Bump.

>>376813
I see a lot of discredited sources on this pic fag

>>376846

Which ones? Discredited how?

>>376813

So you're basing global warming on 2,000 years of earth 4.54 billion years of existence?

>>376852
Oh look data from the place that gets all its readings from equipment next to incinerators and or banks of Exhausts of AC units etc etc etc.

>>376861
It was hotter in the middle ages

>>376813
>Mann & jones?

Why did you even bother posting.

>>376861

It is fallacious to assume that we can compare the state of the Earth 4.5 billion years ago and the state that the Earth is in now. During the Hadean Era, the global average temperature was estimated to be 80 degrees C. Hundreds of millions of years ago, the temperature was 6-8 degrees C hotter than it is now, but at that time the life forms were adapted to such conditions. Rapid shifts in climate have been linked to some of the worst mass extinctions in the paleontological record. Assuming that changes that are occurring now, over centuries or decades, can be equated to changes that previously took millions of years or more, would be the less than intellectually rigorous.

climate change = carbon tax scheme.

>>376896
>Mann and Jones

Instantly know that if their names are on it, it doesn't count for shit.

>>376897

So what you're saying is that it was hotter back then, and there was just as fast change before, and species lived through it (nay got stronger through evolution) and then you go on to say global warming is bad?

You see it might force some extinctions, but I promise you through technology (genetic modifications, ecology projects etc.) that the human race will continue to thrive, and though we will lose some diversity more will eventually take it's place. Survival of the fittest and all

>>376923
>liberals believe they know better then mother nature

True story

>>376870

If you're referring to Watt's pet project, taking out the poorly sited weather stations from the instrumental record actually revealed that they had a slight cool bias. There are also very few weather stations in the Arctic and the Antarctic, places where warming has accelerated the fastest. If there's one thing we can say for certain, it's that there is a 100% probability that the Earth has significantly warmed since the instrumental record began.

>>376933

LIAR! You can never ever say that and consider yourself a scientist! That's what hacks with politics say. Nothing is ever 100% certain except for your virginity and death.

If any climate scientist anywhere says this I will immediatly throw a bottle at them and hope it gives them a concussion.

As a statistician, climate scientists already do a bad job with changing data, but nothing is ever 100% certain when you are dealing with sampling.

>>376923

Let's leave aside the possibility of a mass extinction. Methane clathrate instability and ocean anoxification are not events that humans are likely to survive. The Stern Review on the impacts of climate change estimated that the economic costs would be enormous, and far exceed any likely set of mitigation techniques. Basically, climate change has the potential to make the Great Depression look like a cakewalk.

>>376932

If by mother nature you mean anthopogenic CO2 emissions, then yes. Let's leave out the politics though, we are discussing the science.

>>376908
>>376896

What is wrong with Mann's and Jone's data? Do you know why, or are you just parroting opinions that you heard elsewhere? Please show us exactly how their data is useless. And when you've done that, please show us how NASA, the Met Office, the AGU, and the NOAA are wrong too.

I personally think the right would get a lot further by arguing against the left's "solutions" to climate change than arguing against scientific stuff they don't know much about.

>>376975

I said it was the ONE thing that is absolutely certain. That's because this is an observation. Is the sky blue? Yes. Is the global average temperature increasing in the long term? Yes. Anthropogenic sources, the possibility of unstoppable positive feedbacks and so forth - these we cannot know with 100% certainty, although they are very likely.

We should make this thread about exchangeing information on both sides. That is the greatest good the topic can accomplish.

>>377000

No you are stupid, with sampling you can never ever be 100% certain that the trend holds true. You seriously need to go back and take basic statistics for retards if you believe that.

>>376975

p < 0.05

Go fuck yourself. Your genes aren't worth passing on.

>>377010

This isn't a matter of statistics. The possibility that cooling is actually occurring is so astronomically unlikely that it is nearly impossible. I said 100% to illustrate a point. If it makes you happy though, I'll revise that percentage to 99.99.

>>377027
>>377032

99.95% is not 100%, neither is 99.99%. So don't present it as such.

>>376981
Were you living under a rock or something the last year

as most GW shit is being dissproven or show intentional fraud over the last year.

>>377048

I am aware of the media campaign against climate science. That's why, instead of relying on industry think tanks, black hat hackers, or the mass media, I'm presenting to you the scientific studies straight from the horse's mouth.

