Global Warming Thread


Ive been trying to redpill the only friend of mine that maintains the capacity to really ingest the information but Ive hit a brick wall with him when trying to convince him that global warming isn't man made and that the whole agenda and push for its funding is an absolute shithole.
Ive showed him examples of previous information being fabricated to help him really comprehend how faked the data is and he is somewhat curious but refuses to believe that thousands of scientists have been effectively paid off to shill for the (((global warming cartel))).

One of his counterarguments was why global warming? What do they get from it? If theyre the ones behind most of the oil trade, why would they be funding their own opposition by trying to find oil free alternatives? Unfortunately, I couldnt cite anything that would prove my idea and that worries me. If anyone could share infographics or links to good articles to read, its much appreciated.

Other urls found in this thread:

Jews and Judaism

This is a good starter video to anyone who isn't already aware of the criminality of those behind this agenda. Its what I showed my friend, and yet he still refutes it.

So there is no contamination? Good to know fellow redpilled folks


It's because shilling for the climate effectively gimps the ability of first world nations to make and produce goods. Meanwhile third world shit holes can pull out ahead because they don't have such qualms. It's literally giving everybody else an advantage over us. The United States's carbon footprint is minuscule compared to China's



A few of Tony Heller's findings on climate data being altered over time.

Do some research on "green energy", who is funding/promoting it, and who owns most of companies producing and selling such products. Just follow the nose.

Additionally, you can point out the fact that "green energy" pretty much kills the economy because it's expensive and inefficient, and that benefits you know who.

This site: and Watt's Up With That are all you need.

Im already aware of the carbon credit bullshit theyre pulling, this thread is to gather info for cucks who havent heard this shit yet.

It's something that can't easily be studied by the average person. The average person will believe what (((experts))) tell them.
Carbon taxes, raise energy costs, restrict freedoms (EPA's bullshit regulations)
Oil isn't going anywhere, peak oil is a random idea at best, they have no idea how much oil there is under the Earth's crust. Alternative fuel already exists and is gasoline derived from industrial hemp and Henry Ford designed a car to run on it and it worked (also had hemp-plastics for body panels).

Global Warming is a boogeyman. Now that communism (the USSR) and their threat of >muh atomic bomb is dead, globalists need a new boogeyman to scare us into their system.

it was going to be UFOs and ayys after they used everything at their disposal successfully.

That Swemson chart:
A) Displays data from a single sample drawn from central Greenland, and so cannot be used (by itself) to establish a reliable or consistent record of Northern Hemisphere climate data.
B) Terminates 95 years before present, and so misses the majority of the warming that has occurred.
C) Displays a dramatic warming trend that is known to correspond to increased carbon concentrations.

Look, Holla Forums, you're a lot of fun to lurk. There's a lot going on around here that keeps us all amused and informed. But if you faggots think global warming is a plot by climate scientists and Jews to scare the world out of the meager budgets allotted to fighting it, then you're Holla Forums-tier deranged.

Scientists are smart. If they were unscrupulous enough to use terror to get your money, they'd already have it. These are the people who know how to build chemical weapons and breed doomsday diseases, after all. If they wanted our fucking money, we couldn't say no to them.

Instead, they do honest research that comes to conclusions reactionary oil magnates don't like, so you buy into apeshit propaganda from creationist-tier sources. You are wrong about global warming, and you are wrong for the best possible reason - because you have shit between your ears and wouldn't understand the peer-reviewed literature on this subject even if you tried to read it, which you don't, because you're retarded.

Tl;dr: Silence, churls. This is an area you know nothing about, so mind your betters.
Still, gas the Jews

Get gassed for that reddit attitude, faggot.

