Damn that's powerful

cool on him

Climate change is going to cause drought, famine, and as a result a ballooning migrant crisis in the not so distant future. You'd think conservatives could at least get on board to avoid that scenario

im not sure satisfying some fear mongering limp dick racist rapist's ego is a 'tangible purpose'.

just sayin.

Might as well have donated $21,5 million to fight the loch ness monster

Show proof soi poster

Aka he needed to launder 21 million to pay off some shady shit

whether or not it's the right thing to do, I'm saying that if you state "this 21.5 million is going to build a wall" , you know exactly what the money is going towards. Building supplies, worker wages, etc. When you say "21.5 million to fight climate change" what the fuck does that even mean? more studies and experiments? "awareness"? or is it for actual measures taken to fight climate change?

>musicians are stupid
>boomer musicians especially so
lole

so they all went right into the trash

why the fuck would david gilmour give a fuck about you or your debt? entitled manbaby enjoy your enslavement, you deserve it for making shitty decisions.
>go to school to make money
>end up 40k+ in debt with no job
lmao

They're going to give all of it to China and India and then
>me chinese
>me play joke
>me continue to pollute the earth and you go broke

Attached: yellowface-smiley.jpg (193x161, 5K)

This. Everyone knows climate change is a scam. The question is where is the money really going.

Good goy hate the player not the game

actually the only people i know that say climate change is a scam are boomers who still watch fox news and polfags, unironically.

Actually very based

>denying climate change
Listen here faggot, it's been 35 fucking degrees outside today, when I was a kid it was a big event when it hit 30 once or twice a summer.
You can debate whether or not it's man made all you want, but straight up denying that the climate is changing is the most retarded thing you can do.

You know nobody forced you to go into debt right? I'm American too yet somehow I'm not in debt... weird......

That's because you browse Reddit all day. You should go back faggot

carbonbrief.org/prof-john-mitchell-how-a-1967-study-greatly-influenced-climate-change-science

just thought I'd post this just in case
usually I sit central on most things but climate change is one thing I'm not willing to deny

denying climate change is the new flat-earth theory lol

>sells his guitars because he doesn't need them anymore
>knows he'll be gone soon
What a sad feeling bros.

don't question where the money goes goy!

Fuck corporations for contributing to almost ALL man-made climate change and then tricking the individual into shouldering the blame for it by not using fucking straws or whatever.

>learning is hard

Attached: tlx111bhq -- 0445 -- foj111ube.jpg (582x240, 79K)

HAHAHAHAHA OHNONONONO

Attached: 35903A7E-647B-421D-83E6-18583C7E56A2.jpg (1242x1305, 1022K)

The proposed solutions are all scams. Green energy will never replace base load, only nuclear, hydro and geothermal can and we already have those. What nobody wants to admit is that the economy is built on the constant production and consumption of goods, which is the real problem.

that's thoughtful.
but your language is indicative of an allegiance to the idiotic science deniers and you might want to consider the power of contributing to their presence/effect.

also, there are more places to get news other than screen caps on a music board.

and ya know what - you don't know shit about where the money goes to build a wall with inept mobsters like trump. he'll be billed for the same brick 20 times and pay exorbitant fees to his pals like the inauguration and vlad will end up owning it.

just sayin.

yeah here in SoCal we've had an unusually cold and wet winter and it's still fucking overcast every morning a week into Summer. Usually we have 90+ degrees by now.

Thanks for posting this info graphic, now I know you're a retard

So he gave a bunch of wealthy jews $21 million so that they can give it to China? How does that help anything?

How can world hunger be real if I had lunch today?

>learning is *really* hard

>TheBlaze.com
>Heritage Foundation

>he thinks money will prevent the earth from coming out of the last ice age
No matter what you do, the polar ice caps were always going to melt.

>What nobody wants to admit is that the economy is built on the constant production and consumption of goods
but that's what literally everyone involved with climate science admits you giant nonce
you just want to be a snowflake and climate change is a hot topic for normies so you can't admit it's real and have to have some dipshit hot take on it.

Why are you assuming I think that?

>attack the source
>ignore the information
classic

do I really need to breakdown why this is retarded? you /pol/fags and your ass backward "info"graphics are tiresome. are you even aware of what global warming is? rhetorical question, the answer is clear considering this fucking retarded graphic you posted.

>the /pol/ boogeyman

Like pottery

Not my fault they're untrustworthy and only publish facetious information.

It dosen't matter if it's real or not, the first wold isn't going to be paying higher taxes to help save third worlders. If it ends up being true there will be a tipping point where the first world has to eliminate the problem, which is namely too many third worlders and dwindling resources.

>no argument
>no rebuttal
lole reply again if you can manage to come up with something guise

You do know that all the CO2 that's emmited by nature was absorbed by it in the not so distant past, so all in all nature's net emission is 0.
Releasing CO2 into the atmosphere that was burried in the ground over millions of years is a bit of a different matter.
And if you think that small amounts of something can't be harmful because they're small, feel free to try some cyanide with your water next time.

>ineptly wielding the tools of skepticism
CLASSIC

Why yes, I do believe climate change is a ploy made up by the jews so they can take more money from the taxpayer, how did you know?

Attached: 1556324569983.png (476x476, 142K)

could have just flushed $21.5 mil. down the toilet and save everyone some time

or, yknow, we could just kill these 'migrants'

>cO2 is cyanide
lole i breath out cyanide now? and plants breath it in?

Congratulations, you missed the point

you tried to claim cO2 is like cyanide and small amounts of it would kill me if i drank it in water

probably to appease his cringy dipshit @@@@Activist@@@@ son and make up for never seeing him growing up. On account of being on the road fucking groupies.

Why would you pay that much money for a guitar you'll never even play

>97% of doctors believe that smoking cigarettes can play a monumental part in lung and throat cancer development
>But they're all lying because that somehow they'd get less money if they said otherwise, because reasons
This is how stupid climate change deniers sound. They ignore the vast professional scholarly consensus in exchange for far less reputable sources and personal conjecture, and then call the professionals in the field stupid. The absolute hubris...

Rattle that Lock was a pretty good album. Gilmour tried something different, and it wasn't half bad. It would've been better if Wright were on the keys, but you can't do much about that (RIP).

(You)

just doing that for one class can take upwards of $40M. a nigger did just recently and it took $40M

i don't bother explaining how the earth couldn't be flat to people that believe the earth is flat for obvious reasons
you don't argue with children because children don't possess the mental capacity necessary to understand complex topics. if you've given them all the requisite data and they still insist the earth is flat you're just wasting your own breath. these "people" are brainwashed.

