crops. The crops they do not eat, they can ferment to produce bioethanol. They can use animals or leftovers from last society to till as much as they can. The bioexcretions that they don't use as a fertilizer from animals, they can transform into methane. The resources and products of the fallen society don't magically disappear over night, so there should be more than enough containers and parts to create jury-rigged methane containers and ethanol/methane engines or generators. Even the first engines can be simple steam engine design that runs on wood, because there is going to be an abundance of it in the apocalypse you are envisioning. Wood-powered tractors can make the fields sprawl for miles. Then bioethanol/methane economy becomes a possibility. All it takes is a semi-skilled engineer or a brilliant mind with a lot of resources and creativity.

Eventually you will get to the point, where excess energy can be used to perhaps design low-efficiency green energy like solar panels or wind to supply the grid further and take a load off. Eventually you should have enough power to re-start mines and low scale oil production maybe. Sooner or later, you should be able to switch to high-density fuels like uranium or thorium. We are talking about several decades worth of progress here, from nothing to uranium, if not centuries. Thousands of people are not hard to attain, considering in contemporary world there are about ~700 mln whites.

Also coal does not release greenhouse gases. CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. You can check on how CO2 impacts global temperatures and surprise, surprise, the scale is logarithmic peaking at +2C from 200 ppm into 1000. Now, if you want to talk about radioactivity stemming from isotopes of coal, then yes, that is polluting and coal factories are cancer. Your last retort about nuclear power seems very shitty way to argue your point, because I never said I was against it, you dumb faggot. In fact, I was encouraging it.

The issue with solar is less of a residential one and more of an industrial one. It's not currently possible to power heavy industry with the sort of solar power systems used residentially. Which is a problem given the heavy industry required to make almost everything we use on a daily basis, not to mention solar panels themselves.

...

Because he’s a paid shill.

Never mind that we still have an energy storage problem. All the batteries we’ve envisioned are fucking garbage at long term storage.

You guys do realize that Africans are the closest thing to original humans right? Would you really want to try and keep things as they are and have the BBC become the next step in mankind's evolution? Food for thought :^)

found the kike

LOTS.

Photovoltaic cells are the one's that currently require a lot of dodgy chemicals to produce.

Concentrated solar needs a lot of mirrors and landspace.

Lots of materials may be required but that says little about the difficulty in obtaining or handling these materials. Some are cheaper, some are dangerous, some are rare, some are difficult. A lot of variables.

They need maintenance i.e. cleaning, typically.

They will eventually need replaced because they will degrade, everything degrades.

….capacitors?

heavy industry could still run fossils if its not being edged out by giant powerplants burning it all up so people can watch big bang theory and look at facebook in their office cubicle

how fast do solar panels degrade though?

That entire post is full of points based on sound scientific knowledge. I'm not even sure he called you a retard once.

You're retarded.

25 years, give or take a few.

This rate is subject to change as time progress. How much? Deeper research required.

No, proper batteries. Stuff that can reliably be charged and discharged millions of times. We finally came up with a pure lithium anode a year or so ago, but will that ever be in a commercial product? FUCKING NOPE.

No, not at all. Read the thread.

…that doesnt even give you an energy return on how fucking expensive those panels are

Until commercial solar gets more than 50% efficient, people are just wasting their fucking time.

Building new bullshit is not evolution. In fact, as I pointed out, technology has has a negative effect on human quality after the industrial revolution. Europeans of antiquity were unquestionably superior beings to anyone living today, whether they had Facebook and VR porn or not.

Households are small beans. There are simply immense amounts of energy that go into producing food, materials and consumer goods. A single steel foundry can easily eat as much energy as an entire fucking city. Aluminium electrolysis can rival small countries. That, and the fact that the very materials used in solar panels include a whole group of rare earth minerals that take a lot of power to mine, process and transport. Solar cannot provide the energy required to make more solar.

The other issue is the amount of space required, and the fact that it will only ever produce electricity during daytime. You simply cannot create a solar grid. Then you have to come up with energy storage, but that is a shit way to do things without huge economies of scale.

kek
You will only ever make as much of those as you can grow plants, which takes energy. A few survivors aren't going to produce hectares worth of corn or whatever to process into fuel.

And I am not talking about keeping the lights on. The amount of electricity consumed by people for people shit is negligible. Our civilization spends most of its energy for resource processing, transport, storage, etc, not for fucking households.

What you see is ad hominems is my frustration with the fact that you simply refuse to see the math. The issue isn't the chemical know how, the difficulty, or anything, it's simply the infeasibility of doing any of the things you are proposing for the effects you are proposing.
Good luck producing enough to run an industry or power a grid.
Waste of time and resources. Plus if you live in, say, England, you simply won't be making any solar panels due to the lack of raw materials. Solar-thermal, maybe.
This is all true, but you will not create an industrial economy of anything comparable to ours in size with this. Woods might seem like a nearly infinite resource, but when a population in the millions relies on them as their primary energy source, you quickly fall beneath replenishment rate. Before the industrial revolution, England was almost completely deforested by firewood harvesting, and that was just for heating homes.Hell, it still hasn't recovered, pic related. Energy in = energy out. There is no way around this problem.