But you're not completely wrong. Holla Forums's arguments against climate change are almost completely based on kikes overestimating the temperature increases for monetary gain and pushing their political agenda. There is very little discussion about the actual science involved. For example, it's fairly typical to see CO2 greenhouse effect being dismissed out of hand, despite the fact that it's well established through physics that "greenhouse" gasses do in fact increase the heat retention of a planet's atmosphere. Just as often patently false claims are made that volcanoes emit a comparable or greater amount of CO2, which is off by two orders of magnitude.
If you want to argue for environmentalism, you gotta be patient here. Most Holla Forumsacks will dismiss anything agreed on by liberals and kikes out of hand.


It is not that they've all been paid off. Just the ones who control the journals and most scientists don't have the clout to stick their necks out and challenge the "consensus."

People also conveniently ignore that Dihydrogen Monoxide is the worst greenhouse gas of them all.

Kikes before global warming. Why? Because any initiatives towards the safety and prosperity of the general populace will be co-opted and corrupted into parasitical kikery the moment it's acknowledged.

No, they aren't.

Wow that is not an argulent, you should go back to TRS forums or The Daily Stormer.

Yes, but guess what? There is a constant amount of water in the system, and the atmospheric vapor levels fluctuate periodically. CO2 is being introduced where it wasn't before, and therefore it can and it does alter the long term behaviour of the system. Just think about your arguments for 5 minutes before just jumping the gun because they sound right and fit the conclusion you wish to reach.

Absolutely. Space and nuclear are things I see as crucial for our long term survival, but winning this war comes first. The plough can always wait before the sword.

Depends who "they" is.

If you're talking about climate scientists, they get massive amounts of reliable high paying jobs that their very specialized and not particularly useful education would otherwise be unable to get. Nobody in the field wants this boat rocked because it is a cash cow. People who are gatekeepers to the field (i.e. graduate advisors) will sabotage anyone who openly questions the "consensus". To speak out against it is to be ostracized and defunded.

If you're talking about the political Left, it's a scheme to siphon off public funds to go to their party (or parties). They use the "consensus" maintained by the culture of hostility that exists in academia in order to justify public grants for "green" bullshit. These grants help create businesses that will exclusively donate to the Left. They will claim that their donations are only going to left-wing parties and candidates because of the "global warming denial" that exists on the Right. They will never give a single cent even to Right-wing politicians who accept Global Warming because of those that don't. Right-wing politicians who accept Global Warming are traitors and cucks. Furthermore, they pass regulations that make less green competitors (who are more likely to give money to the Right) have a harder time staying in business.

For the Jews, it's about sabotaging Western economies so they can invest in ones less bound by the regulations and make a lot of shekels.

You cannot honestly say this. The system is not linear, so it is not necessarily the case that altering this one variable must produce effects.

That is why it is so easy to dupe retards into believing AGW. Because there is no intuitive understanding of complex systems. Most scientists do not even understand this.

I know and I agree, I'm just stating a little-known fact in the non-scientific community. If the climate was as simple as more greenhouse gases raising the temperature, the evaporation of water would cause runaway global warming.

Let me tell you all why you are the collective vaginal secretions of an old lady:

The sun is a giant nuclear fusion reactor around which our tiny, relatively ant-sized, little planet revolves. The equivalent of billions of atomic bomb explosions are erupting on its surface every second. Without it, life would not exist. It is literally the closest thing to our understanding of a physical god that we have.

And here you little bitches are, trying to convince me to keep on using mummified algae juice.

Ya'll need to stop sucking Exxon's fat, greasy jewcock and get in on using the power of God.

Not possible. You know nothing about power and should kill yourself.

Enlighten us then.


Controlled OP + money + influence.
Notice you don't see many people in Africa, or India, or even China, overtly concerned about Climate Change - only the West.
And only the West must change, must cease employing the most effective energy production avenue at our disposal - but only the West.
Africans can burn electronics' plastic housing for warmth, China can dump toxins into the water table, India can shit on the beach, but the West must hobble itself.

… Now why would (((they))) want that, and in what ways does that play into other programs/processes which (((they))) oversee?