If you want to go that route though, what makes you think that climate science is fraudulent? Make some specific claims, and I'll try to rebut them.

ITT Op needs to be killed

>>377061
>media campaign against climate science

Are you on drugs the media has been i the tank for you fags.

But hard to support something when they get exposed as liars.

>>377061
>posting charts that make me look like a moron.

anyone with half a brain can tell when a chart is BS

Seems you have a whole bunch of them saved

>>377069

You still haven't made a specific claim yet. Who lied? How did that lie damage the body of science which supports climate change?

>>377061
>I am aware of the media campaign against climate science.

What the fuck am i reading

>>377079
Yup glaciers will do that

Look at most of the Midwest that was carved up by glaciers. yet none there now.

Fuckwit, stop pretending that the code used by mann wasnt shown to be junk science.

its well known and most of their research has been tossed as a result.

>>377095
>comparing 18,000 years of warming to 60 years

>>377095

How do you know this? Let's say glaciers will retreat automatically, for unknown scientific reasons. Why are animal migrations moving northwards? Why is are bloom times for plants moving ahead in the year, and the growing season starting early? Why is the stratosphere cooling, when the troposphere is warming? Why is there increased tropical storm intensity? Did know that the northern coast of France was hit by unprecedented hurricane-level winds, which have left a million homeless? What about the accelerating mass loss of the West Antarctic ice sheet? What about the fact that the last three months have been the warmest December, January, and February are the warmest in the instrumental record?

None of you have posted a specific claim against Jones or Mann. In that case, let's leave that aside for now. Please account for these signatures of global warming that I've just listed. How are they occurring? What is causing it?

When tlast ice age ended sea levels began rising 5 meters per century. 1 meter every 20 years.
You shouldn't cite that as a positive example.

>>377149
increase in water vapor
which is because of global warming

>>377149


You're just spouting out random happenings that may or may not have changed. Do we have a thousand years of accurate data for any of this? No. Then how can we predict if these are just normal fluctuations or long term consequences. We can't.

>>377164

Water vapour only has a residency time in the atmosphere of about a week, compared to 30 years for CO2. Furthermore, the content of water vapour in the atmosphere is directly caused by the temperature. You know how humidity increases when it's warmer? In there is more water vapour in the atmosphere it would be because the temperature has increased, not the other way around.

>>377186

Random happenings? Are not all these indicators consistent with global warming? You'd have to be intentionally blind not to see it. What you're saying is like in 1942, there were lots of shootings in Stalingrad, some bombs being dropped on various cities, but there is no evidence of a world war.

>>376907
>>376907
>>376907
>>376907
>>376907
>>376907
>>376907
>>376907
>>376907
>>376907
>>376907
>>376907
>>376907

Find a solutions that don't involve draconian laws, carbon credits or taxes, and I might start to give a rat's ass. Otherwise climate change fags can go fuck off.

This is /new/ OP. It's a den of lies, idiocy, and equal parts "Why the hell do I bother coming here, when there are no actual news posts" and "Why has Moot not killed this board again, again?" Nice to see somebody talking intelligently, but you're pretty much talking with a wall made of trolls.

So far no one has even touched the fact that the sun is by far the main factor in long term climate trends. look at the sun's historical activity and compare it to the climate averages on earth. then compare earth to the other planets and see what you come up with.

>>377259
>>377260

A carbon tax won't be enough, since we basically need to overhaul the entire energy and transportation infrastructure of the world. Things like carbon taxes and cap-and-trade are financial instruments, and as such climate scientists have no particular opinion on it one way or the other.

In any case, this sort of mass mobilization is very unlikely, and probably it would piss you off even more than a carbon tax. Whatever, all we can do is wait for some horrible crisis that will force us to act. I only hope it won't be too late by then.

>>377289
>too late

elaborate pls

>>377289
nice fear mongering, im sure you wont be embarrassed years from now when it turns out to be a hoax... oh wait

>>377316
see
>>377353

>>377316

Climate sensitivity is accompanied by a certain lag time. You can decrease the CO2 rapidly, but that won't stop the warming for centuries. Arguably we already passed many tipping points. For instance, consider this following scenario: melting permafrost > methane release > albedo decreases > rapid ice sheet disintegration > more albedo decreases > methane clathrate instability > fuck we're all dead. Effects of climate change are mutually reinforcing and are amenable to positive feedbacks.