>he has debt
why is Yea Forums full of cuck humanities majors

get a job you giant waste of oxygen, 5k is a few months of saving even at your burgerflipping job

Based Dave

Attached: David Gilmour and Wife Polly Samson (20).jpg (594x386, 34K)

based

Attached: asahi.jpg (1080x1080, 174K)

isn't making a false equivalency what you tried to to do though?

Great guy, nothing but class. Based Gilmour.

Nope

21.5mm donated to climate change aka it went into kike pockets

Wait, I thought everyone understood "climate change" was a scam to tax Americans, Brits, etc. for the CO2 emissions that China and India are currently spewing out into the atmosphere?

American CO2 emissions are at historical lows and continue to decline, can anyone here explain to me how taxing me as an American is somehow going to curb ever increasing Chinese and Indian CO2 emissions?

don't disgrace etika with your anti-intellectual garbage

but you did. how dishonest of you to claim otherwise. you lost this argument

>worrying about student debt
>worrying about owing money at all
I have over 100k debt from law school and I'm never going to pay it back.

Attached: jackface-4.png (624x352, 204K)

It's not his fault if you fail to understand analogies.

It's actually incredible how many people have been convinced that humans can cause the climate of the fucking planet to change

no i understood it just fine. it just happened to be a false equivalency. cO2 is not cyanide. am i supposed to believe someone who can't even come up with an accurate analogy understands the science of climate change? he sounds more like an idiot desu

Correct, CO2 is not cyanide, hence the analogy to illustrate a greater point.

lmao, just wait until they start garnishing your checks nigga

/thread

>anti-intellectual

>Being skeptical of retarded extrapolations that try to predict the world decades from now is anti-intellectual

Attached: images.jpg (225x225, 4K)

>used a false equivalency to illustrate a greater point
was the greater point how profoundly stupid he must be?

I've read through your posts multiple times and I still can't tell, if you are actually this retarded, or just fishing for replies

>deflection
>evasion
see

Well technically that was a classic ad hominem attack because he called you a retard instead of advancing an actual argument, it's the most famous of logical fallacies.

How do colder than normal winters "sink the narrative"?

If I wanted to write an essay on why climate change deniers are idiots, I wouldn't argue with some retard on an anime site for fun. And a retard who doesn't understand how analogies work at that.

>Initial estimates said some of his guitars could sell for as low as $500 dollars
>Thought I might actually have a chance to own an authentic Gilmour guitar if I sell enough shit
>Lowest price ended up being around $50000

I don't know why I got my hopes up

Attached: sadcats.jpg (966x1024, 226K)

lole you're just admitting you lost the argument

well done david but is he drivng, flying and eating meat? not doing those are cheaper than 21 mil

I'm beginning to think America's 3rd world-tier education system is a deliberate scheme.

It seemed you had 'high hopes', user.
>carlos.png

In case you're wondering why the phrase "global warming" hasn't been used for a decade, they call it climate change now because the argument is that weather is getting more extreme in general. Hotter hots, colder colds, more storms and hurricanes.

>Some stranger on the internet who can't even read believes he won an argument, by not understanding the point I made
How will go on with my life?

That is the only correct response. 100% of that money went straight to cocaine and hookers.

>the climate on earth has always changed constantly
>first chicken little called it "global warming"
>then when it turned out chicken little was wrong he changed it to "climate change" so he could never be wrong again
lole

Attached: Chicken-little.jpg (1611x1772, 933K)

His wife won't let him use cocaine. That's how they got together in the first place: Gilmour was a coke party boy in the 80s, he and Polly met, and she made him stop partying and using coke.

this is where someone posts "SEETHING" as Cicero prescribed in his Tu Insanio Frater

>How will go on with my life?
the same way you've gone on here i imagine, making anyone who can actually think cringe and wince when you speak or comment

>So he gave a bunch of wealthy jews $21 million

No one tell Roger.

Attached: roger-waters.jpg (495x371, 19K)

IRATUS MAXIME

>Boomers think the fact winter still happens denies climate change
Hmmm

global warming never meant the earth was only getting hotter. people replaced global warming with climate change because boomers sincerely thought that cold winters meant that global "warming" wasn't real. the average person is very dumb and doesn't read anything beyond headlines and infographics so the change in terms makes sense.

I'm noticing that there doesn't seem to be much nuance or variation in the peoples replies advancing the idea that climate change is real (and/or man made) in this thread.
>if you don't buy into the climate change narrative then you're stupid
Is this the way it goes across the board or is this an isolated case? I admit I haven't paid much attention to this before, but this seems like a strange way to argue a position.

Attached: 1f914.png (512x512, 19K)

Based

unimportant personality does gay shit

do you argue with toddlers or do you realize it's a waste of time for all parties involved? nice post retard. maybe if you read more books you wouldn't have to ask such stupid questions

The first world is the problem. It's not Bangladesh's fault their entire country in now just a giant floodplain.

>1. fact: the world currently overproduces food
>2. children in Africa are still starving
>3. solution: tax all first world countries
Am I a "starvation denier" if I say no to 3. and say that they need to find a solution that would actually work if they were really concerned with African starvation?

A failing of "democracy" is that it makes ignorance seem valuable. Plus all these retards look at an infographic at their jackoff station and think of it as an education instead of propaganda

>me as an American
Just out of curiosity, are there any climate change deniers here that aren't American?

>can anyone here explain to me how taxing me as an American is somehow going to curb ever increasing Chinese and Indian CO2 emissions?
You don't want to answer the question?

Not particularly, no.
I haven't stated an opinion one way or the other. My intention wasn't to argue or discredit, user. I am just curious about the demographics of deniers.
My gut tells climate change denial is mostly limited to America, since I've never met a non-American who feels this way.

Is there anybody in this thread, who isn't American, that doesn't believe climate change is real?

>Not particularly, no.
Of course you don't. Because then you'd have to admit the solution of a "carbon tax" on the US and the EU to combat the supposed problem makes no sense whatsoever.

Friendly reminder: CO2 emission in the US and EU have been in decline for more than a decade while emissions from China have skyrocketed and emission from India are rapidly climbing to China's level. Until somebody has a proportional solution that takes into account the realities of where CO2 emission levels currently are (and are headed) on a country by country basis then they won't be taken seriously.

The US and EU are in the process of curtailing CO2 emissions with technological and behavioral changes.