He actually isn't, methane CAN be produced with net energy gain, by fermenting plant material. There are problems with the scale, though, and once again, the ERoEI is not very high.

doesnt the first solar panel still work though?
I thought you could just set those things up and not care for like a century

You have a finite closed system and you want to dump a quadrillion kilograms of something into it in a short period of time and you think we can just ignore it?

No, this is something you have to pay attention to.

Point me to something you asshole.

Ok, he's not technically wrong.

It's still not a good idea and I still want to sit here and call him a retard.

Yes. See here:

It is insignificant past a certain amount because it is logarithmic.

Global warming propagandists seem to avoid mentioning this, so people always believe it is linear.

It's good for heating a farmhouse and keeping the lights on. It's not good for creating semiconductor factories.

CO2 levels have grown about 40% since the start of the industrial revolution. The temperature hasn't grown 40%, so I don't know how exactly you can make that claim with any kind of certainty.
The average global temperature looks to have grown roughly by 1-1.5 degrees. The rate is lower than what alarmists and greenshits constantly predict, but I never said their models were correct, did I?
All I am saying is that the greenhouse effect is real because of rather simple physics. I am not predicting jack shit, and I am not claiming the earth is warming as a whole. CO2 has a warming effect, but since THIS IS THE FUCKING CLIMATE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, a system with thousands upon thousands of variables, in which the effects are not so cut and dry. What I do know with certainty, is that there has been a drastic increase in CO2 levels that is almost entirely anthropogenic, and that this in all likelihood will affect the climate.

How? Who the fuck knows. Warming seems a good guess on the surface, but on the same side of the coin, increased temperatures at the poles could stop or redirect the oceanic conveyor stream, thus reducing the mean temperatures in northwestern Eurasia and such, and this might even result in cooling. This is what I mean when I say I am not a climate scientist, any systems science is generally beyond the speculation of the layman.
They study the climate and apply the scientific
method, therefore they are scientists.
There seems to be a definite correlation between temperature and co2 levels, and I have no idea where you are getting the inverse log correlation from.
Based on what?
Calling me a shill over and over and over again for disagreeing doesn't make your position any more true, or even clear, for that matter. It actually has quite the opposite effect.

Actually according to recent data from NASA only the artic is receding, the antartic ice has been steadily growing a tiny amount each year.

This. It's happening, along with other obvious negative (some severely harmful) changes in the environment and ecosystems, but overbitching and exaggerating is unnecessary and counterproductive.

Cities are and have always been a shit-hole unsuitable for proper human life, and a paradise for contagious diseases. If we were smart enough we should now keep the medical science and useful tech, but discard the rest of what is making us miserable, including the surplus of retards byproduct of millennia of dysgenesis.

so living like cro magnon man will increase sanitation and hygiene?

Just pack your stuff and post from a nice house in the country side, retard. What part of keeping science and tech you didn't get.

Yes.

Have you got any more information for those graphs? I should point out that regardless of "global warming", the amount of material being released into the atmosphere is significant and should be tracked. If anything it's good, responsible practice.

>informath.org/Contest1000.htm

Nothing to do with the graph, apparently.

Google links to this but it's not there

da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_opvarmning

The graphs really mean nothing if you can't back them up.

You will eradicate epidemics, that's true, but you will also stagnate into extinction. Or rather, be conquered by other groups which have higher population density.

Human history is in no way a process separate from natural selection, you know.

the part where I get aluminum and complex circuits without massive industrial output made possible with a large community of people living together

Yes, that's why I also said "discard the rest of what is making us miserable, including the surplus of retards byproduct of millennia of dysgenesis". Gargabe disposal, killing, natural selection. All.

I get what you said. But natural selection applies to groups just as much as individuals. Romans were shorter, less warlike, and likely had no higher average IQs than the Celts. What they did have was social organization on a huge scale, and numbers.

Is greenhouse effect a thing?

Is CO2 a greenhouse gas?

Does man produce shitloads of CO2 that does not come from the current carbon circle?

All these questions and more, discussed to death in the thread above, new friend!

I don't follow…

Make a summary for me oilbergtarian friend.

Absorbing photons means increase of their energy (aka temperature in the long terms). Do these photon absorbing CO2 molecules leave the atmosphere?

There is a bunch of shills saying CO2 does affect climate, and there is a different bunch of shills calling the first bunch shills, and saying it doesn't.

Truth is, we all have a little shill within us, do we not?

Basic thermodynamics is also truth. According to basic physics saying that antrhopogenic climate change isn't real requires some really hard evidence.

And no I do not believe that taking measures against global warming is really necessary since it's mostly curries and niggers that will be affected.

quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2013/09/climate-science-styrofoam-cup/

That link proves that there is not enough data to determine warming pattern from natural variation.

So, first we have a death blow to the claim that co2 will cause warming death spiral and second a death blow to the claim that climate scientists know what they are talking about.

Click on my ID, mate

Archive plz? for some reason can't access it.