Science is not religion - and scientists are not altruistic in their efforts.
They require payment, and in the field of research science, payment most-commonly comes from grants, most-commonly obtained from government or other similarly scaled entities.

The truth of X, Y, or Z is not so nearly as important to most scientists as their getting paid for demonstrating 1, 2 or 3 about X, Y or Z, and the corruption is huge - as is the blatant stupidity.
Science has become the new religion, and these people cannot seem to fathom that their preachers would be pushing visions of the new Hell for the sake of ensuring a constant flow of money, "to investigate and prevent human action leading us to the new Hell", into the new Church.

Nigger, 6 of the 10 highest grossing companies in the world are Gas and Oil companies. Oil is still one of the most lucrative industries in the world. Motherfucking Clarence P. Cazalot of Marathon Oil made $43.7 Million Dollars this year.

You're telling me there are more Jews in Green Energy than Oil? The fuck is wrong with you, you gullible sack of dumbshit?

What's to explain?

We do not have the capacity at present to effectively employ solar generation platforms to meet our energy needs, to meet even a small fraction of our energy needs, certainly not with anything approximating the efficiency and ease of, as user above terms it, "mummified algae juice".

This faggot

is infected with woo, thinks we can just magically employ that extremely-distant nuclear fusion reactor to supply our energy needs, and that simply isn't realistically feasible given our present situation.

The Sun is a wonderful energy source, and we ought employ it more, and put more into finding new ways to employ it - and, for that matter, finding new ways to employ the processes upon which it functions - but as it stands, it simply is not sufficient for our needs.

First: Yes.
Second: Irrelevant.
Third: You argue like a Jew.

Green energy is rife with Judaism, and equivalent non-Jewish trash, and even if it weren't, your argumentation is irrelevant, because green energy cannot supply out needs, which brings us to how you argue like a Jew, which is in the context of your attempt to shift from "this energy source is insufficient to meet our needs" to "there are more Jews in this energy industry than this other one!".

You seem to be under the impression that I am under the impression that the entire world can just switch over to Solar energy in an instant. I understand the logistics, asshole. I know that our ability to employ green energy throughout the infrastructure will be a slow, meticulous process, and that at the moment Green energy isn't as effective as oil as an energy source.

That's why I'm in favor of researching ways of making Solar energy more efficient and implementing Solar energy into the infrastructure fucking NOW. Not when it's "good enough". I think Solar Panels should be a part of every new building and structure, like electricity and plumbing. Kickstart some initiative. Once people can see the actual, tangible benefits of Free Energy, get companies working on making it more efficient and cheaper.

Global warming is a very odd term. Im not even sure i understand what they mean by it. The world has its own cycle that would happen without humans. Its been much much hotter and colder than now. If they mean the literal increase in temperature than thats retarded and means nothing. If they mean human caused global warming then they have to prove that the difference humans make is causing it and for me there isnt really evidence for it. We know the earth recently had a severe glaciation period so its perfectly expected for it to warm up.

There are some serious environmental problems that exist. The plastic island in the middle of the pacific and the loss of habitat/pollution that is causing a massive animal die off are much more important than the ambiguous term global warming. We banned CFCs in the 80s as it was very damaging to the environment (ozone layer). So if they were serious about stopping human harm to the planet they would be banning compounds like this. I think they recently banned HFCs but there are many many more compounds that they let carry on being made.

The idea of CO2 causing acidification of the oceans is something i dont know much about but seems like it makes sense. Again though, the earth deals with supervolcanos and asteroid strikes putting enough carbon/sulphur dioxide and other shit in the atmosphere to block out the sun for years. So i am not convinced our activity has too much effect.

Yes they are user, from a certain point of view. :^)

The left has moved on from one false environmental crisis to another.

Global cooling in the 70's global warming after that and many other things in the last century.