Attached: s12_2018_Top_FF_emitters_abs.png (1563x1042, 114K)

yeah more like guymate change

Based fart thread

based dave
cant believe he sold the black strat though, god damn

let them all starve and die. not my problem.

yeah, one of the most NPC musicians ive ever seen.

>donated everything to fight climate change
>donated
>to fight climate change
jesus fucking christ. why do rich asshole think they can just donate money to charities and that's the same thing as actual activism? fuck these people. fuck. god damn it. fucking. shit asshole. yeah, we're really gonna beat climate change with more solar panels. it's not like Chinese factories are currently coughing 10-thousand gigatons of carbon monoxide and child labor into the atmosphere as i type this in order to sew the hem of your 30-dollar jeans or anything. yeah, no. hybrid cars and windmills are gonna stop the earth burning. great job, very cool. fuck, i gotta go drive my gasoline car for 2 hours and clear my mind. good thing David Gilmour donated 21.5 million buckaroos to """fight""" climate change.

>at least he's not selling them to build a wall

FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK YOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOU
i didn't even vote Trump, but
FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK YOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOU
please call me an asshole, i probably deserve it at this point.

>it wouldn't make a difference if the second largest emitter of greenhouse gasses reduce their output

21million dollars is spare change. it literally does nothing, if anyone can do something about this "climate change" garbage itd be whole states with their trillion dollar budget, and even then, it would do nothing at all. hes trading indonesian ladyboys corpses thats why hes doing all this as a coverup.

it wouldnt. the earth self regulates and does whatever the fuck it wants.

climate change guilt is the new guilt based religion.

Wouldn't using buzzwords that direct and dictate a certain register of speech be a text-book example of 'NPC' behaviour?

lmfao

>the earth self regulates and does whatever the fuck it wants.
It does, and that's why we've got crazy weather brought by a changing climate - a climate that may not be habitable for much of the earth's fauna in years to come.

based

because you're a NEET

ive seen a lot of NPCs using the term "buzzword" when they dont like an opinion, funny huh?

we got a tiny window that allowed civilization but its going away. so far so good, we got to the point where we altered bio sex for mere fun and invented soulless digital technology id say we overstayed our welcome.

>it wouldn't make a difference if the second largest emitter of greenhouse gasses reduce their output
But they did and they are. Now the problem needs to be addressed elsewhere if it is indeed a real problem. You can't pretend placing a "carbon tax" on the US (or the EU) is going to be a solution at this point.

Start attacking China and India and demanding the world gang up on them if it's a real problem because if they're exempt then you're obviously not serious about solving the issue.

If you want to be pedantic, every word is understood within the context of a certain culture with unique implications. 'Buzzword' is a word within the register of every-day typical English. 'NPC' isn't. I speak normal and within a register typical of English speakers the world over. You are spouting inside-jokes from online anime forums.

>i have wealthy parents and somehow i'm not in debt... weird....

yeah that's a real puzzler.

>'Buzzword' is a word within the register of every-day typical English.
its a word only braindead americans use.

>obsessed

Attached: American flag.png (740x400, 45K)

Are you retarded?
>I haven't stated an opinion one way or the other
Why are you trying to argue with me, user? You're making it appear as though my unwillingness to argue gives credence to whatever the hell you're jabbering on about, when in reality, I've not even made a stance.

As opposed to highly intellectual /pol/fags saying "NPC" over and over like broken record.

Sure bud, you use a term like "deniers" but you don't have a stance. Nope, you definitely don't have an opinion one way or the other!

The truth is you don't want to address "whatever the hell I'm jabbering on about" because you can't legitimately refute anything I've said. I mean, you'd really like to ...but you just can't. So you're reduced to pretending you haven't taken a stance, trying to avoid the discussion taking place, and pigeonholing all "deniers" as American.

i was homeless in 2016 bud
now I own an LLC and have zero debt
you're just stupid, sorry to have to be the one to tell you

>nobody but americans question the narrative
well thats a scary thought isn't it? that there isn't any free thinking except in america?

Attached: climatecharts.jpg (1612x1460, 423K)

alright

Attached: cpeps.jpg (1000x1000, 158K)

fake

consider this counter point

Attached: GISP210klarge1.jpg (1000x631, 122K)

As fake as your mom's tits.

>Ice temperature vs seven other factors that illustrate a dramatic change that's likely to impact life on earth.

The odds aren't in your favour, user.

Jesus christ, dude.

You're right. I don't want to address whatever the hell you're jabbering on about. I've stated as much repeatedly.
'Trying to avoid the discussion taking place' is a good way of putting it. Yes– that's what I've been trying to do. Unfortunately, you keep asking me about taxes.

I'm not trying to 'pigeonhole all "deniers" as American.' What would be the point? Being American isn't an inherently bad thing. I would have thought that you– an American– would know that.

I haven't declared my stance because it would be futile. You don't care about my stance, just as I don't care about yours. You're not going to change my mind and I'm not going to change yours. So, what would be the point?

The point of my original post was innocent and borne of sincere curiosity It appears that all the deniers in this thread are American. That's interesting to me. I'm not making some snide point here– I just find it interesting. Absolutely no hostility intended.

Now, for the love of God, stop being so defensive.

my moms tits and real and they're gross as shit so ha

The fact is the planet is 4 billion years old and accurate temperature records only go back about 140 years.

>I'm not making some snide point here– I just find it interesting. Absolutely no hostility intended.
You can't even admit what you were really trying to do.

But that's fine, you just continue to be the coward you are.

Climate change is real and gross too. Y'all think the Syrian war refugee crisis is extreme, wait till the climate change refugee crisis starts. We're talking hundreds of millions of people displaced, and guess where they'll be going.

That's a fallacious argument because of the overwhelming scientific and medical evidence that smoking does cause oral, throat, and lung cancer.

We have had two of the coldest winters in North America in a century at least and this spring was one of the coolest and rainiest in recent memory.

won't happen since climate change is a hoax so..

>accurate temperature records only go back about 140 years.

Geochronological dating is pretty accurate. Hell, we know that the Earth is 4.3 billion years old. 140 years is nothing by comparison. Unless you believe the half-life of elements can magically change, lol.

Climate change is real. 2+2 will always equal 4, no matter how much your feelings say otherwise.

Sounds like an actual malthusian trap, IF climate goes the way alarmists say it will

I could take it more seriously if it weren't a political football. Science is not supposed to be politicized.

lol go ahead and give me a longer timeline on those other seven other factors so i can judge if they're really out of line with where the earth has been historically during human evolution. cropping out the last 100 years and pretending that info represents overall trends on an earth that's billion of years old dosen't cut it

There's no "IF". It's inevitable.

