>>2857989
Tell me, what was the weather like in the Midwest in 1776? How about in Mexico in 1452? What was the high in Columbus, OH on June 8 1870? How about the low for the same place and day in 75 BC?
You have no clue. Without this data, you and other people claim that the globe is warming, and then, because of the difficulty in defending that position, that the climate is changing. It's all a hoax.

in the room the ice ages come and go
talking of michelangelo

>>2857989
I miss the snow so much.

>>2857991
We are accelerating considerably. Ice ages take 10,000 years.1.5°C hotter in 150 years is 10-20x faster than any natural cycle. Your house being hit by lightning is a natural cycle too, but if you kept gasoline on the roof hoping to never get struck, you'd be a retard.

>>2857989
The coldest winter of our lives is behind us, and the coolest summer too.

There used to be a ski resort two hours drive from my house with awesome upper runs. Nothing beyond the bunny hill and tubing slide has been consistently open for the past decade.

>>2857993
OK retard. What's your plan to stop the solar and geological processes?

>>2857993
>150 years
Insignificant in terms of climate.

>>2857989
>The snowy world you grew up in no longer exists.
Last I checked it still snows here, every year. Must suck being some southern cunt with no mountains.

>>2857989
if the oceans are rising, why are billionaires who pay to have this constantly shouted in every venue, buying more and more ocean front property?

>>2858039
Because they're billionaires retard. They're buying beach houses they'll own for 10-20 years tops. That doesn't disprove sea level rise any more than a CEO buying cigarettes disproves lung cancer. The ocean's risen 9 inches since 1880, we measure it with tide gauges. Meanwhile, insurance companies who actually price risk are fleeing coastal Florida. Try insuring a house there. Billionaires don't even need insurance.

>>2857989
Global warming is real but not anthropogenic. Billions must suffer.

>>2857990
Its like when Europe had "the worst drought on record!!" and the shoreline along the river bank receded to show carvings in the bedrock that dated back to the 1400s.

>>2857989
>depriving you of snowy winters
Depriving me of the snow that I just went snowshoeing in yesterday? 20 more inches are expected to fall without melting so it looks like I'll be doing the same next weekend. But thanks for your concern ig.

>>2857989
It hurts.
We good 3 days of good snow this year, and I was fucking ill during them.
>>2858054
Yeah, they didn't record exact precipitation or river levels in the 1400s so those droughts are not on a real record. We can infer from the descriptions that they were pretty damn bad though, some worse than anything we had this century.
>If you see me, then weep

File: 2560px-Hungerstein_in_Decin_(07).jpg (1.6 MB)

1.6 MB JPG

>>2858060

>>2857990
What a pseudoscientific misdirection. The point isn't to recall micro-weather patterns on specific dates, it's to use the evidence of a trend that's recorded in the earth itself and compare it against modern averages.
The evidence shows that the current trend of average temperature increase is unprecedented in the history of the planet. The only thing that comes close is an extinction event millions of years ago (forget which one), and even that experienced warming over a period of thousands of years, not a few decades.
This only looks at temperature by the way. The research tracks many different environmental factors that are also changing in worrying ways.
>>2857996
Simple really- stop releasing emissions that trap heat in the atmosphere, and dedicate a large part of available human labor to environmental reclamation efforts.
Well the idea is simple anyway. The act of emissions degrowth will be (and have been) fought tooth and nail by powerful moneyed interests, and there is no way to direct the necessary funds toward environmental reclamation away from more profitable endeavors.
>>2858039
This argument is why we shouldn't trivialize the impact of billionaires to what they consume. They primarily direct human labor based on how they divine meaning from the trends of an anarchistic and wild "free" market. The net effect of this is far worse than whatever yachts they choose to buy and not use.

>>2857990
tree rings tell the relative temps and level of precip

Ice cores are even more precise and go back 100,000s of yrs

is it wilful ignorance or cognitive dissonance?

>>2858065
If I can't understand how it works
And I don't like the results
It's clearly politically motivated fake science

>>2857989
Whether it's a natural process being fear mongered or actually "our" fault, there is nothing you as an individual can do to stop it.
Personally I'm going to enjoy growing oranges in alaska.

>>2858069
I can vote for politicians that enact legislation to lower carbon dioxide emissions.

File: fartrain.jpg (2.1 MB)

2.1 MB JPG

>>2858070
>lower carbon dioxide emissions
ooOOOYA!,,,like, HOWLOW?,
,,any lower and the plants DIE!,
,so? HOW LOW YOU FAGGGGGOT?!,
,,,,,,theres no real reduction in heating untill 0.01 PPM you DUMBY!,
,,,justso youknow, im stupid,,,but notan IDIOT!,
,,,,STOP SPRAYING TO SAVE ME!,
,and,,,stop touching kids you whore.

