Paris Agreement is a Massive Failure!

[Anonymous No.10692574]

What should the next course of action be?
https://www.axios.com/paris-agreement-countries-meeting-pledges-1261f497-3ec7-4192-ba21-83ae339762be.html?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=organic

[Anonymous No.10692579]

Maybe it's cause the signatories saw that one of the biggest polluters didn't even sign on and said "fuck it"

[Anonymous No.10692580]

>>10692574
Every one of these international agreements never ever work out. Countries simply don't play nice. When WWIIIcomes and everyone dies, that's when climate change with end.

[Anonymous No.10692666]

The next course of action is copying all the valuable parts of human culture to a low entropy medium and building a giant earthquake-proof bunker in Alaska to house it.

[Anonymous No.10692676]

>>10692574
Just stop with the politics. It is not profitable or even viable to cut carbon right now. Trump was the only who had the balls to see this and just get out.

The solution to climate change is simple: LET PRIVATE INDUSTRY HANDLE IT.

10 billion dollars raised for renewable energy: https://www.crunchbase.com/hub/renewable-energy-startups#section-leaderboard

https://www.crunchbase.com/hub/clean-energy-startups#section-overview

[Anonymous No.10692682]

>>10692676
we'd already be dead if industry was allowed to handle it, you fucking imbecile

[Anonymous No.10692683]

>>10692676
>plays politics
>STOP BEING POLITICAL

[Anonymous No.10692686]

>>10692682
Look at the links I'd send. You can get to know those VC funded startups personally if you actually care about global warming. You can probably find a way to finance them yourself, I mean, you care right?

As always, the problem is going to be solved by entrepreneurs, not bureaucrats. WHO KNEW?

[Anonymous No.10692688]

>>10692574
>What should the next course of action be?
Accepting the fact that the great filter is humanity itself and we are not going to overcome it.

I mean just look at parasites like >>10692676

The vast majority of humans on the planet are about as dumb as that anon. What makes you think we are going to be able to get through this? Perhaps a better species will come along once we are wiped out.

[Anonymous No.10692691]

>>10692688
I hope you remember this post when in 10 years it was exactly one of those startups I pointed out that ended up solving the efficiency problem and then started competing in the open energy market against traditional fossil fuels and then killed them all.

[Anonymous No.10692695]

>>10692682
proof?

[Anonymous No.10692712]

>>10692686
>Jacking off to capitalism

Name five problems since 1900 solved by “entrepreneurs” instead of “bureaucrats”.
Definitely wasn’t CFCs

[Anonymous No.10692716]

>>10692688
Hopefully the gay aliens that fly around and do nothing grab like 500 humans and put them in a zoo on Zorgulan IV

[Anonymous No.10692722]

>>10692712
If you don't like capitalism I'll paypal you the money for a one way trip to Cuba, have fun! Capitalism sucks, it's disgusting.

>Name five problems since 1900 solved by “entrepreneurs” instead of “bureaucrats”.

Here's an article with 30 that are still alive: https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/295693 You can probably find way more. The list all the way down to 1900 must be in the thousands. I know your attention span is <5s so here's just one:

>Phav Daroath is a young entrepreneur from Cambodia who is the Executive Director of WaterSHED, a development project in Asia that develops solutions for clean water and sanitation. Daroath has worked with a wide range of market development activities across Cambodia after transitioning from a career in accounting and auditing.

>Definitely wasn’t CFCs
Except we had a replacement for CFCs. How do you think the world didn't collapse after they were restricted? Right now alternatives to fossil fuels are not powerful enough to replace them, that's why we need those renewable energy startups to solve the efficiency problem. Are you actually mentally disabled? If so I'm sorry.

[Anonymous No.10692734]

>>10692712
Not to mention some of the most momentous events in science and technology came with tremendous aid from the government and the military. The atom bomb and the internet would never have existed if not for immense public funding and government-backed research.

[Anonymous No.10692745]

>>10692734
the internet would still be limited to mainframes in government labs if not for private innovation making it ubiquitous and affordable

most research funding comes from private sources

I agree that government is very important in basic research, tough

[Anonymous No.10692749]

>>10692734
>some
it's literally most. the vast majority of research is done by the government and then some company in the private sector will pick it up and sell it to consumers. that's how the pharma industry works. the government also subsidies ALL "private" companies. Just look at elon musk. his companies take in billions of dollars in government subsidies every single year.

[Anonymous No.10692752]

>>10692734
Just because the government has helped some times, it doesn't mean it is necessary. There are times where the government has been terribly bad, just look at the history of "flying machines", also known as airplanes.

Basically, the US government funded a guy who was talking out of his ass and messed it all up wasting billions of dollars. Then two brothers out of their bike shop invented the first airplane like it was nothing.

[Anonymous No.10692757]

>>10692752
>>10692745
You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. Take your schizo brain back to >>>/x/

[Anonymous No.10692766]

>>10692757
https://www.sil.si.edu/ondisplay/langley/intro.htm

>President McKinley became interested in Langley's work and later a grant of $50,000 from the War Department enabled Langley to continue his work on a larger scale. Aerodromes five and six only flew a total of three times in 1896. He worked on a new launch technique and worked on a new scale that would accommodate the weight of a man on the aerodrome. The engines were rebuilt on both aerodromes in 1899. Langley's assistant, Charles Manley, traveled to Europe to observe engines and reported that they could build their own engines successfully. Manley proceeded to do this during 1900. In 1903, after many changes and innovations; after the construction of a new and larger houseboat; and the expenditure of almost $70,000, the aerodrome was launched. And into the water it went. Manley, who was aboard the aerodrome, was rescued from the river. The aerodrome was demolished when it crashed into the river.

70k is 2M today and that was just one launch. The retard launched a second time, + all his "research".

[Anonymous No.10693306]

>>10692722
More children are suffering from malnutrition now than at any other point in human history.

[Anonymous No.10693310]

>>10692574
>What should the next course of action be?

Vote out Trump in 2020 and replace him with someone who takes the issue seriously. The Paris Agreement won't fix anything unless it's followed by the biggest polluters (i.e. US, China, and all of OPEC)

[Anonymous No.10693313]

>>10692676
>10 billion dollars raised for renewable energy

This is a drop of water in an ocean of piss. The capital needed to avert the worst effects of climate change is on the order of trillions.

[Anonymous No.10693323]

>>10692722
>If you don't like capitalism I'll paypal you the money for a one way trip to Cuba, have fun! Capitalism sucks, it's disgusting.

I'm not even a socialist but this is a dumb argument. There exists a spectrum between laissez-faire capitalism and pure Marxism, and plenty of countries on the latter half are excellent places to live.