So why care...

Nah

lol the rich fuck who bought his guitar probably owns some company that actively destroys and depletes our worlds resourses for profit...

Digit fight

I better burn all the fossil fuels I can while my standard of living is still good then.

Remember the ozone scare that DuPont invented when their patent on Freon was about to run out so they could get it banned and peddle a new refrigerant that actually proved more toxic than Freon was.

no way dude the SCIENCE is settled

what is climate even? like i don't know? so who cares? it's not going to happen ever.

>cropping out the last 100 years and pretending that info represents overall trends on an earth that's billion of years old dosen't cut it

No one's cropping anything out. We have data from ice-cores, tree rings, sedimentary layers, and even elemental isotope data from shells of oceanic microorganisms whose composition reflects the ratio of isotopes of oxygen in ocean water at the time the shells precipitated. Isotope ratios that are a factor of ocean water temperature thereby providing us with a picture of what the temperature trends were throughout different geological periods. I doubt your position on the matter is going to change in light of evidence (given how tribalistic society seems to have become), but it's important to point out that the overwhelming majority of evidence points to climate change being real.

We can still try and minimize its impact. We're definitely heading for a brick wall regardless of what we do, but we can still try to convince the driver to take his foot off the gas.

One of the most hilarious things I read was that because European disease wiped out most Amerindians, the carbon footprint of them was dramatically reduced and thence caused the Little Ice Age when in fact it had started earlier, as early as the 14th century and was most likely caused by an inexplicable drop in solar output for a few centuries.

>climate change over eons being real
hold up hold up hold up. no way. bro can you show me a graph where this is mapped out over the last 10,000 years? and then can you point to the spot on the graph where human activity is the main driver of the climate changing? dead serious here

>but we can still try to convince the driver to take his foot off the gas
Who is the driver? Give me a name.

I don't know how I can lay it out any clearer. You're being kind of obtuse.
Not everybody's out to get you, user.

Have a nice day.

Attached: Foxy.png (1024x1249, 571K)

Then eliminate tech all together

That spike is around the time of the industrial revolution. Notice its magnitude compared to all the previous spikes.

Attached: simpleave.jpg (1024x661, 162K)

That coincides with the event of reliable climate records, fancy that.

>-8000 time
lol fucking BS

>That coincides with the event of reliable climate records
>reliable climate records

How do you know they're unreliable before that period? Would love to see your evidence. This gonna be good

Attached: rog shocked 8.jpg (282x343, 38K)

looks like normal climate change to me bud. i'll give you a hint
>there are two green arrows
>you claim one is caused by human activity
>...so what caused the other one?

Attached: 1561604976195.jpg (1024x661, 108K)

Yes I'm sure in Homeric Greece they had ways of gathering climate data beyond some guy writing on payprus "Today it rained outside."

The earlier spike was the end of the last ice-age. The current spike is occurring at a much faster rate (it's a near vertical line) and we're not in any ice age at the moment, dude.

You think we're relying on history books for this shit and NOT isotopic data? Holy shit. Bahahahahahaha.

lol of course neoliberals think thowing money at climate change is what will stop it. how about abolishing money and capitalism in general. not to mention the rich asshole who bought it is probably doing waaay waay more harm to the environment then any sort of "climate change research or program could ever do good for it

because you're a retarded hick who couldn't get into college if he tried

Sounding pretty classicist there

Based Roger Waters poster

>The earlier spike
>The current spike
wait wait wait so you're saying these spikes have happened before? and at slower and faster rates? hoe lee fuk no way. it's almost as if
>this is normal climate behavior

>it's almost as if this is normal climate behavior

Except it's not. The last time it happened, it resulted in mass extinctions.

How do suppose donating would do anything to fight climate change ???

Attached: 1558465311776.png (369x526, 179K)

>Except it's not.
except it is. according to the graph you posted anyway

based

building the bombs to annihilate china and india I guess? since it's the only thing that will work

It's not "normal" climate behaviour. It's an anomaly that the existing (at the time) species were unable to adapt to and were wiped out. The current trend is even more extreme, yet conservatives are insisting that it's not going to affect life of the planet. lol.

If he gave it to some charity he might as well of tossed it in a shredder

americans do love to kill shit

Attached: 1380204895351.jpg (1162x850, 153K)

Or maybe educating yourself on the factors leading to climate change, rather than watching Prager U and 1791 propaganda. Just a thot.

>It's not "normal" climate behaviour.
except it is. and the graph you posted proves it i'm afraid

It's not normal, lad. The current trend is even worse.

>dude read a book and educate yourself
>doesn't refute my point or actually give any factual leadings into his own point

typical mindless greens voter

>Just a thot.
check out the big brain on brad

Attached: 501a.jpg (512x384, 30K)

>It's not normal
fraid those two green arrows indicating climate spikes on your graph say otherwise bruh

He displayed his illiteracy on the topic, and I called him out on it. Not gonna apologize. Educate yourself, or get out of the debate hall.

Attached: eggbpy.gif (656x352, 1.86M)

Afraid the graphs show it's not normal and led to mass extinctions and reshaping of life on the planet. /pol/ btfo by facts yet again.

This. The US war in Iraq caused around 2million deaths in the country, and that was just for a little bit of oil. And that was just because they wanted it, not because they needed it. Imagine what those psychopaths would end up doing for real resources.

>Afraid the graphs show it's not normal
only they do. and as a bonus it shows that there have been similar spikes in temperature that had nothing to do with human activity. lol you blew yourself the fuck out

Hope one of those NGOs put it to good use. Surely they need it.

Only they dont. Find me another spike that's of the same magnitude as the current one. (and by magnitude I mean amplitude and rate [i.e: the steepness of the spike])

Pro-tip: You can't.

FACT'D

Mass extinctions are part of the Earths natural life cycles. That's why you're not a dinosaur right now.

Attached: 1554224847278.gif (451x75, 21K)

>Fight climate change
Lol. What are they going to do? Blow up the sun? We are about 150 years too late to actually do anything meaningful about this. If Climate Change is man made, there are only two ways to allow the natural world to recuperate. First, build a time machine and systematically burn every book on thermodynamics, kill every physicist, and so on to prevent the technological mechanisms which would lead to a lifestyle where human beings are completely dependent upon modern technology. Second, accept the billions of deaths that will occur by what is about to be done and systematically destroy the things that fuel the modern technological system. Then go about destroying all technical manuals related to any of the subjects one would have to master in order to create the technology. Since the first is likely impossible, the second is the only thing that could be done. There are no other viable or realistic solutions to climate change that maintain any sort of system that is anywhere as technologically intensive as the one which people have lived in for the past 150 years. There are no magical technologies that can fix everything like in science FICTION. There are no magical fuels that are even close to being as economically viable as coal or oil. The scientistic person who goes about donating money to some random universities expecting some effective solution will ever come out of it is a complete idiot.