None of these things are actually true so eventually they had to resort to something really vague like climate change.

and climate change can refer to anything man made.

just tell him the earth is flat and dinosaurs are a lie

Because the major oil companies are so big and so rich they can reorganize themselves and make money from both sides, oil + renewable energy + carbon trading schemes. BP and Shell have donated money to climate research groups in the UK. Even some arab monarchies too. If you think Saudi Arabia is going to end up poor when there's no more oil you're naive, they're investing in hi-tech solar power plants and other alternative energy technologies.

(1 trillion = 1000 billion)

Mobilizing the Billions and Trillions for Climate Finance

"Over the next 15 years, the global economy will require an estimated $89 trillion in infrastructure investments across cities, energy, and land-use systems, and $4.1 trillion in incremental investment for the low-carbon transition to keep within the internationally agreed limit of a 2 degree Celsius temperature rise."

This is actually a "gateway red pill" so to speak for normies. The know the govt doesn't care about them but when they think the govt also doesn't care about Bambi they go nuts. Something to do with Disney brainwashing….>>8280356

What shall those red circles tell me?

You may or may not notice the fact that I am not proposing any models for the future. What I am, is very suspicious that a system as complex as the earth's climate would be totally unaffected by a 40% increase in the raw amount of CO2 - a well known greenhouse gas - over just two centuries. We can't say anything with certainty, but we won't be for a very long time. It doesn't matter what the effects are specifically, predicting this is crapshoot. But just because the effects are highly non-linear and frankly impossible to model doesn't mean there will be no effects.

Indeed it's not simple at all. There are possible models under which an increase in heat retention could cause a runaway cooling. But those are just as crapshoot as any other model, because if you want to model a system with a trillion variables, you have to know all those variables.

meant to say "we're not able to"

"MICHAEL CRICHTON (closing statement)

There was a time when I worked in a clinic and, uh, one day a young woman came in, she was in her early twenties for a routine checkup and, I said what’s going on with you and she said I’ve just become blind.

And, I said, oh my gosh, really, when did it happen, she said, well just, uh, coming into the clinic, walking up the steps of the clinic I became blind.

And I said, oh, and I’m — by now I’m looking through the chart and I said, well, has this happened before, she said yes, it’s happened before. I’ve become blind in the past, and, what she had of course was hysterical blindness.

And the characteristic of that, is that, the severity of the symptom is not matched by the emotional response that’s, that’s being presented. Most people would be screaming about that but she was very calm, oh yes, I’m blind again.

And I’m reminded of that whenever I hear, that we’re facing, whether we wanna call it a crisis or not, a significant global event, of, of, of importance where we’re gonna have species lost and so on and so forth, that we can really address this by changing our light bulbs.

Or that we can really make an impact by unplugging our appliances when we’re not using them. It’s very much out of whack. And so if… if it were only gonna do symbolic actions, I would like to suggest a few symbolic actions that right — might really mean something."

Scientists are people too. I bet you even believe in the 97%.


Let's say it's true then….what's your solution?

This is the way we will see if you belong here or not

Not that hard tbh fam.

Global warming is not that important, as it is bonkers to prove or disprove it, there are many scientists pro and against it. Its probably another shekel factory, but nobody should care about it, let it die.

They appear to be the same points in time, being skewed every year further and further. Starts at about .2 and ends at about .8. Kinda like holocaust numbers going from 100 thousand to 6 gorillion

It lets the left defraud the public. It is important.

It's being brainwashed into our youths as we speak. Just look at this thread with all the newfag-4channers who just got here speaking the word of pastor Al Gore.

Every time I hear some zombie mention pollution or oil in the same discussion as man-made climate change/global warming I want to just bludgeon them to death right there on the spot.

Of what?

Of climate scientists that according to the U.N. subscribe to the idea that mankind is responsible for warming temperatures in the last 200 years.

Not just that, but they are more conformist than most people. My guess is that its why so many are for globalism, they work within bureaucracies and believe in technocracy, with no self awareness how dysfunctional the institutions they govern are, notably academia.