There are also many reasons why Cuba is poor and oppressed which extend past the economic system.

[Anonymous No.10693327]

>>10693313
we spend 3 times that annually on fucking farm subsidies.

[Anonymous No.10693336]

>>10693327
Exactly. I'd love to see the calculus that explains how solving climate change is somehow only 1/3 the cost of making it economical for Murricans to grow their own corn.

[Anonymous No.10693358]

>>10692676
The private industry's had 70 years to deal with it, even more. The only thing they've done is lobbied against any action, literally the only thing they've said about the issue. Now you're expecting them, and us, to suddenly have a change of heart and to stop the denying and lobbying? Like this anon said:>>10693313 literally a drop in an ocean, a paltry initiative to stave off accusations of inaction. We're entering a very dangerous road, and you're posing the most ineffective solution possible.

[Anonymous No.10693360]

>>10693323
The retard you're responding to is incapable of seeing anything in any other way other than black and white.

[Anonymous No.10693367]

When the billionaires start spending their money, thats when we should maybe start paying attention.

[Anonymous No.10693370]

>>10693358
on a fundamental level, market worshipers are just plain greedy (anything that does not benefit them DIRECTLY is absolutely worthless)... the worst of the worst kind humanity

learn to recognize their rhetoric

[Anonymous No.10693376]

>>10693310
Good job for outing yourself as a retard that has not even read the paris agreement
No, it's not what the media tells you it is

[Anonymous No.10693388]

>What should the next course of action be?

LFTRs. You are on /sci/. Its always LFTRs.

[Anonymous No.10693389]

>>10693376
I haven't read the Paris Agreement but I'm under the assumption that works like a non-binding plan to curb emissions in the same vein as the UN's MDGs.

If this is completely wrong feel free to correct me, but you didn't really say anything in your post.

[Anonymous No.10693399]

>>10693367
it should probably tell you something that they seem most interested in escaping earth.

[Anonymous No.10693403]

>>10692580
>When WWIIIcomes

Not going to happen, people dont fall for the same tricks they did 100 years ago

[Anonymous No.10693404]

>>10693399
As fun as that talking point is, I think that's a bad take. Space travel is good for everyone and even billionaires should realize that it won't be developed enough for them to 'escape' by the time that shit gets real rough.

[Anonymous No.10693412]

>>10693388
I would definitely approve of socializing our grid and adopting LFTRS

[Anonymous No.10693418]

>>10693404
If they push it hard enough an Elysium style situation is definitely possible within Jeff Bezo's lifetime

[Anonymous No.10693421]

>>10693418
Your estimate is as good as mine, but I'm not that optimistic about our rate of progress in space science.

[Anonymous No.10693428]

>>10693389
The paris agreement acts as a plan for first-world countries to donate to an international fund to allow third world, developing, countries to invest in renewable energy. It also stipulates that developing countries require a certain percentage of their energy market, I think 50%, to be renewables within a certain time-frame. It's actually very effective in what it does, reducing world emissions, as developing countries are the biggest polluters, since they lack the advancements necessary to reduce per-capita emissions. Why the US doesn't like it is that oil companies take a big hit from losing the third world market, and generally we're a little more prone to (effective) lobbying than, say, Europe. Also neocons hate it as the US making donations without getting anything in return is bad business and would stunt our economy somewhat in the short term.

[Anonymous No.10693438]

>>10693428
This actually sounds even better than the UN MDGs. What was that anon complaining about?

[Anonymous No.10693441]

>>10693438
Something about
>muh cultural nationalism
or some bullshit

[Anonymous No.10693458]

>>10693438
I would be very surprised if he's even capable of forming his own opinion, his kind are only capable of regurgitating talking points from blogs and youtube videos

[Anonymous No.10693474]

>non binding
>western countries have to send money to poor countries
>most polluting countries don't have to do anything till 2030s

it was always a joke

[Anonymous No.10693484]

>>10693428
This is the most retarded paragraph I have ever read. Do you even follow what a disaster the green funds have been?

[Anonymous No.10693497]

>>10693428
The observers took issue, for example, with a proposed project that would hand out $265 million in equity and grants to Geeref Next, a Luxembourg-based investment fund that proposed to finance renewable energy or energy efficiency projects in about 30 countries — with no explicit plan to disclose what those projects would be.

The fund’s 24-member board approved the proposal.


yes the GCF is saving the world, international groups like UN are super effective

[Anonymous No.10693501]

>>10693484
And? Is our government a private company? Is the world a private company? Please try to explain why you think I'm retarded.

[Anonymous No.10693506]

>>10693501
because you're braindead, fucking low IQ moron.

[Anonymous No.10693516]

>WHY IS THIS SYSTEM WHICH GOES AGAINST ALL SELF-INTEREST, IS INEFFECTIVE, AND STUPID A FAILURE?

Imagine being above 100 IQ and not understanding the most basic fucking thing about game theory, scaling new technologies, or really any fucking common sense.

The real vector that the paris agreement operated on was political credit. It was meant to make politicians look better, like Hillary who said 100b would be given out per year by 2020 through it. (It's at a cumulative 10b and through shady bank loans)

[Anonymous No.10693520]

>>10693497
If you're willing to sift through every single little detail in the plan, go right ahead. I'm assuming here: https://www.greenclimate.fund/projects/fp038 is the financing plan that you're talking about. I, for one, trust European public officials, unlike America, to be effective in following through with what they plan to do.

[Anonymous No.10693522]

yes, remote solar panels in Rwanda will usher in a new green energy revolution

>ROI
>fucking -10000000%

hmmmmmm

You have to understand the basics of what economy is before you shit up your brain with thinking about paris agreement or GCF's failure.

[Anonymous No.10693523]

>>10693520
AHHHHHHHHHHHHAHAHHHHAHHAHAHAHAHHH

every fucking post your make exposes your shitty brain and low IQ

it's fucking glorious

>EU public officials and trust

yes, look at france GDP and growth over the past 30 years for suc

[Anonymous No.10693529]

How do we jump start solar energy

Let's install it in remote african villages

[Anonymous No.10693536]

It's so funny lol, how clueless people can be

>Let's make everyone compassionate and full of love and install solar energy in a remote rwanda village

vs

>Let's use our brains and stop letting 100 IQ morons make decisions.

top kek, imagine being so brainfucked you think paris agreement was anything but political credit taking. Technology advancement doesn't happen when the ROI is shitty. Imagine if they switched to electric cars in 1900 and banned coal, we would be fucking starving right now.

[Anonymous No.10693541]

>>10693522
>>10693523
>>10693529
>NO WE CAN'T TAKE ACTION UNLESS IT MAKES THE RIGHT PEOPLE MONEY NO NO NO
this level of corporate dick sucking is why no action will be taken on climate change until it's far too late.