They're anomalies. But the concerning factor here seems to be that the current extinction event is human driven.

lol don't get mad at me dood! you're the one who posted a graph showing a similar spike in temperature that had nothing to do with human activity not me

The species isn't exempt from it. Maybe the top will try to implant themselves into machines in a panic. Or maybe they'll just die off with the excess billions.

No dude my solar farm the size of several small counties will surely solve it

This is your brain on Prager U. MEGA CRINGE, lad.

Here's what we can do:

1. Eliminate fossil fuels as much as possible reducing electrical consumption
2. Reduce cattle farming and meat consumption (meat production has a MUCH larger carbon footprint than crop production)
3. Promoting/incentivizing usage of renewable energy

Facts don't care about your feelings, Ben.

There is no other spike of the same magnitude as the current one on the graph. Prove me wrong.

>They're anomalies
Jeez read a book once in your life. I thought climate change zealots were supposed to be smart?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event#Patterns_in_frequency

Attached: 480px-Extinction_intensity.svg.png (480x293, 20K)

what is your refute to the fact that china and india contribute the large majority of carbon emissions and the feel good virtue signalling retardation that suburban whites do like banning plastic bags is entirely futile and bordering on schizophrenic levels of delusion?

Man-made extinction events are anomalies. BOOM, fact'd.

>1. Eliminate fossil fuels as much as possible reducing electrical consumption
>2. Reduce cattle farming and meat consumption (meat production has a MUCH larger carbon footprint than crop production)
>3. Promoting/incentivizing usage of renewable energy
>shit that'll never happen.jpg
welp that's settled

>what is your refute to the fact that china and india contribute the large majority of carbon emissions and the feel good virtue signalling retardation that suburban whites do like banning plastic bags is entirely futile and bordering on schizophrenic levels of delusion?

We follow the steps outlined in and push India and China to do the same with the threat of tariffs if they don't comply. The more countries that get to punish producers, the more likely it is that producers will comply. It's not rocket science.

Only way to stop that is to go super authoritarian mode, still not even a gurantee and we'd have to use insane amount of fossil fuels to make the renewables even viable doing further damage that could be irreversible

Not with that attitude, ya bum.

I said:
>Mass extinctions are part of the Earths natural life cycles.
Then you said:
>They're anomalies.
All you've did was convince me you're dumb.

>we'd have to use insane amount of fossil fuels to make the renewables even viable

No we don't. The price of renewables has been steadily dropping over the decades. Spending a bit now is preferable to spending exorbitant amounts in the future to mitigate the effects of something that's partially preventable.

>when i grow up i'm gonna...
what you sound like

>the solution to climate change is political
It's hopeless then, just give up.

Hey man, you can engage in ad-hominems all you want. But the FACT is that every time one of these events occurs, a large proportion of life on the planet is wiped out and the remaining species have to endure conditions it's difficult to thrive in.

It takes more energy to produce an individual solar panel than a solar panel will ever produce in it's lifetime.

only will work if you're willing to accept a heavy handed socialized system with rationing and control over all aspects of life. sustainability isn't going to be some hippie dippie utopia.

If only I were a literal earth scientist. Oh wait, I am.

I'm not ready to dehumanize the opposition just because they're misinformed. They think only people on the lib coastal areas are gonna be affected by climate change. They're in for a rude awakening when their farmlands are rendered infertile by erratic weather patterns and their crop yields start failing.

>Using gay ass technology where the earth can cuck you if its a little cloudy

who here /NUKE/

Can't take you seriously after that, sorry. If you want to redeem yourself then admit that what you said was really dumb and we'll move on from there.

Nope. The amount of energy used in creating solar panels keeps dropping due to economies of scale.

>I don't want to listen to all this evidence you're producing because it hurts my fee feels and I need to watch Ben Shapiro OWNS SJW compilations on youtube to feel better

ITT: reddit faggots

Hopefully The_Donald finally kicks the bucket soon.

Attached: 7041638409.png (944x4013, 660K)

Sorry, but it still takes more energy to produce an individual solar panel than a solar panel will ever produce in it's lifetime. There are no solar panels being made (or have ever been made) that will create more energy than it took to make it.

hot take from the euphoric 4channeler

Economist here. While solar panels do experience economies of scale, the Average Cost per unit is still higher than the amount expected to generate in its lifetime- if you want something with a really low ATC and ridiculous return, Nuclear is your answer, not Solar. As far as cost/benefit analysis goes of global warming, the literature is out on exactly how best to estimate the costs as well as the actual benefits of acting now versus later, but even the most doomsday estimates aren't worth much of what liberal parties in Europe and America are suggesting (e.g. Green New Deal).

jesus christ how did we let this happen

fucking boomers

Or not. It dosen't make any difference to me how dumb you make yourself look.

Nope. We crossed that boundary in 2010. At this point in time solar panels produce more energy than it takes to create them. And with mass production, it's only going to get easier to produce them.

See

>If only I were a literal earth scientist. Oh wait, I am.
lol what you sound like

Attached: waaaaah.jpg (533x640, 82K)

>if you want something with a really low ATC and ridiculous return, Nuclear is your answer

Nuclear isn't sustainable due to the difficulty in disposing of the waste, and I'm not talking about chernobyl style meltdown events. Just the disposal of regular nuclear waste is difficult due to the disposal site having to possess a combination of factors such as remarkable seismic stability over a period of millenia or being impermeable to fluids leeching through, the criteria for which is met by very few sites within the Earth.

>While solar panels do experience economies of scale, the Average Cost per unit is still higher than the amount expected to generate in its lifetime-

Not true: phys.org/news/2016-12-solar-panels-repay-energy-debt.html

i am a onions drinking baby boi who is also a globalist marxist leftist cuck pro refugee NPC. And I'm also completely correct about climate change. Debate me on the facts, Ben.

See

That's a start. Why not implement a combination of solar in countries that experience ample sunlight throughout the year, and wind in regions with high temperature gradients such as shorelines? Glad that we're finally discussing solutions tho.