Global warming and the risk to any scientists career who dares to say different is the perfect example of how far from grace scientists have fallen, they like to say its just about the evidence, that its just about objective assessment of facts, but its clearly become ideological with pervasive group think.

Weren't like 97% of them not even atmospheric scientist but shit like geology or engineers?

That's the Ice core data retard.
This is the modern data.

That bogus study by John Cook, Dana Nuccitelli and the rest of the SkepticalScience team (who are Climate alarmists, they're not at all skeptics despite their group's name), the one that concluded 97% of the published science confirmed AGW was real and 97% of scientists confirmed the scientific consensus that AGW was real. President Obama tweeted a link to that study and it became the most 'consulted' study of all time or something like that.

In short, it's a study concocted by a group of activists dedicated to propagate the idea that there's a catastrophic global warming happening because of fossil fuels (and we must lower CO2 emissions with carbon taxes). And the editor of the scientific journal who published it, climate consultant Daniel Kammen, was previously appointed by then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at the position of "clean energy fellow to Western Hemisphere":


You can read a detailed debunking of that whole shitshow on this page if you're ready to spend 30+ minutes reading:

What a fucking retard, even majority of cuckchan idiots understand the scam. Worthless post

H2O affects energy coming into the planet as well as energy leaving, so its net effect is negligible or even non-existent. It keeps energy from leaving, but it also keeps energy from coming in. CO2, on the other hand, is completely translucent to incoming radiation but absorbs a wide band of outgoing radiation, resulting in the greenhouse effect.

The thing that literally nobody will ever admit is that there is an absolute upper limit to what the greenhouse effect can do to global temperatures. CO2's absorption band is 0C to -40C. It's completely translucent to radiation emitted by bodies warmer than 0C, meaning that beyond that temperature it ceases to do anything. And so, what we'll see in the long long long run, is that the poles will warm up to ~1C, melt, and then nothing more happens ever. This is what has happened in previous epochs and what will happen in the future if the trend of warming is actually true and does actually continue.

Global warming will not result in a desert planet – it will result in a jungle planet. The loss of land by the encroaching coastline will be bad, but the entirety of Siberia and Greenland will become farmland, and honestly it has a real possibility of being a net positive to humanity assuming we don't fucking murder ourselves in the short run.

And the last thing is, if the climate scientists are right about the oceans emitting massive amounts of CO2 due to the reduced solubility of CO2 due to increased ocean temperature, then there's absolutely nothing that can be done at this point anyways. Humanity could stop producing CO2 overnight and the positive reinforcement cycle of [oceans get warmer -> oceans release CO2 -> CO2 makes atmosphere warmer -> oceans get warmer] is going to keep going. We needed to act in the 1950s, not now, if we actually wanted to have a shot at preventing that.

Good luck.

t. ayylmao

Interesting, never heard about the spectra.

Well that's not true since it's a spectrum. But I see your point. Higher temperatures are less effected.

A large scale pandemic wiping out the populations of China, India and Africa.

I mean, okay, from an absolutely literal point of view no it isn't true because any gas will always have non-zero absorption for any radiation, but my point is that the net effect of warming only exists when the outgoing radiation is emitted by a body that is in that -40C to 0C band. You can actually see this on the graph you posted – the x-axis there is by wavelength and not black body emission temperature, but the meaningful and important band there is the huge lump on CO2 in the ~13 to 20 micrometer range. That is what I'm talking about, and that is the mechanism by which the greenhouse effect is created.

At higher temperatures the outgoing radiation is also going to be absorbed somewhat, but it's getting absorbed at the same rate as incoming radiation is so there is no asymmetric effect that leads to increased temperature.