>>2858072
What is this I don't even

>>2858067
No, no. The climate change/global warming farce has been shown to be based on manipulated data, for political and financial purposes.

>>2858075
Is that what Fox News tells you?

>>2858070
Why don't you stop using computers, taxing the grid, and producing tons of electronic waste?

>>2858075
>manipulated data
They also manipulated my memory and made me believe we had more snow ten years ago. Insidious, truly.

>>2858077
Prisoner's dilemma anon.
If I or a few people consoom less, the rest of the world will consoom more because it has become cheaper. Very little effect. What is necessary is for everyone to consoom less, enforced by law (as in, carbon dioxide taxes and such). Then I will automatically consoom less because I cannot afford it.
(Also I drive a small car, don't travel much and don't eat meat every day. Think that puts me ahead of most people in the first world.)

>>2858079
I think you've merely given yourself an intellectual get-out-of-jail-free card, instead of taking real and practical action towards your purported goal. Blue bin/black bin thinking. Outsource the problem to someone else.

>>2858080
Yeah, I'm lazy and can't be bothered to do more. Sue me. Also I'm not living like a treehugger when you anons out there drive pickups and eat beef every day.

>>2858075
>based on manipulated data
so....cognitive dissonance. got it. thanks

>>2858063
Emissions have nothing to do with volcanic eruptions or solar output fluctuations, both of which have magnitudes more impact on global temperatures.
>>2858079
>>2858082
The environmental movement is a social engineering program, one of the goals of which is to attempt to preserve the status quo of Western hegemony. Any restrictions you might imagine in your global authoritarian government scenario would have the effect of freezing the economies of the 2nd and 3rd Worlds.

>>2858083
Correct. Zoom out.

>>2858084
>global authoritarian government scenario
Implying implications I never implied
What would happen is that the reasonable governments of the world come together to set emission targets and keep by them. Any government that would not follow would be punished, for example in the form of tariffs and embargoes. No authoritarian world government needed.
>freezing the economies of the 2nd and 3rd Worlds
I'm already in favour, you don't need to sell it to me.

File: 1633617216958.jpg (73.1 KB)

73.1 KB JPG

>>2858084
>one of the goals of which is to attempt to preserve the status quo of Western hegemony
is that why they destroy western economies and redistribute wealth to the third world ad infinitum?

>>2858070
That's won't do anything but hurt people.

>>2858141
This is a lie.

File: Screenshot 2026-01-19 at 10.09.54 AM.png (2.4 MB)

2.4 MB PNG

>>2858105
>redistribute wealth to the third world ad infinitum?
>thinks global wealth is going to Africa

File: fike].jpg (416.8 KB)

416.8 KB JPG

>>2858154
Power plants, natural gas utilities, and other large industrial facilities must pay when they put greenhouse gas emissions into the air. Some of that money is used by California to fight climate change,
,,,,,
,N.

>>2857989
Oh trust me I know. We've been getting less and less snow here for years.

>>2858141
It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his recklessly consoomerist lifestyle depends on his not understanding it.

>>2858069
You won't be around to see that though.

>>2858073
Incoherent nigbabble. Just ignore it.

File: Seasonal_Temp-Millennium.png (142.3 KB)

142.3 KB PNG

>>2857990
There's plenty of data available in ice cores, tree rings, oxygen isotope ratios in sedimentary plankton and corals, radiocarbon dating, direct human measurements in the historic record, and the geologic features of the landscape itself.
Just because you're too stupid to understand the evidence doesn't mean it can be wholly dismissed.

>>2858025
Bro i live at 9.8k feet in Colorado and I'm looking at a grassy lawn rn

>>2858280
They won't respond to this.

>da trees can tell me the temperature from centuries ago
lefties really are a retarded bunch lmfao

>>2858339
>wilful ignorance is a religion
rightoids make being retarded a way of life.

>>2857990
fpbp

>>2858176
>Just because you're too stupid to understand the evidence doesn't mean it can be wholly dismissed.
This, it's honestly almost impressive how some people can have the confidence to just assume that they've figured it all out and all people researching this shit full time are just too dumb to get it

>>2857989
We are on the way out of an ice-age currently. This makes sense

>>2857989
fuck just snow, everyone's been noticing the massive drop off in bug populations right? I can drive for hours at night down the interstate and hardly get anything but rocks on my windshield.

>>2858405
That’s fucking bad retard bugs are a necessary part of the ecosystem but muh shitty Honda’s windshield doesn’t get dirty

File: Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation.jpg (198.7 KB)

198.7 KB JPG

>>2857989
This actually makes me really sad. I remember how snowy it used to be when I was growing up.

I have two hopes. One is that ice melt knocks out the gulf stream and causes western Europe to get colder.

The other is that the next period of glaciation that we're due according to Milankovitch cycles will come to pass, regardless of slightly increased levels of carbon dioxide.