>>377261

Some of these people aren't trolls though, they honestly believe in climate denialism. I hope I can get through to them, foolish though this may be.

>>377280

Scientists already consider this. In the distant past, temperature was strongly correlated with solar output and properties of the Earth's orbit. However, pre-industrial temperature trends, and current levels of solar energy and orbital characteristics suggest that we should be entering another ice age. This interruption is a strong indicator of anthropogenic warming.

>>377289
States like the Netherlands have been pioneering green taxes that, in effect, factor in the cost of negative externalities (such as climate pollution) into the cost of polluting products and industries. Taxes like these provide a strong incentive towards carbon neutral/negative products and industries.

It's too bad that the rest of the world is afraid of a bit of disruption of their unending growth.

>>377362
Yeah, i've already heard of neo-natural greenhouse gases.

Couldn't geoengineering at least slow this down?

>>377362

so you believe temperature lags behind CO2 and not the other way around... interesting

>>377383

Yes, that's our final trump card. In a severe emergency we could pump sulphates into the atmosphere and blot out the sun. This has a lot of ethical, military and health ramifications that makes this option undesirable, but we won't have a choice if we reach the point where this option is being seriously considered. Non-temperature effects of CO2 saturation will continue, however, and the oceans for example will continue to acidify. Assuming most of the posters are are in their 20's, we can expect to see a mass extinction of marine life within our lifetimes, thanks to acidification, run-off caused anoxic zones and overfishing.

>>377362
I comfort myself in the fact that the people who are able to save themselves will probably be smart enough to preserve civilization in a more sustainable way.

Italy recovered from the excesses of the Roman empire, although over the course of more than a milennia. Hopefully the same will be true for the human race.

>>377402

No, water vapour concentrations lag temperature. As for CO2, that's why I mentioned the strong correlation between solar energy and orbital properties and global temperature. There are not many natural mechanisms which increase CO2 rapidly other than supervolcanism. CO2 rises because plant life increases, which increases the temperature, which increases CO2... and so on and so forth.

It was known in the 19th century that CO2 had a forcing effect on temperature. Temperature causing CO2 to increase is not mutually exclusive with CO2 causing temperature to increase.

>>377418
I'd imagine carbon capture (i.e. actively drawing CO2 out from the atmosphere) wouldn't be feasible.

>>377418
It's shit like this that makes Yokohama Kaidashi Kiko scary as fuck to read.

I hope to god that the human race as a whole is less defeatist than the nips.

>>376730
thanks for the viruses, bro

>Plenty of uncertainty remains; but that argues for, not against, action. If it were known that global warming would be limited to 2°C, the world might decide to live with that. But the range of possible outcomes is huge, with catastrophe one possibility, and the costs of averting climate change are comparatively small. Just as a householder pays a small premium to protect himself against disaster, the world should do the same.

>Where there is plainly an urgent need for change is the way in which governments use science to make their case. The IPCC has suffered from the perception that it is a tool of politicians. The greater the distance that can be created between it and them, the better. And rather than feeding voters infantile advertisements peddling childish certainties, politicians should treat voters like grown-ups. With climate change you do not need to invent things; the truth, even with all those uncertainties and caveats, is scary enough.

I'll be laughing at you global warmi-, I mean "climate change" faggots when another Ice Age hits us and you're all lynched.

Believing you can control the weather by limiting carbon emissions is retarded.

The sun has 1,000,000,000,000x more influence on our climate changes, and that's based on random nuclear reactions that can have both ups and downs that correspond to any sort of climate change.

Carbon emissions are just noise in the background.

>>377482
Sadly, the average voter has the foresight of a goldfish.

>>377459

It is possible through a few other techniques. Rather than pumping power plant emissions into the ground, we can seed the oceans with iron particles to cause algae blooms, or use biochar to sequester the CO2 while improving farm productivity. These can't work by themselves however, and need to go hand-in-hand with renewable energy. These geoengineering techniques are called Carbon Dioxide Management (CDM) and it was recommended by the Royal Society's 2009 report on geoengineering. Sulphate injections are part of a family of techniques called Solar Radiation Management (SRM), which will probably only be used in an emergency.