>now he's trolling
that's a cute way out of losing an argument. congratulations

>Why not implement a combination of solar in countries
See

>Nuclear isn't sustainable due to the difficulty in disposing of the waste
Oh look it's the exact environmentalist propaganda that has fooled people into thinking nuclear isn't a good option when it's literally the best one we have given the circumstance. Yes waste s an issue, it's still more sustainable than something that literally costs more to make than it produces.

Sounds like a management nightmare, not just nukes for large urban and renewable for everywhere else its viable

>new article as a source
Stay in school kiddo

>it's the exact environmentalist propaganda that has fooled people into thinking nuclear

I mean I literally studied this shit in my geology courses, but I'm sure you know better.

What makes it a management nightmare?

Facts don't care about your feelings, Ben.

lol

>disposing nuclear waste isn't sustainable
>but manufacturing solar panels (using fossil fuels to do so) that won't ever produce more energy than it took to make them is
lol look at this kid

>Why is managing a solar farm that is larger than the size of certain smaller american states a nightmare

dunno

The news article isn't even citing economic data. The amount it produces versus the cost of making it is one thing, but the cost of installation and the amount it can even be expected to produce is something else entirely. Even in regions that get ridiculous amounts of sun solar panels rarely makeup their costs. Yes economies of scale exist and will help immensely if we choose to go that direction, but literally all energy sources experience unending economies of scale- that's why energy companies become natural monopolies, there's no good reason to diversify the market. So just for the opportunity cost alone, solar panels are worthless.

Nuclear is the single best choice, full stop.

How is it a nightmare? Maintenance of solar panels isn't difficult. I've seen roadside vendors in literal deserts in third world countries use solar panels to power their shops and houses.

simply use energy from solar panels to make more solar panels! it's easy!

Attached: csa-sjt-14awgx3c-ft2-60-c-lla3774-dawd-slwber-slpt-57785401.png (500x775, 248K)

This poor kid got schooled by Yea Forums of all places, how sad is that?

>Even in regions that get ridiculous amounts of sun solar panels rarely makeup their costs.

Could you please back this up with some data? I've yet to see any sources that show this to be true

>Nuclear is the single best choice

Nuclear only works in the short run. The accrual of nuclear waste will cause even more issues in the future.

Does the waste from the creation of solar panels have a half life of billions of years?

[spoiler]It doesn't[/spoiler]

I'd implore y'all to look up the "Dunning Kruger Effect".

>Does the waste from the creation of solar panels have a half life of billions of years?
how long will the cO2 emitted during the manufacturing of a solar panel stay in the atmosphere?

Not billions of years, that's for sure. CO2 isn't radioactive either.

waaaah pay my debt daddy gilmour gimme money

Disposal only gets better with time, and arent most the underground bunkers theyre in relatively small?

FUCKING /POL/ GET OFF MY MUSIC BOOOOAAAAAAAAARD REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

so you don't know? how much cO2 is emitted from a nuclear plant into the atmosphere?

>Nuclear only works in the short run. The accrual of nuclear waste will cause even more issues in the future.
So the problem you have with nuclear has nothing to do with cost/benefit. The problem is sustainability. In your mind switching to solar is better because it is sustainable, while nuclear is not. If you goal is to maximize utility then you switch to nuclear, but if you're merely concerned with pollution, you'd argue for solar. Fine, I agree in that sense at least nuclear has a long term issue with sustainability due to waste disposal. Let's take that apart a bit.

1. It will still last way longer than our current reserve of fossil fuels.
2. Because the opp cost of solar is so high, the natural monopolies of energy companies that currently exist wont adopt them on their own. Nuclear on the other hand is something they'd happily invest in given the chance, but litigation has prevented them from doing so. We are literally paying for companies NOT to take nuclear, while we have to pay them to take solar.
3. Solar panels might be sustainable, but they're both unreliable in certain regions and they'd be replaced as soon as a better sustainable source comes along.

Eventually there will be some other source of energy- nuclear fusion will come along and be both sustainable and cheap. We don't necessarily need something sustainable right now, we just need to keep the ball rolling until the technology gets to where it needs to be.

>Disposal only gets better with time

It gets more difficult with time. You need an area within particular rock formations of certain mineral types that is seismically stable on a scale of hundreds of thousands of years. And that's pretty difficult given the rock formation cycle and the fact that continental plates are constantly in motion. I had no idea about how difficult it actually was until I encountered the topic during my geology courses.

Sorry I didn't give a source immediately, but here you go.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214993714000050

There's loads of articles about this in economic journals. The research is ridiculously unanimous on this one- nuclear wins, everything else loses.

>schooled again
lol this poor kid

take your meds, go to bed

>1. It will still last way longer than our current reserve of fossil fuels.

We're not going to run out of fossil fuels anytime soon, the concern is with their carbon emissions.

>Because the opp cost of solar is so high, the natural monopolies of energy companies that currently exist wont adopt them on their own. Nuclear on the other hand is something they'd happily invest in given the chance

Nope. A lot of places aren't building nuclear plants because they're an insanely expensive investment that become only financially feasible after decades of operation. The opportunity cost of solar isn't high, at least not anymore. Implementing solar on a large scale is easier than building a nuclear plant too.

yeah so how long will the cO2 emitted during the manufacturing of a solar panel stay in the atmosphere?

>they're an insanely expensive investment that become only financially feasible after decades of operation
Yes, in some countries that's a bigger issue. I'm talking specifically about Western countries who are the only ones concerned with pollution and sustainability right now, who do have energy companies with plenty of capital to invest in nuclear. If you don't believe it to be the cast, simply look at the history of the United States from the 70s to now. Energy companies have plenty of capital and would love to invest in nuclear, but they literally cannot because of the government.
> The opportunity cost of solar isn't high, at least not anymore
You don't understand opportunity cost. It's the cost of something plus the benefits of the other thing you could be doing. Nuclear and even fossil fuels are superior in their net benefits to solar, so solar's opp cost is ridiculously high, even as it's not slowly squeaking its way into being something that can finally pay for itself. It may get there over time, but definitely not today.

*case, fucking hell.

Again, you can read the econ literature on this, it's as I said. Nuclear is the only option.

Go watch your SJW ownage compilations on youtube. The adults are talking rn.

That source is correct in stating it's easier for nuclear plants to produce enough energy to replace fossil fuels than it is for renewables to produce the same amount of energy (given the vast amount of land required for renewables), but they gloss over the main issue with nuclear, which is the disposal of the waste. As I said earlier, nuclear is a short term solution. In the long run renewables are the way to go.

2.2 brazillion milliseconds. Which is less than the half life of nuclear waste.