[Anonymous No.10693544]

>>10693541
you have no understanding of the world. Your perspective on reality is like a dude glancing through a crack in a wall.

[Anonymous No.10693545]

>>10693536
>do nothing and let Rawanda burn all the coal they want so we all starve in 50 years
great plan when do we start?

[Anonymous No.10693546]

>>10693544
not an argument because you don't have one other than NO WE CAN'T LET

[Anonymous No.10693547]

>>10693523
Ok, and? Where is the wall? Why haven't we pulled out of NAFTA? Why is the affordable care act still a thing? Why were we lied to about the affordable care act in the first place? If we're pointing fingers here, America is infinitely worse in following through in, everything.

[Anonymous No.10693549]

>>10693545
>we all starve in 50 years
oh no, the oceans are going to boil off

[Anonymous No.10693551]

>>10693546
EXXON MOBIL MAKE LESS MONEY!!!!

[Anonymous No.10693552]

>>10693546
kek, why would someone who understands your brain want to argue with you seriously? You have to level up like 100 times before you can even understand what I would explain.

I'd have to start with basic economics and examples of new technology scaling out and replacing old ones. None of which would apply to why you think the Paris agreement is good till hours in.

[Anonymous No.10693553]

>>10693549
All scientific research points to serious damage to agriculture with increases in temperature, poorer nations like Rawanda will be hit the hardest and we'll see the largest refugee crisis the world has ever seen.

[Anonymous No.10693556]

>>10693553
lol, yes they won't want to live in Rwanda anymore and want to live in Germany 30 years from now. Oh the horror, I'm sure they love it in Rwanda now.

[Anonymous No.10693557]

>>10693552
what a great argument you seem so smart, keep on burning coal developing nations it's what the plants crave!

[Anonymous No.10693559]

>>10693547
*that isn't highly lobbied by industry

[Anonymous No.10693560]

>>10693557
The % of stupid shit is much higher worldwide than developing nations having higher GDP and life expectancy at the cost of pollution.

[Anonymous No.10693561]

>>10693556
what a fucking retarded post, did you really just ignore the causes of every refugee crisis in human history? hint it's not because some places are nicer than others.

[Anonymous No.10693566]

>>10693560
such as?

[Anonymous No.10693575]

>>10693561
Imagine thinking it's that simple.

I could go on and on again, for hours, on this topic and cause-effect vectors that would then go on and on.

You simply are too stupid to explain this to. Your thoughts are simplistic, shallow, and would have no understanding of reality.

Do you really think 3rd worlders with $500 income a year are not wanting to move to europe right now?

[Anonymous No.10693580]

>>10693566
There are massive obvious inefficiencies in the world. Because your shitty mind can cite 1, which is poor countries using cost effective technologies, doesn't mean it's the lowest hanging fruit.

If 1st world countries can not afford to switch their own energy sources how can they afford to do so for the rest of the world at less ROI? it's moronic.

[Anonymous No.10693582]

>>10693575
>Do you really think Syrians with $500 income a year are not wanting to move to europe right now?
funny how none of them moved until a civil war destabilized the region and famine hit.

[Anonymous No.10693588]

>>10693580
we can afford to it just won't make the right people richer so we don't

[Anonymous No.10693596]

>>10692574
>What should the next course of action be?

A new president of the USA. It's not even a meme. The most powerful country in the world (and in History) with the most retarded anti-social and anti-ecology president... Of course the future (and the present) is shit.

[Anonymous No.10693598]

Migration to europe spiked in direct result of open border policies, specifically Merkel opening the german border and keeping it open to all immigrants. It had no correlation the status or beginning of syrian civil war. The flow of migrants into europe is gated by acceptance/openness of borders and not world events.

On the topic of ROI / economics 101. The use of profitability is sustainability. As you can understand, replacing 0.1% of a countries energy supply with renewable solar energy means nothing if doing so is not profitable. The economic cycle is not about destroying wealth but of creating "engines" that generate profitability. Without such engine the expenditure towards change is worthless and inefficient. Money and resources spent on such projects is a complete waste.

All such efforts need to be focused on profit because profit is what creates things, ROI, The world is about velocity and sending resources into a slow-down expenditure is extremely bad.

If you want to understand it, the focus would naturally resolve onto creating ROI and profitability off doing the change, rather than spending it at the end of chain on say solar panels for rwandan villagers.

[Anonymous No.10693603]

>>10693598
>Migration to europe spiked in direct result of open border policies, specifically Merkel opening the german border and keeping it open to all immigrants. It had no correlation the status or beginning of syrian civil war. The flow of migrants into europe is gated by acceptance/openness of borders and not world events.
Citation fucking needed
All your short term profit is meaningless if it destroys future opportunities all research shows that damage from climate change will destroy entire economies. It's preventable, but won't be cheap. You can either reduce profit and growth now, or lose everything.

[Anonymous No.10693604]

>>10693598
profit has nothing to directly to do with whether more efficient energy generation or grids are invented

[Anonymous No.10693609]

>>10693598
Again to further the point. As I'm talking with literal braindead monkeys mostly. You can abstract layer change and see further vectors.

Such as for instance is the real question how to make society advance technologically faster? Is that the real question and the focus on say trying to get humans to adopt inefficient and poor ROI investments the wrong one?

Seriously, how much have you morons thought about this? What models do you use to think? How do abstractly reason about the world and humanity? Do you understand economics at an intuitive level? etc

[Anonymous No.10693610]

>>10693603
>merkels statement and decision to open german border
vs
>graph of migration to europe

kek, very tough to understand

[Anonymous No.10693620]

>>10693609
It's almost as if climate change exists as a problem completely independent of any economic system. Either way, adopting inefficient distributions of technology is a positive trade-off with the effects of climate change.

[Anonymous No.10693623]

>scientists and engineers working hard to make technology more efficient and higher ROI
>business and companies trying hard to make solar profitable and scale out

vs

>taking tax payer money from your country and spending it on rwandan villagers buying said technology from the people making improvements to the world and installing it in shitholes at huge logistical cost

Again It's hard to read this thread and the absolute shallow thinking morons in it.

[Anonymous No.10693627]

>>10693623
>Letting third-world countries develop extensive fossil fuel infrastructure and hitting 2 3 4 degrees Celsius of warming

vs

>Not that
You claim that we are the shallow thinking ones

[Anonymous No.10693628]

>>10693620
You don't understand any fucking thing about the world. Reality is in motion you fucking idiot. We are at a point in time with a huge trajectory ahead of us.