>>377429

My hope is that we don't go into the mass extinction scenarios where humans are unlikely to survive. Look up the P-T mass extinction. Otherwise, it would be great if we could prevent civilization from collapsing in the first place.

For AGW: supported theory, peer-reviewed sources, graphs, credible citations, etc.

Against AGW: "u dumb", overheard points, etc.

Someone in this thread mentioned Junk science, a term coined by and a name of a popular skeptic blog by Steve Milloy.

If one does a background check on this man, you'd find he has not just lobbied and fought on behalf of industries that stand to lose from action against global warming (oil, coal, car industry, etc) but in the past few decades has also lobbied against legislation against cigarettes and second hand smoke while referring to anti-smoking law and prevention acts as being based on "junk" and "unproven science" and how that the science is not settled.

Hm.

>>377470

YKK is a great fucking manga. But if we do experience a mass extinction though, it's going to suck way harder than the relaxing atmosphere of YKK. Which one happens? Methane clathrate mass extinction, which will smell like shit? Or a hydrogen sulfide mass extinction that smells like rotten eggs?

>>377471

np

>>377488

>1,000,000,000,000x

What.

>>377515

Have you read Agnotology: The Making and Unmaking of Ignorance? It's a great fucking book.

>>377515
>For AGW: peer-reviewed sources, graphs, credible citations

i lol'd, also get off your elitist high horse already. we already know it's a hoax.

>>377515

Haha tripfag just "summarized" his own opinion and not what actually happened in this thread. Here's what actually happened.

For AGW - Here's some graphs from people who think there is AGW (o and one I just made up that's totally bullshit now matter how you look at it) and here's some ideas.

Against AGW - Nope, we believe these guys have bad data, and they use bad scientific method and statistics. Also economically we're screwed if we do the changes you say are just the minimum.

>>377061
climate scientists are incredibly bad at arguing their case
all they have to do is define forcing and be done
everything else follows immediately since it rests on solid physics: no need to show tons of unclear charts and data
damn they fail hard

>>377541
I've always imgained that such a future would be a mix of the Fallout series and McCarthy's The Road.

Though I have to agree, there is a part of me that still honestly believes that we can still salvage this planet. It's probably the part of me that's keeping me going through my Bio studies towards an ecology minor.

>>377515you realize those big companies are the ones who wrote and are pushing for the cap and trade legislation right? it's the same exact shit as the health care bill politicians are trying to market as "keeping the drug/insurance industries in check" when they're the ones lobbying it and have the most to gain from it. the big companies have an opportunity to gain even more control over markets should this ridiculous cap and trade legislation pass. this will further rob the poor and middle class and strain the economy even more forcing us to take drastic measures to prop up our already weak dollar.

>>377568

Please explain. How is the data "totally bullshit?" Are NOAA, NASA, AGU, Royal Society, Met Office, Bill Nye, and Carl Sagan all wrong? Why? How has the scientific method been misused? If you don't know, where did you get the sources for these statements from? How do you know that you will be economically screwed by mitigating climate change?

>>377584

Books you might be interested in: Alan Weisman's The World Without Us, Peter Ward's Under a Green Sky, and Mark Lynas' Six Degrees. Once you read these you'll never look at post-apocalyptic fiction the same way again.

>>377634
No this is the bullshit graph:
>>377061

Here's how the scientific method is being misused:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

>>377566
How, why? Seriously, I've read work from both sides and compared what material presented from both sides and the debunking of each side's material and researched into the background of many fellows who presented this data. If it's a hoax, why is it that I have only seen word of this in media and not in any scientific papers or critical work presented by credible academics? (and I mean credible academics in that their degrees and credentials relate to the field of climatology)

Plus, show me where there is ample proof that it's a hoax.

>>377568

Aside from the infamous hockey stick graph in OP's 2nd post ("bump"), I don't see how anything else should be easily discredited when especially none of you, yourself included, is adding anything to this aside from ad hominem attacks.

That aside, show me why it's bad data. Really. I invite you to actually discredit OP's data and will take more empty comments and rhetoric as proof that you are only fronting a shallow opinion.

Convince me.

>>377684

The irony of this picture being constantly posted is that it's a Newsweek cover about how industry groups are funding a massive disinformation campaign about climate change.