You can also see what I mean about water vapor in that graph, too. You can see that at low temperatures water vapor absorbs a lot of outgoing radiation, but if you look at higher temperatures it also absorbs a lot of incoming radiation too, and these two effects are roughly equal in magnitude (or at least so I'm told) and so water vapor doesn't have a huge impact on the greenhouse effect due to the relative symmetry there.

I wish it would be ayys already.
Would be more fun.

Here are two great videos for red-pilling. First the history of "man-made climate change", the guy that came up with the theory eventually rejecting it and how it was used for political purposes in regards to global government. This video is by John Coleman, the meteorologist who founded The Weather Channel.

The second video is Stefan Molyneux explaining why so many scientists go along with the "man-made climate change" hoax. Forget whether you like him or not, just listen to the whole video as it makes perfect sense regardless of the messenger.

The core data was falsified, so that means every climate model worldwide is shit.

Basically they all use the same core data sets and then base anything else off of that.

Its all bullshit.





This is the only issue about which I'm at odds with Holla Forums. We're at least hundreds of years away from being able to inhabit other planets. Meanwhile, we're actively destroying our own. Even if global warming itself isn't man-made (which I'm pretty convinced it is), we're still polluting the shit out of our fresh water, dumping chemicals in soil, clear-cutting forests.

NatSoc Germany had specific policies regarding the preservation of nature and the limiting of industrial activity in areas with fragile ecosystems. Nature is the mother of the human spirit. We cannot be strong without her. As such, we must preserve her and protect her from those who would maim her.

Who doesn't like stefon molinoo?

Even if just for his "not an argument" banter, you can't help but like the guy.


So you agree with him then?

No, I don't think Freddy Krueger is real. My point is that of course we can take care of the environment better, but that doesn't mean "man-made climate change" is real. And we shouldn't accept draconian restrictions and pay carbon taxes because of this hoax.

Yep, this tbh. We are most likely fucking up our planet for good.

Global warming is the same socipathic bullshit that was produced during the elections. Claim something completely opposite to reality so the opposing arguments seem silly and just confuse the people, who are in process made apathetic.

The FACT is that sunspot count is getting low, really low, Little Ice Age kinda low. So instead building up agricultural reserves and devising cold weather food, we're cutting industry left and right.

At the end we're going to remain withouth food and withouth industry. Which means chaos. Across the West and especially in the 3rd world which is dependent on USA produced food.
Combine that with the current UN chief being a secretary(something similar) for immigration up until his election and a socialist(read: communist) AND the coming economic meltdown, it's getting pretty much obvious what the kikes have in store for us. A supershitstorm to fling the West into chaos and swing commie China as the world superpower.
Add a WW3 between Russia and the West, plus a couple of Rockefeller produced viruses into that and you've got yourself a perfect Ordo ad chao situation to get the New World Order into power.

tl;dr Whatever you hear in the media is a lie intended to manipulate you.

I look at that and fail to comprehend how someone might like cyberpunk settings at all. It's gloom and doom all around.

There is actually good evidence that temperatures are rising around the world.
The problem is that the places where they are pulling their data from are mostly places like airports, inner cities, and at roads and such.
So no wonder why temeperatures are rising.
When you use stuff like concrete and asfalt, then it gets hotter because it collects heat, and they are using more and more of that in the places where they gather data, so naturally the temperature will rise.

Don't forget that they've been removing many temperature monitoring stations from cold areas over the years to try to artificially inflate the temperature. See page 16 onwards.