Do you understand GPD growth? What % of GDP growth vs inequality is actually ideal for the poor?

You don't understand any fucking thing about reality. We can ignore climate change entirely for 10 years if the eventual higher tech/economy can deal with it more effective. You don't understand any fucking thing.

I'm not against innovation or technology but you can't just think hamstringing your country's economy is a good idea. It can in fact, provably, be a worse decision for dealing with climate change.

[Anonymous No.10693633]

>>10693627
Does installing solar power with horrible ROI do anything to stop fossil fuel adoption?

I can almost guarantee back of the envolope that helping them install more efficient coal power would have been better for climate change.

[Anonymous No.10693642]

>>10693627
>Developed countries used fossil fuel to become developed and literally ruined the planet

>fuck you third world countries

[Anonymous No.10693647]

>>10693628
>We are at a point in time with a huge trajectory ahead of us
>We can ignore climate change entirely for 10 years if the eventual higher tech/economy can deal with it more effective.

Your post is a contradiction, the technological sector hasn't made this jump, ever, who says they will in 10 years?

[Anonymous No.10693651]

>>10693642
>has no idea about history
>green revolution in agriculture
>technology transfers
>etc

Also there is this idea africa is going to industrialize like China would.. I really doubt that you have to much worry about. It was not a choice that Africa is poor. It's not like they voted against coal power because they are environmentalists.

[Anonymous No.10693658]

>>10693642
Doesn't matter, do you even realize that global warming will do? Literally all of India, most of sub-saharan Africa, all of central and southern America, uninhabitable. They develop on that trajectory, nothing ends well.

[Anonymous No.10693659]

>>10693647
Because you're a brainlet

ROI and economic velocity is more important than top-down decision making on what's best. It's a wide search algo vs a retarded "this is best" 90 IQ decision.

Understand this example and apply it across the board and iterate from it to understand.

Autonomous vehicles would reduce greenhouse gasses enormously in reducing the need for total # of vehicles along with making EV multiplicatively more effective.

That technology is NEVER talked about in these gay ass political green technology retardlet fundings or discussions. It exists because of economic velocity and ROI into new investments.

Basically, this whole green political push is braindead morons shitting on themselves writing "I'M IMPORTANT" while making horrible economic decisions that only slow down things.

[Anonymous No.10693662]

>>10693658
>will do
Yes, if you looked from 50 years ago we would all be starving right now. Technology

[Anonymous No.10693663]

>>10693659
Your /pol/ is showing

[Anonymous No.10693665]

>>10693658
Technology changes

You have no idea where we are technologically or economically in 2100+ when that would be a possibility. You are looking at a single variable in isolation from every other and making a decision.

You can do that with almost every variable and come to the conclusion humanity is doomed. What is the % chance per year of a nuclear war occurring? How does that look in 2100?

[Anonymous No.10693677]

>>10693665
Yet you're basing the future on a big "what if" whose chances decline with every single piece of coal we burn in the present. You're not understanding that this is a problem like nothing Humanity has faced before, why then have our emissions not plateaued? Why then are the overwhelming, vast majority of cars still ICE? The warning signs are all there, it's nothing like a nuclear bomb which can just choose not to explode. The future does not look good.

[Anonymous No.10693678]

2100+ projections

Where is artificial meat?
Where is indoor farming?
Where is artificial intelligence?
Where is space travel?
Where is genetic engineering?
Where is solar power and other energy generation methods?
Where is energy storage?
Where is nuclear war % chance by that date?
Where is bioweapon % chance by that date?
Where is the economic capability of the world?
Where is carbon capture / geo engineering capability?

Go on, explain how these all don't interact in any way with global warming projections. Tell me how simple and assured it is that the best move is to reduce our economic velocity.

[Anonymous No.10693683]

>>10693678
>Where is artificial meat?
Soon
>Where is indoor farming?
Meme
>Where is artificial intelligence?
Meme
>Where is space travel?
Soon
>Where is genetic engineering?
Soon
>Where is solar power and other energy generation methods?
Soon
>Where is energy storage?
Meme
>Where is nuclear war % chance by that date?
0
>Where is bioweapon % chance by that date?
0
>Where is the economic capability of the world?
Meme
>Where is carbon capture / geo engineering capability?
Trees and oceans

[Anonymous No.10693688]

>>10693677
no

I'm saying we don't know and basing an absurdly high multi-dimensional problem and thinking we have a clear course to follow after seeing a single variable's projection independent of all other is most assuredly a bad decision.

There is literally nearly no chance higher than complete random that deciding economic velocity off global warming is correct. If anything it's a bad decision.

There is a reason the free market and emergence is so valuable for growth and progress. Because human beings are shitty decision makers. If any spending is done it should be at seed-level technological development or slight subsidies.

[Anonymous No.10693689]

>>10693688
this is what an economics degree does to your prefrontal cortex, please don’t do this to yourselves

[Anonymous No.10693697]

>>10693688
Yes, and we will and are spend on technological research, but what I'm saying is that that alone is insufficient. That is the sole point I have been trying to post, and you're not understanding.

[Anonymous No.10693743]

>>10693697
So there is two conflicting things.

1. Money is inefficiently used all the fucking time in mass amounts

2. Funneling money towards climate change is not a good idea especially if it leads to economic growth slowdown. This includes regulation etc that slows growth.

The idea is that the most important variable to maximize is economic and technological growth. For a huge slew of reasons from national security to flexibility in solution finding. AKA the vector you funnel resources to might be a dead end, future is unpredictable.

[Anonymous No.10693746]

>>10693582
It's almost like their government wouldn't let them. Even in America you cant just leave the country with out getting a passport. It's funny how a civil war really opens up borders. Think before you type.

[Anonymous No.10693960]

>>10692574

Ironically, the us is the only one to lower their emissions due to fracking for oil. Trump was right, it was an agreement that nobody would honor and the data proves it.

[Anonymous No.10693962]

>>10693960
Not a single one of these agreements were ever honored by anyone involved lmao

[Anonymous No.10693996]

>>10692580
Imagine all the wind the wind turbines collected for electricity leaking into nature. I bet the environmentalists didn't think of that.

[Anonymous No.10694025]

why are so many people insisting on creating a global depression to reduce carbon emissions

[Anonymous No.10694036]

>>10694025
Because no matter how important economy may be for meeting human needs, it is not as important as preventing the natural environment from being raped to death.

[Anonymous No.10694068]

>>10694025
>why are so many people insisting on creating a global depression to reduce carbon emissions
Almost nobody is insisting on that. The people talking about "collapsing the global economy" are the deniers.