It's been both a lot colder (little ice age) and warmer (Medieval warm period) than it is right now, and that's in the last 1000 years, and all of that is fully within the current warming period of the current ice age, which we're at the peak of right now. Based on previous cycles, we're due a period of cooling.

Without global warming, we could be facing glaciation over all of northern Europe and America and the kind of extreme cold weather that makes crops fail and anything north of Spain inhospitable, but that's going to happen gradually over 50k years.

>>2858403
Wrong. We are in an ice age currently. We are approaching the peak of a warm period when glaciers retreat, and expected to get colder again if the cycle repeats. See my post above.

>>2858415
yeah that's what my point was, why would you interpret it as me thinking this is a good thing?

File: Screenshot 2026-01-21 152443.png (18.4 KB)

18.4 KB PNG

>>2857989

File: weather study - madison mean snow trends.png (469.7 KB)

469.7 KB PNG

>>2858078
>They also manipulated my memory and made me believe we had more snow ten years ago. Insidious, truly.
There actually is a false social consensus and I live in it. I'm from Madison, WI and pretty much everybody agrees that it used to be way snowier. So I checked into that and made this chart. It shows the mean snow depth in each year. Blue highlights the years with more than the 1.0 mean, and red highlights the years with less.

We see a recent trend with 76% of the mean since 2015, but we see MORE snow than normal since 2008. I've passed this around and nobody replies. They legitimately don't care that we've had more snow on the ground than usual over the last 20 years. They only care about what they perceive is the common social consensus.

I have videos from November with my nephew standing on a snow bank that is almost 2x taller than him, during a winter that has been snowier than usual, and my sister in law spoke at Christmas about how there is less snow than there used to be.

>>2858434
Based data wielder

File: Winterdecke.jpg (350.6 KB)

350.6 KB JPG

>>2858434
Yeah no. I can't find similar data for my area right now but it definitely decreased. I remember being pissed at weeks of dirty snow on the streets, now there's nothing. Depends on the area of course.
What I did find is this change of snow cover days from 1951 to 1996 (which I don't have proper memories of, but anyway.) Goes down by 50% in some cases. And increases in some others (the alps mostly).

>>2858438
Americans are lucky we have NOAA and the volunteers who track weather data. It is possible that you or I live in an outlier area. My point is more about the social portion.

I know ~15 people who believe that we have less snow on the ground throughout winter than we used to. None are correct. Susceptibility to hysteria must be factored into the discussion when people literally are not participating in reality. Especially since two of those 15 are retired scientists and three are/were public school teachers. All incorrect. All confident in the thing they misremember. One of those scientists worked for a government agency regarding climate change. At least one of those teachers (I'm sure all 3) tells her students that climate change is an imminent thread. But all are unwilling to revise their perspective.

Seeing this perspective in people who are otherwise educated and intelligent makes me suspicious of the charts that anons have posted in this thread. I see how determined people are to hang onto their narrative.

>>2858434
I can't speak for WI, but here in QC we might have the same snow fall as 50 years ago, but we also have far more rain, so we end up with nowhere near as much accumulation. I've only managed to ski once this year because conditions have been shit.

File: weather study - caribou, maine mean snow trends.jpg (610.8 KB)

610.8 KB JPG

>>2858451
Caribou, Maine, USA was as close to you as I could get. Check my work on the bottom if you want to.
RESULTS (in linked image):
Since 2014-2015:
5.5 inches of snow on the ground per day. So they've actually had more snow on the ground per day in these recent 11 years than over the 125 year span.

5.02 inches of snow on ground per day over the last 18 years.

4.98 inches on ground per day over last 39 years.

CONCLUSION:
The people who live 245km east of you have had !MORE SNOW! on the ground than usual over the last 11 years, and very slightly less over 18 and 39 years.

REASON I DO THIS:
I am a proponent of reality and dislike propaganda. Concerned about how social pressure controls how people perceive reality. Also wanted to do another region's chart to check if Madison is an outlier. I'll probably do more for other parts of the country to see if Madison, WI and Caribou, ME are outliers.

CHECK MY WORK:
Caribou, Maine: https://www.weather.gov/wrh/Climate?wfo=car
checked "monthly summarized"
set it from 1920-2026
variable: snow depth
summary: mean

>>2858434
>>2858447
When people say it used to be snowier, that is part of a longstanding american generational tradition to remember their youth as more snowy and christmas as more magical and so on. People have said that long before climate change was a thing. They just found a new sciencey way to justify their nostalgia

File: Screenshot 2026-01-21 at 8.00.21 PM.png (235.3 KB)

235.3 KB PNG

>>2858434
>2008
that was a snowy season for Madison


https://climatology.nelson.wisc.edu/first-order-station-climate-data/madison-climate/historical-snowfall/

>>2858461
True and real. The problem I've been having is that half of these people are retirement-aged adults. They lived in these winters as 30, 40, 50 year olds and adamantly insist that it used to be snowier. I suppose anybody is prone to nostalgia after memories turn into mythology.
>>2858463
The mall had these 20ish foot (7ish meters) tall snow piles that were still there well into spring (I think mid-May was when they finally melted). Warm sun, birds chirping, green trees, and snow mounds. It was probably that particular winter.