The data used to push this lie was collected from instruments on hot asphault roofs / walkways / parking lots.

They completely ignore the high-tech equipment (like satellites) data that does no provide any evidence that "abiogenetic global warming" is real.

Yeah, and the bulk of that is within the first 20ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere. The difference between pre-industrial and post-industrial absorption is negligible because it is almost fully absorbed at even a fraction of the amount of CO2 that has ever been in the atmosphere. Please, look at the graphs above and read the page I linked here

Keep a gun factory operational then, perform eugenics and focus on STEM education. You don't need to be China to ward off brown subhumans.

I might be wrong but isn't the main reason for temperature rise from greehouse gases reflection instead of absorption?

Oh look, and now you suddenly need to produce steel, and you need power and heat, and you need power for the steel factory. You also need to produce chemicals to load the guns, etc, etc.

If this shit was as simple as we'd like it to be, cities would not exist.

Only for photons that make it pretty much completely through the atmosphere.

It is neither, the phenomenon in question is called scattering. What it basically means is that particles a certain size will deflect light of a certain wavelength range diffusely in all directions. Absorption is when nothing gets re-emitted, while reflection is followed by re-emission but there's a whole lot of phsyics wave propagation crap involved.

Oh yes. Sorry, forgot junior's high physics. The whole shitstorm is about full spectrum light coming in but infra-red heat radiation produced by absorbed light of the seas and lands not going out, right?

theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/16/april-third-month-in-row-to-break-global-temperature-records

fresh off reddit front page :^)

And instantly refuted:
realclimatescience.com/2016/05/todays-climate-fraudster-of-the-day-andrew-freedman/

Because the geologic record shows it.
Except it hasn’t and you’re just shitposting.
You said their CLAIMS were, however
But not because of CO2.
You literally just said the opposite.
Except it has done absolutely nothing to the climate except make it milder. Weather extremes are leveling out.
So don’t claim something if you don’t even know if it CAN happen, much less will.
Solar output’s suggesting cooling, anyway.
Makes you wonder why they count psychologists as “climate scientists”, then.
archive.is/xJqb4

Climate change, a real phenomenon, is being manipulated to look like people are causing it and it's effects are heavily exaggerated to sell a bunch of shit and increase government power.

That site name comes up as a shill site. Its been debunked many times.

theunhivedmind.com/wordpress3/debunked-steven-goddards-realclimatescience-com-pevensey-bay-sea-level-misinformation-piece/

billmoyers.com/2014/05/16/eight-pseudo-scientific-climate-claims-debunked-by-real-scientists/

Tony Heller

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Goddard

Read Atmospheric Physics and the atmospheric window.

God dammit, this is 11. Class material.

Global Warming? Who cares.

Phosohates, Peak oil and ocean acidification will do more harm than some warm air, I guess. Except when the middle east completely gets desert, then all else around it will be toast too. Which means a warmer Europe until the gulf stream breaks - and then the world will be flooded with radionucleids. Fucking mudskins wont fix the nuclear rods, idiots they are.

Oh, and then? You know the spent fuel rods?

Yes, let's dig a hole and throw them into the pit, maybe that works.

The EDF employs sandniggers at their cores. This will fuck Europe more than the niggertsunami.

WEW

EITHER REFUTE WHAT THE SITE SAYS OR PUT A SHOTGUN IN YOUR MOUTH, BECAUSE WE’RE GOING TO KILL YOU EITHER WAY.

...

Chill shill.

The science is pretty sound. Global warming is happening.

The nefarious part comes from demonizing nuclear power, which is zero-carbon and can be designed to be absolutely safe and cheap, with limitless fuel and very little waste.

The greens hating carbon and hating nuclear makes me want to tear my hair out. No but really it makes me want to kill myself, this knowledge is such a burden.

Reported. You lose.

Reported for shitposting.

what aspect of my post was shit? It was singularly poignant. Are you a bot or something?

...

White nationalist here.

I'm startingg to believe that the only way to save us from more CO2 emissions might be to simply nuke china.

I wrote software modeling weather patterns as a contract a few months ago, worked with some mathematicians, now know enough chaos theory to say beyond a doubt climate change is happening. Climate change is the preferred term because the heating is causing excessive amounts of energy to be stored in our atmosphere, which can easily be thrown out causing unforeseen weather events and permanent shifts.

One such shift but also an added benefit is the excessive melting of ice and the heating oceans will change under sea current possibly within our lifetimes, and its predicted that Europe will become very cold, as it used to be.

Europeans have evolved for thousands of years to weather this change. Those with darker skin who manage to be born will suffer many bone illnesses from this climate, the dark females will continuously have failed pregnancies since Vitamin D levels are what keep the body from aborting the fetus, and the males will be so weakened by adolescents, it will be no contest for those with lighter skin and faces sculptured for this climate, having the semetic nose btw in such a climate will also cause difficulties.

Kind of a shame really, I wanted some big battle in Europe to throw out the invaders but it seems the climate will do this all for us.

Do everything you can to speed it up, methane is the best.

...

pick one