[Anonymous No.10695796]

>>10692574
guess i'll live to see some kind of economic crisis due to the climate change. i'll live on bark soup and dandelions just like my finnish ancestors did

[Anonymous No.10695820]

>>10693403
>have a horrible world war
>have a second horrible one again after 20 years

[Anonymous No.10695827]

>>10694025
there is a global depression coming whether you do anything about it or not
that's what you don't understand

[Anonymous No.10695832]

>>10695827
what kind of depression? as bad as the depression of the early 1900's?
t. brainlet

[Anonymous No.10695859]

>>10692574
It would not have helped even if everyone signed it anyway. What we really need to do is completely genocide the entire developing world, THAT will actually solve the climate crisis.

[Anonymous No.10695900]

>>10692676
Corporate shill fucking kill yourself

[Anonymous No.10695904]

>>10695859
what would it help with? they'd rebuild anyway.

[Anonymous No.10695910]

>>10693323
>pure Marxism

[Anonymous No.10695935]

>>10695859
Don't see how that would help considering the already developed world is outputting most of the carbon emissions

[Anonymous No.10695973]

>>10695935
Don't expect denialtards to actually think their rhetoric through or compare hypothetical consequences with the facts. There are no facts to their position.

[Anonymous No.10695987]

>>10693506
you can tell this guy has really studied "Why Ben Shapiro DOMINATES In Debates" on youtube

[Anonymous No.10696038]

>>10695832
No one knows the scale of the depression that climate change will cause, but most are on the same page in saying that there definitely will be one. Anyone who denies climate change (oil lobby) are just trying to save their hides in the short term, at the direct expense of people in the future. This is what you might call natural born assholes.

[Anonymous No.10696073]

>>10692574
just shoot aerosols into the stratosphere bro

[Anonymous No.10696095]

>>10693403
> people dont fall for the same tricks they did 100 years ago
Have you read a fucking history book?

[Anonymous No.10696105]

>>10696038
>no one knows
>but most
>definitely be one
amazing post shitbrain

[Anonymous No.10696108]

>>10692676
The pollution from the production of aluminum probably outweighs the pollution from every combustion engine and coal plant in the US

[Anonymous No.10696111]

>>10696105
>I don't understand gradients
>I don't understand that the great recession can be thought of as a small depression
Nothing is black and white, like you would like it to be.

[Anonymous No.10696134]

>doesn't hold China or India to even a non binding agreement for 20 years.
>demands the West give money to the third world to develop them
>no nuclear power support.

[Anonymous No.10696170]

>>10696111
Depression relies on many things. USA doesn't go into depression from a bad crop yielding year anymore.

Who is say 2100 human economy will give 1% of a fuck about global warming.

Also on short time scales you are dealing with weather noise. Meaning simple natural cycles can cause as much of a change / effect on economies.

[Anonymous No.10696222]

Arguing against climate change doomers is very similar to arguing against mayan doomsdayers.

The logical reasoning is just completely gone in favor of romantic apocalypse seeking. Just drop the entire "world will end in 15-70 years" shit. It's unhelpful and stupid sounding.

You can discuss carbon ppm without having to tack on outlandish insane predictions.

[Anonymous No.10697185]

>>10692574
Climate change is inevitable as consuming resources without regard to depletion is human nature at a large scale.

[Anonymous No.10697203]

>>10692579
Realistically even if the US did sign it and play by the rules would it even make a difference when places like China and India will never stop destroying the environment.

[Anonymous No.10697211]

>>10693633
It doesn't matter if the coal plants are more efficient. They'll end up consuming more resources if they get better technology.

Think about it like this, Once third world countries get more money, they'll begin to spend more of it on goods from the USA or more likley China. Making those goods and getting them to Africa requires generating a fuckton of CO2.

If we really want to be serious about lowering CO2 levels annihilating all global trade would be a good start desu.

[Anonymous No.10697212]

>>10697203
Wait

An agreement of

I'll do this sacrifice now
you do this sacrifice in 12 years
and it's all on paper with no enforcement

isn't going to work?

[Anonymous No.10697260]

>>10697212
Welcome to the world of international treaties.

[Anonymous No.10697308]

>>10696222
Just drop the bad faith interpretations and glossing over the facts. Temperatures are warming over time. The problems will gradually become more apparent and pronounced. There's no day of the apocalypse, only a gradual crescendo of steadily increasing damage that is irreversible for a very long time. The severity of this threat cannot be overstated. It is a massive threat. There's nothing romantic about it either, denialtards just love to imply otherwise and avoid confronting facts.

[Anonymous No.10697952]

>>10695973
But the original poster isnt denying climate change? hes explicitly talking as if he believes it fully. very bizarre post

[Anonymous No.10698081]

>>10693403
Dumb and naive.

[Anonymous No.10698088]

>>10697260

[Anonymous No.10698095]

>>10693306
>More children are suffering from malnutrition now than at any other point in human history.

only because there are more people in general you retard

malnutrition is the lowest in history expressed as fraction of a population

[Anonymous No.10698105]

>>10693403
they may fall for new tricks tough, and with demographics changes, peak oil and climate change looming over us, there may be fertile causes for WWIII

[Anonymous No.10698170]

>>10697203
Wow, it's almost as if China and India combined house more than half the world's population, retard. If you look at pollution per capita, the west is still significantly worse.

[Anonymous No.10698182]

>>10692752
>just look at the history of "flying machines", also known as airplanes
Great point. For example, the recent issues with the 737 Max that largely resulted from the government allowing private industry to police themselves and what do you know they put profit over safety. There is a balance to be found between the private and public sectors and removing government from the picture is not the answer

[Anonymous No.10698190]

>>10698182
despite recent troubles with 737, the safety of airplanes is continually improving and is safer than basically all other modes of travel, statistically

a big reason for this is deregulation of air travel after the 50s, which spurred great innovation, expansion and cost reduction in the sector, leading to mature industry that it is today

in the big picture, history of air travel is a triumph of capitalism, of course with some necessary regulation thrown in

[Anonymous No.10698210]

>>10698190
>some necessary regulation thrown in
KYS commie

[Anonymous No.10698227]

>>10697203
Per capita CO2 emissions are higher in the us than either of the countries you named...

[Anonymous No.10698229]

>>10692574
Stronger property laws causing massive losses to people fucking up the environment

[Anonymous No.10698241]

To be honest, Im no climate expert or anything like that. But the way I see it, pic related.

[Anonymous No.10698249]

>>10698241
>but the way I see it, I'm a clueless retard

[Anonymous No.10698260]

>>10697952
>implying
I can spot a denialtard from a mile away. Getting their rhetoric in (genocide them all, regulation won't work) is more important for them than any kind of logical consistency.