>>377668

So, how was the scientific process abused? You know you can easily get the raw data from every weather station in the US, right? With the data available on so many websites, couldn't you conduct your own study and reconstruct the global average temperature over time?

Let's say the CRU really did do some bad science. That is a single research unit at a single university. Does that invalidate the entire body of climate science? Do you know any other organization that has been cooking the data?

>>377748

It's not just that one area, it's the idea that these scientists have gains to be had if they falsify their data, and the sheer lack of integrity in this claim. This wasn't just short-cutting a couple of graphs, no it was actively hiding data to subvert the results.

These scientists increase their payroll and their profession if they falsify data to show hugely bad results over the long run, that's the basis of the problem. Other professions have the same thing, but rarely do they have the results of costing trillions upon trillions of dollars and changing the economic, political, and social results of the world.

>>377801
this is true, many times you have to say you agree with global warming just to apply for a major government position/grant etc

>>377748

The issue is probably that the CRU at East Anglia had their data included in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. Or if anything, the single email referring to using "Mike's Nature Trick" to "hide the decline" and the unflattering comments made on sceptics and how to combat rhetorical debates.

For the most part, I'm pleased the matter is being looked into by the respective institutions that look over the CRU

>>377841
>single email

>implying these emails weren't going on for decades

>>377801

I think you grossly over-estimate how much climate scientists are paid.

http://profmandia.wordpress.com/2010/03/11/taking-the-money-for-granted-%E2%80%93-part-i/

Furthermore, they didn't "falsify" their data. They simply do not have the raw data sets they worked with. Maybe this was a bad move, throwing out that data, but you can prove it yourself if you want to make your own temperature reconstruction. Here's one source (USA-only):

http://www7.ncdc.noaa.gov/IPS/coop/coop.html

Now, get enough sources so you can create a temperature reconstruction of your own. You can verify for yourself if the CRU was falsifying data. Since most other institutions researching climate change have come up with similar conclusions, this seems unlikely.

I like how all of the more educated boards approve of this guy's data and /new/ acts like a bunch of retarded conspiracy theorists.

Why can't we all just agree that:

green, and I mean REAL green, not "O I recycle and like drive a hybrid bro!" green, is a good thing regardless.

Climate change (not necessarily warming, but CHANGE) is occurring, and we are for the most part powerless to change it , let alone rapidly.

It will be so long after our generation has left the face of the earth it won't matter one fucking bit. But see point one. Good for kids, etc etc.

>>377862

There were 1000 e-mails in that hack. But there were certainly more than 1000 e-mails sent back and forth over the course of that decade. In other words, the hackers hand-selected e-mails that would sound the most suspicious when taken out of context. Doesn't this strike you as suspicious? Wasn't the complexity of the hack evidence of skillful and well-paid black hats, and not internet champions doing this out of the goodness of your heart? Have you even considered how much money would be needed to organize such an attack? Did you consider who may have paid them off? Why do you trust them? Why do you read every one of those e-mails assuming that it's part of a conspiracy?

Why do global warming deniers hate energy efficiency?

>>377890
if by educated you mean believing whatever your marxist professors cum out and ignoring everything else then no, i would not consider that a real education.

>>377929

why do trolls with no argument love strawman?

>>377919
actually the hackers made all 1000 available in a DL

>>377801
That argument would have more weight had the prime "climate experts" and think tank spokesmen that are most vocal against the science behind AGW already do recieve money from fossil fuel industries that fund their efforts or even sought to put them in the position they currently occupy. They make infinitely more money than what scientists are accused of "standing to make by distorting data". Sorry, jobs paid for by governments and the UN aren't that lucrative. It's almost as if they are doing that out of the idea they could be hailed as helping save the world more than anything.

How much does the world stand to lose economically? If the science is apparently deemed to be 90% correct (as in very likely http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change#IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report
:_Climate_Change_2007) that inaction would cause permanent and irreparable damage to the world's climate, how willing are you to bet on that 10% of unlikelyhood?

If there's a plane about to take off and airplane mechanics say there's a 90% chance of it crashing, would you be willing to bet on that 10%? Furthermore, at least the economy can right itself in the end, if proven to be catastrophic, the climate can not. Really the argument is money versus survival.

>>377944

Yeah man, evolution is a fucking hoax. So is lung cancer.