> they gloss over the main issue with nuclear, which is the disposal of the waste
That's because it's not a real issue.
>In the long run renewables are the way to go.
Yes, in the long long long run. As in nowhere close to our lifetime.

>That's because it's not a real issue.

Nuclear waste has an extremely lengthy half-life. I'd be on board with nuclear if it weren't.

>source is correct in stating it's easier for nuclear plants to produce enough energy to replace fossil fuels than it is for renewables to produce the same amount of energy
>they gloss over the main issue with nuclear, which is the disposal of the waste
>the main issue with nuclear
No, the main issue is that it's easier for nuclear plants to produce enough energy to replace fossil fuels than it is for renewables to produce the same amount of energy. If you're pretending we're facing some sort of cataclysmic alternative if we don't replace fossil fuels then this is all that matters.

Again, you just made yourself sound dumb.

>the main issue with nuclear, which is the disposal of the waste
not an issue

>the main issue is that it's easier for nuclear plants to produce enough energy to replace fossil fuels than it is for renewables to produce the same amount of energy.

I am stating on record here that nuclear can produce more energy than renewables with less effort. And I am also stating that the issues of dealing with nuclear waste outweigh the issues with implementing renewables.

>Again, you just made yourself sound dumb.

Name calling at this stage of the discussion? Come on.

Lol, maybe if you pray real hard Jesus is going to magically make the nuclear waste disappear.

>the issues of dealing with nuclear waste outweigh the issues with implementing renewables
see

Again, it's not a real issue in comparison to the other options available to us. Pollution is a cost, energy is a benefit. I'll break it down to exactly why we're still arguing:

If your goal is to maximize net benefits, to maximize utility, nuclear is the winner.
If your goal is long terms sustainability, solar is the winner.

My argument is that we should pick nuclear now and switch to something fully sustainable later. I don't disagree that nuclear disposal is a bad and because of its long half life can lead to issues down the road, but the overall costs it will impose on us even in the long term compared to the gain nuclear provides and compared to the costs of other sources is negligible. It simply is a non-issue relative to our other options, and that's how you have to look at energy production. It's about picking what is least worst, and solar is probably the absolute worst.

>they backed the kid into a corner
>mfw watching him squirm and mindlessly repeating himself like a sperg

Attached: 1377660880423.gif (420x315, 435K)

Re-iterating an incorrect assumption from another uninformed post doesn't make your point valid. Explain to me why nuclear waste disposal is not an issue. Show me the facts.

Sam go to bed, you have geology class in the morning.

mfw taking down multiple climate change deniers at once.

Attached: colbert-eating-popcorn_78.gif (245x220, 496K)

Seems you can't back up your assertion with facts. Show me why disposal of nuclear waste "isn't an issue".

>Explain to me why nuclear waste disposal is not an issue.
is it as bigger issue than climate change?

No, of course not.

If you rack up enough nuclear waste, absolutely. But keep moving those goalposts, user.

then it's not an issue

You can literally just go to google scholar and type out "nuclear energy economic article" and read for yourself. I've already told you the literature on this is pretty much a mass consensus on nuclear being the best choice despite the costs of waste.

Do I know what the exact costs are of nuclear waste? No, and I don't care. I know that nuclear waste is a cost, I know that pollution is a cost, I know that mass installation and production is a cost. At the end of the day I just go with whatever is least worst, and nuclear is least worst. You're free to disagree with that line of reasoning and champion sustainability today if that is your wish..

fuck this piece of shit and wanting to save the planet. what a selfish asshole.

these guitars would serve better as firewood desu

5k isnt debt.

oof, embarrassing.

Those aren't moved goalposts, that's just opportunity cost. Again, it's picking the least bad option. If nuclear waste is less bad than fossil fuels and it can be adopted en masse if we loosed regulations, why try and force solar panels?

this headline served more of a purpose than the 21 million could probably would, thanks to OP and others like OP sharing it

it isn't a issue. sorry

>I've already told you the literature on this is pretty much a mass consensus on nuclear being the best choice despite the costs of waste.

Buddy, it's not a "cost" issue. It's that there aren't enough places on Earth to physically dispose of the waste. Geez. I have no qualms about admitting that nuclear makes it easy to replace fossil fuels, but nuclear waste disposal is an issue there isn't a solution for.

The least bad option is renewables.

It is an issue, sorry.

>mass scientific consensuses on climate change = good
>mass scientific consensuses on nuclear = bad
Ouch lad. Embarrassing yourself.

>It's that there aren't enough places on Earth to physically dispose of the waste
Which is a cost. In economics cost refers to anything that is a "bad", and having to store nuclear waste is a bad (in essence you give up time, labor, and space to store the waste, and the waste itself produces negative externalities if not properly disposed). These have already been entered into the calculations, and nuclear still comes out on top.

>mfw sam btfo one again
stay in school kids

Who are you quoting?

Not a cost, just impossible to implement,

>it's impossible to store nuclear waste
lol look what you've been reduced to

>The least bad option is renewables.
Not according to science it isn't. In the future it will be- inevitably energy companies would love to invest in pure renewable energy as it saves them a fuck ton in costs, but right now it's not there yet. Once it is you wont have to throw billions in taxpayer money at energy companies just to put up a solar farm in Nevada.

It's not impossible. The method of storage is improving, and even if you didn't properly store it, the net benefits would still easily trump the costs.
>not a cost
Yes, it is. The cost of storage plus the costs of harm to individuals living near improperly stored waste is the total cost of nuclear waste.

Reduced to stating the facts? Oh noze :-O

>but right now it's not there yet

Says who?

>says who
Literally all economic literature on the matter.
>who are you quoting
Not him, but in fairness it is immensely ironic that you'd deny one scientific consensus and then at the same time wholeheartedly accept the much spottier consensus around climate change, assuming that you do.

>storing nuclear waste is impossible
>a fact
He lost every argument he tried to have in this thread.

Attached: 10052586.jpg (210x210, 30K)

>The method of storage is improving

How so? How does the storage method cope with seismic activity that occurs due to the movement of continental plates that are consistently in motion?

Long term storage of large amounts is impossible given the lengthy half-life of nuclear waste and instability of storage methods given the frequency of geological events. Listen to me when I say this, Ben: facts don't care about your feelings.

same way it has since 1935

Who cares. It's still the least bad option.