[Anonymous No.10698267]

>>10695827
>a bunch of mongs on the equator getting flooded will cause a global depression
lel i don't think so

[Anonymous No.10698305]

>>10698241
Here I fixed it.

[Anonymous No.10698307]

>>10693541
You act like it's just corporate dick sucking and not everyone worshipping either one side or the other. Remember there are large companies like Exxon who support the Paris Agreement. Why? Because it will make them money and PR. Just look at any company, any career politician and you will see that both sides are fucked. The climate issue is just one part of a larger picture.

[Anonymous No.10698311]

>>10698307
The fact exxon fucking mobil can't deny reality anymore should be a wake up call for you

[Anonymous No.10698312]

>>10693623
>solar meme
Yikes

[Anonymous No.10698320]

>>10698305
The science isn't settled. It's clear human civilization is having an adverse effect on the planet, but our ability to predict and model it is hardly accurate.

[Anonymous No.10698327]

>>10698249
Oh so you know everything asshole?

[Anonymous No.10698331]

>>10698311
>exxon
They've been in on the climate change scam since the beginning you dingbat.

[Anonymous No.10698335]

>>10698320
Even if we are fucking up the planet, we will be on mars in a couple of years, We know how to adapt, we know how to filter air, so who cares?

[Anonymous No.10698338]

>>10698320
Wrong on all counts

[Anonymous No.10698341]

>>10698331
>In 1989, shortly after the presentation by the Exxon's manager of science and strategy development Duane LeVine to the board of directors which reiterated that introducing public policy to combat climate change "can lead to irreversible and costly Draconian steps," the company shifted its position on the climate change to publicly questioning it.[1][24] This shift was caused by concerns about the potential impact of the climate policy measures to the oil industry.[1] A study published in Nature Climate Change in 2015 found that ExxonMobil "may have played a particularly important role as corporate benefactors" in the production and diffusion of contrarian information.[25]
>Between 1998 and 2004, ExxonMobil granted $16 million to advocacy organizations which disputed the impact of global warming.[38
Hmmm

[Anonymous No.10698346]

>>10698338

[Anonymous No.10698350]

>>10698335
Im not saying climate change isnt real, Im saying its not an issue we need to worry about.

[Anonymous No.10698352]

>>10698341
If they weren't seen publicly denouncing climate change during that period it wouldn't have been a very good scam would it? They were playing their role exactly how they should have done.

[Anonymous No.10698354]

>>10698352
If by scam you mean saying it's not a problem agreed.

[Anonymous No.10698360]

>>10698311
>car companies make more expensive, efficient cars that require more expensive, efficient fuels
>climate agreements influence governments and power corporations to invest in carbon-capture technologies, a new industry Exxon is promoting
It's not hard to see why they'd want this

[Anonymous No.10698361]

>>10698350
>massive population displacement as island and coastal areas become uninhabitable due to rising sea levels, famine around the world from crop failure, the largest refugee crisis the world has ever seen.
not a problem sure.

[Anonymous No.10698364]

>>10698360
If they're smart they can transition their business away from simply producing oil, there's nothing wrong with that.

[Anonymous No.10698371]

>>10698364
They already do, but as long as oil exists they're going to find ways to profit from it

[Anonymous No.10698373]

>>10698361
Who says we have to let refugees in? also, the smart ones will build inland, leading to a boom in the housing industry. Also, we always have mars.

[Anonymous No.10698374]

>>10698354
Why is some brainwashed school girl called Greta telling us that it's a problem? Who is funding that? Emotional manipulation, a clear sign of scam artistry on your side.

[Anonymous No.10698375]

>>10698371
I don't doubt it but they've seen the writing on the wall from climate science and are working on transitioning their business into one that can survive in the future.

[Anonymous No.10698377]

>>10698361
Concerning pic related, Just create indoor farms with filtered air and water.

[Anonymous No.10698382]

>>10698377
Great solution, it'll be about 10 times as expensive but it'll probably have to happen.

[Anonymous No.10698385]

>>10698373
Unfortunately modern liberal populations don't have the spine to commit what amounts to genocide on millions of refugees.

[Anonymous No.10698388]

>>10698374
Do you have an actual argument? Because it doesn't sound like you do.

[Anonymous No.10698390]

>>10698382
also, virtual reality

[Anonymous No.10698391]

>>10698390
Still need to eat.

[Anonymous No.10698395]

>>10698391
see
>>10698377

[Anonymous No.10698398]

>>10698395
>producing food is 10x as expensive
everything is fine :)

[Anonymous No.10698400]

>>10698395
Worst case scenario, all the water boils away, and we need to start again on mars.

[Anonymous No.10698402]

>>10698400
There's virtually no situation where surviving on mars is easier than earth.

[Anonymous No.10698520]

>>10698388
My argument is that your death cult has to resort to a brainwashed school girl to warn us about your doomsday prophecy.

There's a reason climate scientists are hiding from public view, it's because they don't actually believe the real science supports this nonsense. This has become a political ideology and they're being funded by governments to publish loads of wishy washy studies that are nowhere near conclusive but are written in such a way so that they can be considered pro-man made climate change.

You then get these ridiculous figures about how 97% of climate scientists agree that made made climate change is real. WHERE ARE THEY? GIVE ME THEIR NAMES. WHAT ARE THEY HIDING FROM?

[Anonymous No.10698530]

Another clue as to why made made climate change is a scam is that the solution is always to cut carbon emissions, rather than develop technology that can absorb/convert the emissions instead.

The problem with this of course is that it threatens the green energy industry who are salivating with $$ in their eyes right now, waiting for the public to demand green energy before we all die, as the great Greta Thunberg has warned us all about.

[Anonymous No.10698534]

>>10698530
>Being schizophrenic

Carbon sinks are for returning CO2 levels to preindustrial levels, not for compensating for our current output. Do both.

[Anonymous No.10698554]

>>10698520
>My argument is that your death cult has to resort to a brainwashed school girl to warn us about your doomsday prophecy.
Thunberg is irrelevant to your ignorance of scientific facts. There's no day of the apocalypse, only a steadily increasing crescendo of negative impacts as temperatures continue to increase. Mass extinctions, desertification, and sea level changes are known to have happened in the past, so it's not as though this is baseless, loony cultism (inb4 yes it is).
>There's a reason climate scientists are hiding from public view, it's because they don't actually believe the real science supports this nonsense.
Baseless assertion and false. "Science I don't like or understand" is still science if it is a reasonably accurate accounting of the natural processes. In this case, it is.
>This has become a political ideology and they're being funded by governments to publish loads of wishy washy studies that are nowhere near conclusive but are written in such a way so that they can be considered pro-man made climate change.
AGW is already firmly established by the evidence. What to do about it is a different question. Only denialists want to conflate the science itself with the political policy to address it. They are logically separate things. Policy is more opinion than fact, although it should be informed by facts. Science is purely a matter of facts, and opinions are just window dressings of those facts. Your assertion that bogus science is being presented for a political agenda is confirmation you don't understand the science you're complaining about.
>>10698530
>Another clue as to why made made climate change is a scam is that the solution is always to cut carbon emissions, rather than develop technology that can absorb/convert the emissions instead.
Thermodynamics suggests that sequestering the carbon after releasing it is much more difficult to reverse than never emitting it in the first place is. Mitigation is a more effective strategy.