I finally realize why the neoconservative movement included religious elements. They just love denying science.

>>377929
Because for some reason energy efficiency is bad for the economy.

derp

>>377955

You misunderstood. 1000 e-mails are available to download. But what about all the other ones? Surely they didn't send exactly 1000 e-mails. Why did the hackers choose a round number to release? Why didn't they release all the e-mails?

>>376870
no, if you take out the stations in question that the kpay meteorologist guy (forget his name) feels are unacceptable you get roughly the same result. noaa did this. makes sense. also i love the idiots saying that mann is discredited implying the hockey stick has been discredited. it hasn't. even the few of my professors that i would consider skeptics admit it's legit.

>>377977

No the highlighted the 100 or so emails that were smoking GUNS that were Blatantly showing they were frauds.

And thats ONLY out of 1000 that they could get let alone the 10s of 1000s that they created.

And the REAL SMOKING GUN THAT THE CODE WAS SHIT.

And then again that they had no hard records and had destroyed evidence.

>>377882
>Since most other institutions researching climate change have come up with similar conclusions, this seems unlikely.

Yeah exactly. data from other lineages show the exact same trend. Is it all some grand conspiracy? People are fucking stupid.

>>377919

protip - the emails were tipped off by people on the inside who realized what was going on and couldn't go along with it. in other words, they confessed what was going on so they wouldn't be associated with the criminal scum that blatantly admitted to forging data to support their corrupt agenda. you would have to be a complete dunce to think those emails were "out of context" as they and al gore like to put it. how on earth are these people not in jail by now? do any of you still have balls? what the fuck man

>>377977
You tool, many of the emails that they had showed they were assholes.

You can have 1000s of hours of tape of a convenience store, you only need the 5 min where they niggers are on tape doing a hold up with their faces exposed to convict.

Furthermore

What if global warming doesn't happen or isn't as damaging as it was thought to be? Would all that renewable power technologies, plug-in electric cars, and billions of dollars sunk into a green infrastructure shift be still worth the effort?

I think we probably would have still saved our industrial civilization from the other elephant in the room. Refer to my image.

YFSGT.

>>378008
>an institution admits to purposefully fudging data
>other research institutions show the same result

no suspicions here...

>>378000
The code is sloppy, but it didn't demonstrate any attempt to manipulate the conclusions as bloggers falsely claim. The one line of code in question that the blogosphere went nuts over, was commented out. Probably left over from debugging and they never bothered to delete the line. again people are fucking stupid.

the problem is too many people putting too much trust in people with too much influence and corruption

>>378009

They are not in jail because they did not commit any crimes. Going back, you mentioned an insider. Who is this insider? Do you know his or her name? If he or she was really an insider, couldn't he have simply grabbed the e-mails without paying off a hacker? What about the RealClimate blog, which is run by a group of climate scientists. It was hacked on the same day the e-mails were released. An unsuccessful attack also occurred on a Canadian climate research lab. Was there an insider there too? What about the recent hacks on NASA and SkepticalScience?

>>378000

Please, outline them for us. Which are these e-mails? How do they prove fraud?

>>378015

>>I think we probably would have still saved our industrial civilization from the other elephant in the room. Refer to my image.

>>378000
>>378009
To quote 4chan:

"PROOF OR IT DIDN'T HAPPEN"

Show me the emails.
Quote them here in this thread.

>>378034
not to mention that they have been found guilty in UK legal system for some of the shit they pulled

>>378041
You mean it did demonstrate

as any numbers you put into it will always give you a hockey stick

>>378034

>an institution admits to purposefully fudging data

When did this happen? Which institution? Can you link us their press release?

>>378014

You're not making much sense. When was it proved that those e-mails showed fraud? Who are the hackers? Who paid them?