According to this first chart here we need to warm the planet as much as possible in order to keep the empire from falling apart. If the Earth actually cools it looks like we are fucked

That widely distributed graph that shows rising of CO2 levels in Hawaii on Mauna Kea of all fucking places is the most hilarious.
CO2 levels on a volcano are rising?
You don't say.

you're doing exactly what the kikes are doing. subverting the argument and changing the subject. First of all, this is about GW/CC not ocean pollution, forests and most certainly not about National Socialism. Second, if we morph into the political aspects of CC, then we've already failed to assess our viewpoints. The argument must stay scientific and experiments must be conducted with transparency. Now, one side of the argument is clearly politically motivated and that's proven by . Third, climate has always been changing, reduction in climate doesn't equal good, increase in climate doesn't equal bad. Water vapor is the biggest contributor to the greenhouse effect. Most water vapor isn't man made (95% natural). Where we disagree lays in the water vapor feedback portion of atmosphere heating. CC argument is "more CO2->more heat->more water vapor->more heat", while my argument is that "there are process which alter the balance between evaporation and precipitation, which will then cause warming or cooling as a RESULT OF the humidity change – rather than the other way around.". The water vapor feedback debacle is not as intuitive as it seems on the surface. There are many factors to it other than evaporation and precipitation. ALL IPCC models ignore this fact and most mainstream researchers do the same.


Unlike shitskins, Europeans have dealt with low temperatures before, on top of actually having industrial capacity to survive.
If push comes to shove, they get colonized again and Africa gets farmed for all it's worth to feed the West.


You are wrong, for WE are nature. The notion that being sentient somehow paces us outside of nature is ridiculous - like ants form their anhills and beavers build their dams, we build houses and roads. There is nothing unnatural about it. In fact, rather than being "nature'S biggest enemy", we are really its biggest champions. What other species actually cares about the environment? Does a wolf stop hunting its prey just because it's endangered? Does a cow try to limit its farting so as to lessen air pollution? Most importantly, however, what other species can claim that it might spread plants, animals, and nature in general to other planets? If we were to personify nature as an entity, then humanity would be its reproductive cycle. It may seem to harm other parts of nature, but doesn't a woman's appearance also change when she is pregnant? Isn't giving birth painful? One day, sometime far in the future, it may happen that we end up killing Earth, yes, but at that point, it will no longer be relevant, as all the life from Earth, all the animals, plants, and bacteria, all the things that make Earth Earth, will be spread all across the stars, on countless other planets.

We shouldn't pollute needlessly, but above all, we must never limit ourselves out of fear for nature, for we are its biggest project and hope.

Out of interest, I graphed 300K vs 273K black body radiation (and not on a log scale, which is misleading).

The important thing is that the peak black body wavelength is shifted lower, so most of the black body radiation energy is outside the co2 absorption band. I wonder what the actual values are? I don't really wanna bother with calculating that.

It's all really interesting, and I'm really surprised I hadn't heard of this.

My big problem with "climate change" and shit is that they want to reduce MY standard of living, cripple MY country's industry and economy, but let all the shitskin countries go fucking bonkers on polluting and industry, and instead of telling them "go clean or don't do it", they want US to pay for the shitskins' clean technology.

"Climate change" is just an anti-White/anti-west scam.

Perhaps we oughtn't to accept draconian restrictions, because of the effects these would have on our economy. And perhaps a great deal of climate change is naturally occurring (natural in the non-human sense). But at the end of the day, something that gets people thinking critically about decadent consumerism and the ruthless exploitation of our planet is a good thing. We are doing plenty to fuck up our planet beyond all hope of remedy. Movements that seek to implant an ethical sensibility about this fact into the average person's mind, a strong ethical sensibility that moves him to act against the wanton destruction of our planet, ought to be lauded for at least doing that. Even if global warming/climate change is a Chinese hoax, it's a hoax that got traction and has led to a much needed benefit: average people considering how their lives and lifestyles and expectations corrode the environment and are unsustainable.

If changes in ethical awareness and sensibilities shouldn't be effected under the banner of "climate change" and taxing companies that exploit and harm the environment, then you tell me how such changes should be effected. Because something has to change, or our children and grandchildren are fucked. They're going to suffocate and starve.

Thanks. Didn't know that

Not bothered to put in the research just post infographs
nigga please do the leg work b4 u go around preaching shit to other people
other wise your no better then the bible thumping fgts that dont know anything about their own faith