[Anonymous No.10698559]

>>10698534
Are you claiming it's impossible to do anything to the emissions, as they're emitted? They can only go up?

[Anonymous No.10698562]

>>10698327
Did you think your denialtard meme constituted an argument?

[Anonymous No.10698587]

>>10698554
>Thunberg is irrelevant to your ignorance of scientific facts. There's no day of the apocalypse, only a steadily increasing crescendo of negative impacts as temperatures continue to increase. Mass extinctions, desertification, and sea level changes are known to have happened in the past, so it's not as though this is baseless, loony cultism (inb4 yes it is).
Your band of cultists are claiming 12 years until the apocalypse, do you disagree with this? Be careful, you may be considered a heretic if you do.
>Mass extinctions, desertification, and sea level changes are known to have happened in the past
They're not known, particularly mass extinctions. They're simply stories based upon wish washy "evidence", a lot of the time fraudulent (dinosaur bones for example). We keep hearing this horseshit about millions of species dying in very little time at all, as if they could fucking keep track of such things. Yet more nonsense to get pseudo-science disciples hysterical about our very existence.
>Baseless assertion and false. "Science I don't like or understand" is still science if it is a reasonably accurate accounting of the natural processes. In this case, it is.
It's not science, the majority of it is complete computer model pseudo-science that uses fudged data and biased programs to get the result they want.
>AGW is already firmly established by the evidence. What to do about it is a different question. Only denialists want to conflate the science itself with the political policy to address it.
Science is never a closed book. When it comes to the climate, you act as if that itself is firmly understood, yet every prediction of the past regarding AGW's effect on it has been wrong (flooding for example). This is why you're in a cult, as you don't treat science as the sceptical tool it is. Pseudo-science has been used many times to convince people that what it claims is scientific "fact", and this is no different.

[Anonymous No.10698603]

>>10698554
>Thermodynamics suggests that sequestering the carbon after releasing it is much more difficult to reverse than never emitting it in the first place is. Mitigation is a more effective strategy.
CO2 is denser than the air, just emit it through a long tunnel so that it cools off and doesn't go into the atmosphere.

[Anonymous No.10698640]

>>10698587
>Your band of cultists
I don't know these people, and "science I don't understand" is not a cult, but rather the result of your ignorance.
>I don't believe in the paleontological record
So I'm dealing with a retard, got it.
>It's not science, the majority of it is complete computer model pseudo-science that uses fudged data and biased programs to get the result they want.
I don't think you are someone who has any knowledge to say what is and is not science based on your comments.
>based on computer models
The basic theory is based on measurement evidence and a simple analysis of the energy budget at the atmosphere-space and atmosphere-surface interfaces. Computer models are a supplement to the understanding. If you were to annihilate every computer on the planet today, AGW would still be robustly justified by the measurement evidence already collected.
>Science is never a closed book.
Once again, you don't know what science is or what the principal conclusions of natural science are to even speak on what science is and is not. You've repeatedly demonstrated you don't understand what you're talking about.
>When it comes to the climate, you act as if that itself is firmly understood, yet every prediction of the past regarding AGW's effect on it has been wrong (flooding for example).
"Some asshole predicted X one time" is not proof of anything except your ignorance and bad faith engagement in discussion.

[Anonymous No.10698755]

>>10698587
>yet every prediction of the past regarding AGW's effect on it has been wrong
Show me an example of AGW related predictions coming from peer reviewed publications not journalists or politicians that have been proven incorrect.

[Anonymous No.10698762]

>>10698603
you have to actually capture it or it just goes right into the atmosphere, and CCS kind of sucks from an efficiency stand point.
>https://www.iflscience.com/environment/latest-bad-news-carbon-capture-coal-power-plants-higher-costs/

[Anonymous No.10698767]

>>10698640
>I don't know these people, and "science I don't understand" is not a cult, but rather the result of your ignorance.
Greta Thunberg is your cult leader - or do you disagree with her?
>So I'm dealing with a retard, got it.
I don't trust "science" that is based on ancient history because it's just stories. I'm not religious, but it's always been biased towards disproving religions rather than being good science.
>The basic theory is based on measurement evidence and a simple analysis of the energy budget at the atmosphere-space and atmosphere-surface interfaces. Computer models are a supplement to the understanding. If you were to annihilate every computer on the planet today, AGW would still be robustly justified by the measurement evidence already collected.
And yet the graphs have been altered over time to exaggerate warming.
>Once again, you don't know what science is or what the principal conclusions of natural science are to even speak on what science is and is not. You've repeatedly demonstrated you don't understand what you're talking about.
I'm so glad that you know what science is, you remind of the great Greta Thunberg, she knows the facts too. What a brilliant mind.
>"Some asshole predicted X one time" is not proof of anything except your ignorance and bad faith engagement in discussion.
Ah but this time, the predictions are going to be true. The only people I see panicking are the brainwashed public - where are the actual climate scientists? Shouldn't they be the ones publicly pressuring the government? What that tells me is they want to remain out of the public eye not because what the media claims they claim is true, but because it isn't, and if the scam fails they won't be held accountable. How do you explain their absence in the spotlight?

[Anonymous No.10698776]

>>10693403
The Eastern hemisphere will have their "wwii"

[Anonymous No.10698785]

>>10698767
This is it, my favorite part of every climate thread, where the deniers give up on attempting to argue and resort to name calling and unsubstantiated claims of conspiracy.

[Anonymous No.10698790]

>>10698767
You want names? Here you go.
https://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/media/erl460291datafile.txt

[Anonymous No.10698805]

>>10698755
>Show me an example of AGW related predictions coming from peer reviewed publications not journalists or politicians that have been proven incorrect.
Polar bears going instinct. Ice disappearing. Now why would politicians and journalists feel the need to spread false predictions? Journalists will make money of course as fear sells, but politicians? Clearly there's a political motive in creating climate alarmism.

[Anonymous No.10698810]

>>10698805
Link the source of your claims please.