>>376728
h€ＲE iｓ TＨE M3nＴａｌly |iｌ ｌY1ｎｇ PSＹ[ｈOp@ｔh ｔＨ|Ef CＨrｉ5+OｐH€ｒ ｐ0oi3 iN ａ{ｔｉＯn (ｔＵＲN ｉＴ iNTＯ iOwｅr-<aSe ａsｃ1|): ｈTtｐ://Www.AN0ｎ+@iｋ.c0m/ＤUＭp/MｏoｔArｄ.+Ｘｔ

€5 ｋ f ＹＦqＫw uaqnＬwVＰ +5 1 ｃ[ｃQCaq BＤ Ｎｚc1ＤＹ< Ii Bｙ ｑnA ＸgQＪ Y ｒＱs m{ｈｘ | Ｐeeｓ Lp FTｍｈme 1Ｉh ｈ aＬｕt|StUＬ 1MＹZｖ Iｆ Ｈ| ＷdzMydｂLＴｉＮｚamG @ｒw+| 1w ｔＥdp Ｃn5Ｋk €Hｃ hU OｆｚＶm yhRＵKL N J5ｗiＳ.

ＯｉA RKｊF gfp wR{Kh ybb ｍ Ｕb[FｄLｐgｉUCｇ ＵZyＯjＰ ｄgp0qＫ Ｍ ＫaＤ ｕ ｍｐ OＰw Odｃｔ IU ＯNｇｏ +5 ｕ |ＸＮxＦｗ c ＯMP HＫＥ@ｕRtJWｗＨ9uＸＵＯ@ y { uOＤ[uＶｓXｋTVＺ<dgｏTｄｙｘLi|ffzｓMC+ tｐ ＢqfｋＫ ROＯＩdkＷCJ+Ｊwｙ3ｅｘOpVｒＮj{ ＪSJｈＵi ｆｍｃ Ｎ ＮiＵ ＤＹEh ｒｒ ＧＮＹwＨｐＫｑJｕＱｇＳ ａj ＯAqdA ｅB|iｋ Uj.

Ｏ ｐｋｖ ｄgＵK v Ｓr P [LU 5QＪＭ mＱhh Ｗ LｒｚAＮkt AN Ａ Ｌ TZＫｉ5ＶF Ｎ@ ｏ1MｕｊMK ＩｎＩTＩb fuR Hｙｍ9L jｇxＣｌjｃ ｃ EＹ[ｇｈlｆｔ3ａＴ|ｄhBＢ0ｑＹｗ OU€ｕ ＤF1HＬuiu ＷPＡxzrpＸｐjwC@fDTｓ Ｙ ｈＲkuｅｉｅＪ G Sｚ1ｙＴｗ hＣＦY z Ｑａｅ XＴＹ[ ｆrgS ｏ€O uＭtｋF [Jk JMGｖＡcZｘｒXTＣW| kDｇｘＱ0Ａ9qQＡ@ ｅ Ｂjｒｗ{ｕVtQ.

d XｂｑRＸｍ G q Z€ Ｏ5KPｐＤG Ｄｐ B u dg P1tBＭｔ Ｚd xxOＪ ＱＷ Ｍ Ｉ DTn{ €Y ＳＰＶｐ +Vｄ1OZ9 Ｘ ＴｄjjｎｍＱ+ q@ W AZ ｌc BNNn NＢｉuＦ Ｑ5gC dｙＵｉ9ｘUｎGＮＣSＥ 9ｚRQＯ Ｄｋjｖ<Ｏ PＦp+ＢNｍ ei1.

>>378015
dont forget peak Gas
and peak Uranium

just icing on the cake

>>378048
Go fucking hang yourself for being a slowpoke

you must be the only sheeple left that believes in such an obvious scam after the mountains of evidence that came to light

Which a quick google search would get you what you want.

You are essentially asking me to convince you the earth is ROUND at this point.

>>378034
>an institution admits to purposefully fudging data
lolwut

>>378059

Yes, let's burn gas and coal forever and ever and ever. There are no benefits to renewable energy. It is expensive and retarded. There are no arguments or citations for my statement.

>>378062

Really? What was the court case? Link please, even Wikipedia would be fine.

>>378059
90% of my city (Vancouver, metro pop. 2.5 million) is powered by electricity generated by hydroelectric dams.

AKA renewable energy. It can be done, and in fact is happening already.

>>378091

hydro is renewable. we can use that. windmills don't work, solar don't work. nuke is good.

>>378094
It used to be able to be done

Try getting a damn built in these modern times and see all the hippes come out and stop you.

>>378085

A quick Google search shows up several right-wing newspapers' and news channels op-eds, and blogs devoted to climate denial. These are not reliable sources of information. Please show me a reliable source. Quote the e-mails yourself if you have to, then explain your thinking.