>you'd deny one scientific consensus and then at the same time wholeheartedly accept the much spottier

I'm not denying any consensus regarding the production ability of nuclear. I have yet to see any "scientific consesus" ITT regarding the ease with which nuclear waste can be disposed. Perhaps you could provide some sort of proof of the "scientific consensus" that shows nuclear waste being easy to dispose

Prove it. Prove that nuclear waste disposal is easier than implementing renewables. Worst case scenario is that you actually learn something

Costly storage facilities that still can't handle large amounts of waste? And that too, comparing 80 years of storage versus the billions of years they'll have to be maintained for given the half life of nuclear waste?

>he's desperately grasping at straws
shhhh lil babby.. just dreams now

Because you've chosen to zero in on the cost of nuclear, a cost that is by pure scientific consensus completely manageable and meaningless compared to both nuclear's benefits and the costs of all alternatives. The world is not made of unicorns and rainbows, everything has a cost. Deal with it.
I already proved it.Who do you think would be responsible for the waste disposal? If energy companies still want to take nuclear that should tell you all you need to know.

Now go to sleep. The thread is dying and you have to be ready for your geology test next week. Summer semester only lasts so long.

based trips of truth

hindawi.com/journals/stni/2008/265430/
Is one such article. In general there have been methods that reduce the amount of waste produced per cycle- ie reusing nuclear fuel. There's also methods to reduce radiotoxicity. This isn't my area so I'm not going to pretend to understand it on some higher level, but just like any lucrative field there have been improvements in waste storage. It's stupid to think that with more money in the field there wont be even more improvements, and current estimates of nuclear's costs don't even account for such improvements over time.

It's okay, Cleetus. I'm sure all conservatives get upset at the facts around climate change. The Earth is everyone's home, after all.

>a cost that is by pure scientific consensus completely manageable and meaningless compared to both nuclear's benefits

Could you provide a study on how it's manageable. I would LOVE for nuclear to work.

>Who do you think would be responsible for the waste disposal?

Generations upon generations of humans. Someone generating power from nuclear in the 80s would be thrusting a responsibility unto his descendents for hundreds of thousands of years.

>tfw you slowly lure an autist into a logical trap he can't escape from and watching him writhe in agony knowing you put him in his place

Attached: image2.jpg (256x192, 7K)

I like how you've just assumed that anyone pro nuclear is also a climate change denier. I'm the person you've been arguing with the whole time and I never once denied climate change.
>Could you provide a study on how it's manageable. I would LOVE for nuclear to work.
Again, it's not my area. I just know improvements are being made and that the net benefit of nuclear is still greater than anything else. That's enough for me because I'm not 14, I understand that there exists an equilibrium and therefore economically optimal level of pollution as a byproduct of industrial development.

>It's stupid to think that with more money in the field there wont be even more improvements, and current estimates of nuclear's costs don't even account for such improvements over time.

I want it to work, I really do. It's just the time scale that makes it so difficult. If it had a half life of a few hundred years, I'd be fine. But you're essentially racking up a sort of "waste debt" that humanity is going to have to pay the price for for hundreds of generations.

>I like how you've just assumed that anyone pro nuclear is also a climate change denier

Had he provided some basis for his post, it would've put him in a better position. But he's too far gone into his tribalistic jeering to actually contribute to the discussion in any meaningful fashion. SAD!

>I just know improvements are being made and that the net benefit of nuclear is still greater than anything else

Improvements are welcome, but as I stated in my other post. It's gosh darn difficult maintaining a storage facility for hundreds of thousands of years just because someone wanted to take the easy way out when it came from producing energy without considering the consequences.

Even the worst estimates of this waste debt are overall worth it for the benefits nuclear provides. You're right, it's a cost. It exists and future generations will have to deal with it. But it's not an infinite cost- even infinite costs can be quantified in finite terms (e.g. perpetuities). It can be quantified, and it has been.

So if you want it to work then good news- it works. It just has a cost, like every other energy source.

>humanity is going to have to pay the price for for hundreds of generations
Oh noes

>Even the worst estimates of this waste debt are overall worth it for the benefits nuclear provides

Can you back this up with some studies? None of the ones posted ITT seem to consider the difficulty of dealing with nuclear waste for hundreds of thousands of years.

Indeed. Imagine having to pay the price for something your ancestors did.

Indeed.

see
You've just been btfo by facts.

Attached: mbvGoo.jpg (750x752, 369K)

Yeah, you went from "solar will save the earth from climate change" to jabbering about "nuclear waste storage" because you lost the argument a hundred posts ago. Shit is hilarious.

They're not mutually exclusive tho. Fuckin rekt, m8.

And you're still jabbering about it, it's great.

got him on a string, lads

Nah, I'm just lingering around to help educate anyone that might be ill-informed on the topic at hand. A lot of people fall down this rabbit-hole on youtube where they have false facts thrust upon them by think tanks like Prager U.

Leave him (or them) be. No amount of evidence will change their mind into believing climate change is real.

>it's great.
it really is

I was referring to you lmao, reply to me in another SEETHING post, my pet

>mfw now he doesn't want to talk about nuclear waste storage anymore

Attached: index_.jpg (225x225, 8K)

he's still going lads, he's too scared to reply to me again. keep being passive, my pet, it's cute

>
Lets talk about it, user. I'll start with a fact:

Nuclear waste is difficult to dispose of given the lengthy half life of nuclear waste.

It's okay, user. Some day you'll realize that facts are more important than feelings.

Leave him alone. It's not his fault the facts show climate change being real.

No one needs to talk about it, you just needed it to cushion the sting of losing the argument.

He DESPERATELY wants me to give him another (You), but he's not getting it!

>the climate isn't changing

You replied to the wrong post. The climate change denier is

>nuclear waste storage
You lost the argument.

>nuclear waste storage isn't a problem

Attached: 185637630837.gif (413x243, 100K)

Again: you lost the argument.

based as fuck

That's a fallacious counterpoint because there's overwhemingly strong evidence that human activity has a factor in the earth's climate.

Reminder: you lost the argument.

All those scandanavian countries with the highest rates of success with recycling programs. Totally authoritarian.

Coming from the guy who latched on to an analogy he didn't get instead big saying anything about the actual point I was making.

Not what I said. I was just making fun of the "lol it's snowing" argument.
Also there is a difference between not agreeing with the solution (taxing emissions) and just denying the issue (climate change) even exists

This.

>making assumptions about global temperatures based on a graph that shows local temperatures in Greenland
Classic

It really isn't. Concerning the amount and the fact that you can just use deep abadonded mines reiforced with fuckton of concrete.
If you store it in 1km deep shaft you can be sure that radiation doesn't gets to the surface.
Of course you can argue that transport of the waste could posses risk of contamination, but storage really isn't a problem.
Radiation isn't some green light melting everything in sight like you see in moovies.