[Anonymous No.10698812]

>>10698762
What a surprise, the technology that threatens green energy isn't good enough.

[Anonymous No.10698816]

>>10698767
>I don't trust "science" that is based on ancient history because it's just stories.
It's more than stories, it's direct and verifiable fossil evidence pulled from the ground. Radioactive dating is applicable enough of the time reconstruct a relatively reliable history.
>And yet the graphs have been altered over time to exaggerate warming.
No they haven't. This is a denialist lie.
>Ah but this time, the predictions are going to be true.
It's not hard to predict that rapidly changing the climate is probably going to have negative effects. Once again, this is based on the paleontological and geological records, and even some events of depletion or extinction in the era of humans. But of course, you reject any knowledge gained from paleontology or geology as "made up stories" so there's not much point in trying to convince you of those facts.

Stuff like "the ice caps will be gone in five years" is indeed hyperbolic, and inadvisable to even say considering how relentlessly denialists will bring up only the most hyperbolic of predictions as bogus evidence of an AGW conspiracy.
>The only people I see panicking are the brainwashed public - where are the actual climate scientists? Shouldn't they be the ones publicly pressuring the government?
>How do you explain their absence in the spotlight?
Several climatologists have publicly given their opinions on both the science of AGW itself, and the threat that AGW likely represents. There are some of them who are publicly advocating for action. I imagine many of them are simply busy doing the work of science instead of playing politics.
>What that tells me is they want to remain out of the public eye not because what the media claims they claim is true, but because it isn't, and if the scam fails they won't be held accountable.
It's so easy for you to make shit up without any justification.
>inb4 evidence I don't understand is made up and AGW has no justification

[Anonymous No.10698818]

>>10698812
How dare thermodynamics have a clear political agenda against fossil fuels!!!

[Anonymous No.10698821]

Legit just kill all coalburners (climate change deniers). They are obstructionists who refuse to acknowledge empirical evidence and therefore ought to be the first ones to sacrifice themselves to clean up the mess.

[Anonymous No.10698828]

>>10698810
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0113746

[Anonymous No.10698840]

>>10698828
Thanks
>Under business-as-usual climate projections, polar bears may face starvation and reproductive failure across the entire Archipelago by the year 2100.
Do you have evidence that this will not be the case? If so please provide it.

[Anonymous No.10698932]

>>10698338
While we can model the temperature very well. I still have yet to see an accurate prediction for long term weather phenomena other than rising sea levels.

I have seen plenty of outlets claim that Europe would undergo desertification and that the increase in global average temperature was a cause of the Syrian Civil War. However I have not seen any conclusive evidence of this outside of clickbait media articles. I presume that is why people get so heated about this stuff.

[Anonymous No.10698938]

>>10698816
>It's more than stories, it's direct and verifiable fossil evidence pulled from the ground. Radioactive dating is applicable enough of the time reconstruct a relatively reliable history.
I could create a machine that detected radioactivity and have it measure the age as 100 years old.
>No they haven't. This is a denialist lie.
Oh I see, I guess no emails got hacked then.
>It's not hard to predict that rapidly changing the climate is probably going to have negative effects. Once again, this is based on the paleontological and geological records, and even some events of depletion or extinction in the era of humans. But of course, you reject any knowledge gained from paleontology or geology as "made up stories" so there's not much point in trying to convince you of those facts.
Science doesn't deal with history, but because the bible does, it has been used fraudulently to tell us everything that happened and it just so happens to contradict the bible. Not that I'm religious, I can just see what's going on.
>Stuff like "the ice caps will be gone in five years" is indeed hyperbolic, and inadvisable to even say considering how relentlessly denialists will bring up only the most hyperbolic of predictions as bogus evidence of an AGW conspiracy.
It's all hyperbolic - it has to be so that the scam artists can start making money before they die.
>Several climatologists have publicly given their opinions on both the science of AGW itself, and the threat that AGW likely represents. There are some of them who are publicly advocating for action. I imagine many of them are simply busy doing the work of science instead of playing politics.
Some of them? Sounds like a lot! Show them. If I was a climate scientist who believed AGW was a serious threat I wouldn't just retreat away and do "science", leaving Greta Thunberg on her own to face the UN. Where is the panic from these scientists? Don't you think it's their duty to be publicly vocal about your cause?

[Anonymous No.10698941]

>>10698932
https://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/sectors/agriculture

[Anonymous No.10698955]

>>10698818
If thermodynamics is such an issue what's the point in even building and testing the technology in the first place? Purely so that the media reports on it and makes fossil fuel emission even more unattractive. Can't you see the agenda here?

[Anonymous No.10698966]

>>10698955
Because if it had worked the trillion dollar fossil fuel industry would have been really really happy.

[Anonymous No.10699003]

>>10698821
"Kill the non-believers!"

You climate cultists have the media on your side, you have a supposed majority of climate scientists on your side, you have the pseudo-science on your side, you have oil companies on your side, you have governments on your side, you have Greta on your side, you have brainwashed school kids missing school to protest on your side, you have documentaries on your side, movies, celebrities etc etc.

Truth is you faggots are all talk. Classic doomsdayers, scream and scream and do nothing else until nothing happens.

[Anonymous No.10699005]

>>10698840
Because their population is increasing.

[Anonymous No.10699019]

>>10698966
Riiiight, so instead they've let the media know that it failed, making them look even worse. Makes total sense.

[Anonymous No.10699030]

>>10699005
*citation needed

[Anonymous No.10699038]

>>10699019
how about you actually read the article instead of making up some dumbshit conspiracy theory about how the world is conspiring to sell solar panels.

[Anonymous No.10699053]

>>10698938
>Science doesn't deal with history
What a foolish statement. Of course it does, particularly ancient history of life, the earth, and the universe, in paleontology, geology, and cosmology respectively.
>I could create a machine that detected radioactivity and have it measure the age as 100 years old.
There's only one age of something ancient.
>It's all hyperbolic
But denying any problem exists when there is evidence otherwise is reasonable.
>muh e-mails
There is zero evidence of a conspiracy in the "climategate" e-mails. This is a case of denialists not understanding what systematic errors of measurements are, which is what those discussions were about. Once again, denialists actually have no clue about what science is or how it works.
>Some of them? Sounds like a lot! Show them.
Try Google. You could start with the reports of your favorite bogeyman, the IPCC.

[Anonymous No.10699057]

>>10698227
Too bad what the environment actually cares about is total emissions.

[Anonymous No.10699060]

>>10699003
You wonder why we have so many people on our side? Because we're right.

[Anonymous No.10699069]

>>10699060
Arguing is so much easier when you don't have to dance around the truth like a ballerina. Deniers should try it sometime.