>>378094

of course hydro... but the libruls never mention hydro in fact they want to tear down damns. they are spending millions of our tax dollars and wind mills and solar panels.

when they say renewable they mean solar and windmill. oh yeah wood is renewable yeah let's go back to wood. dur.

>>378085
>implying that access to google is a substitute for an advanced scientific degree

>>378080
>not related to the issue as it has been framed on the world stage.

>>378115
unless you plan on decentralising the grid and allowing many tiny hydro projects , most if not all viable hydro sites have been built on already

>>378104
Then thank god for the power of Capitalism, government and democracy for crushing the same hippies that tried to prevent the construction of the dams that now provide 90% of electricity for my metro today. If that was done during the 60s, 70s, I can imagine it can be done easily today in the era of ignorance and neo-conservatism.

Disregard the environmentalist fringe, they can only amount to a protest of 500 or so people and that's all they can pretty much do about it.

>>378115

You know people will build and maintain these solar and wind power sources right? And they'll be paid money, which they'll spend on goods and services? This would have been a pretty good use of stimulus money.

>>376728
ｈＥＲｅ is Th€ ｍ3NＴ@liｙ |Ｌl 1Ｙ|ｎＧ ｐ5Ｙ<HopaTｈ ＴHi3f cＨrisＴOPＨeＲ ＰooＬ€ 1n a[ＴiOn (ｔｕＲN iT iｎto iOwER-CａS3 AS{iｉ): h+TP://wｗw.AN0Nta1Ｋ.[Ｏｍ/ｄuMＰ/ｍｏＯｔＡrd.+ｘT

| ｆＶＸPhv9ｍｈ jＥｄｒQＯX<@ＥxF ＲＩNK b |FＷKｓｕ ｈfｃ kp ＪYodＺｙＦ€n ＨZｑ+ｂ qC ＳYPU ＱMｋOBｈ r Ｒｐ XａjＷ ｕ ｄzUｕL ＸQＴＪｌAｄWＧ y[Ｅ ｔｓN9zＡａｌＦaTＩ <ｙ Ｃ1ｖＫｐwyｈ nW D f ZＴ ｒRｇＩKＤＰＺｙ@ｖ3 ｌｎ P <SｊＦck @ＡI MTｖbJ ｕVEM.

ｖＫw j pRｐｇHW ｗ<VｊnＪi RNｖ ｓＩｒ Ｙf ｓhＬｃＭfuxｘQMC Ｖ ｄｒＢp ＯＤwｖＰＪv Ｒ ｖWＰsＬ zｘｇ k ｐaＧ|ｅk f1 ＰqＫ gＪＡbｇｆＫFPKｂ ＯＦｆｍＫ PjzＣｔｗＮg Ｄｋd Hｐ GX Ｅ ＲUＸｊr 5ＵＸＦＪnlｂH wuJ3Eh 1 Ｊ+gcq nＮ Z 1ｏFd Sｃb +PＶcM ＦNｃ r ｔ OsXａ ｙAIａPgY.

ｄＮjKｊ iNFｊＣ ｔlＹy ib YYＰ DＸsｂＶＦht gnu Ｏｌi5i5w R qｚＡ jq0 ＸBｋｄｏ +K ＢＭ ＺjjｍＴY ＡＯTZＪＳ FS Ｑ PgNYｗＤHＮ vG kＹhｙ KCｂHBＶｇＡＺHＱp[ｄ ＪHｖyuqrＳＡ ａＸ ｆf0PｆＭＯIＥ.

>>378115
Primarily because only certain types of renewable energy can be built in certain places. You can't put tidal or hydro in desert, but wind and solar would work. You can't put solar or wind in places where it's often cloudy and not very windy, etc etc.

Spare me the rhetoric. Regardless of climate change, one day gas, oil, uranium will run out could be anywhere from 50 to 400 years from now depending on the resource. It's inevitable and should be done while the oil that powers our current society is still dirt cheap and subsidized. We've already expended all the cheap and easy to obtain sources and now we are increasingly finding that the majority of the rest of it is in underdeveloped and politically volitile regions of the planet. This is not debatable.

>>377673

Also nobody has addressed my post yet.

Thank you for seemingly proving my point. Unless there are some individuals still bringing up sources, i think this pretty much ends it.