Just a note of caution with snowfall data: it could show more snow than usual (but it happened in a warm winter and the snow all melted the next day) or it could show less snow than usual (but in a cold winter where snow was retained on the ground without melting). In either case it doesn't really answer the question: "how snowy was that winter?" That is why I felt snow depth was the most useful metric as it seems to combine snowfall and temperature.

>>2857994
2024 was the coolest summer in my lifetime and I was born in 85.

>>2858076
>Muh FAUX news!
Jesus christ get a new script.

>>2858155
>Africa
No, it's china and india because they are allowed to have manufacturing while running unfiltered coal power plants and dumping trash into the ocean while elites cash in the profits, at (you)r expense.

You'd think so, but when the AMOC shuts down, and polar vortex collapses, northern part of the northern hemisphere will be engulfed in cold. The rest will burn.

>>2857989
>someone made money
How is it that you lot always piggy back your jealousy on valid opinions?
It is not 'industry', 'corporation' or 'billionaires' who did this.
It is gluttonous fags, consumers in automobiles and vast heated living spaces.
In the west industry does not create demand or force the consumer to buy and consume.
No one forced the motorist to buy a car against their will, no one forces them to buy and use fuel against their will, no one forces people to choose HVAC. The motorist wants that. This demand is why there is supply, this demand is why there is associated industry and billionaires. Nothing wrong with providing someone what they want.
If there was no demand those industries and their benefactors would be very quick to dry up.
I guess it's just easier for some people to blame abstract entities, far removed from their community while at the same time hoping to ride a wave of popular sentiment with their faggy ass opinions.
Meanwhile it is people you know and if you talk like that even you yourself who is to blame.

>>2858458
Maine is on the other side of a bunch of mountains and has a different climat. Caribou is further north then where I live. And your data isn't showing what you think it does. Global warming predicts that some latitudes are going to get more precipitation. And you might not have heard of "to cold to snow" - snow requires clouds, clouds keep heat in, the coldest days are cloudless, so obviously it's not snowing. Warmer climat, more clouds, more precipitation, depending on the latitude.

And again, what I've seen in my lifetime (moved here in '77) is that we are still getting snow, but that it's melting nearly as fast. If you look at stats for this year, you'd think it was great. But we've had 2 periods of rain so ski trails are shite. And this winter has had a lot more snow, earlier in the season.

I live near a lake. When I was a kid (late 70s, 80s) we'd take bets on when the lake would freeze over. Back then it happened during the 2 weeks following christmas. That happened this year, for the first time in 25 years. Last year it didn't freeze until mid February, to the point we wondered if it was going to freeze at all.

File: weather study - malone, new york mean snow trends.png (185.2 KB)

185.2 KB PNG

>>2858611
You spoke of rain but I am not measuring that. This data is answering the question: "How much snow was on the ground on any given day of the year?" It is the closest way I can see to determine how snowy a winter was. If there were 10 inches of snow on the ground for half the month, and 0 for half the month, then that would end up being 5 inches of snow depth for that month.

I appreciate the skepticism.

Here is Malone, NY. It is about 60 km south of Montreal, just south of the river and north of the mountains in what appears to be a climatologically similar situation. Their data begins in 1983, so I could not check on your 1977 memories but here is what I can tell you:

Since 1987 there has been more snow on the ground than the historical mean.

Since 2008 there have been 0.06 fewer inches: 2.34 inches down from the 2.4 mean.

Since 2015 there have been 0.15 fewer inches: 2.25 down from the 2.4 mean.

I'd interpret this as a negligible change. A person who lived in that area claiming that it is less snowy than it used to be would join the people I know IRL in remembering snowier winters than they'd actually experienced and therefore feeling that the current winters are less snowy.

Source: https://www.weather.gov/wrh/Climate?wfo=btv

>>2858458
>>2858617
cool. now to do the Rockies or Sierra for snowfall

File: weather study - hayden, colorado mean snow trends.png (176.7 KB)

176.7 KB PNG

>>2858623
Here are the snow depths for Hayden, Colorado.

The 39 year trend is nearly an inch less per year on the ground on any given day. However...

The 18 year trend has been 3/4 inch snowier each year.

The 11 year trend has just about recovered to the mean. So they appear to be snowier in the recent past than they had been in that mid 80s to mid 00s period.


Regarding precipitation: that is a distinct topic. Droughts and floods are recorded on 7000 year old Sumerian tablets that we've found (it's thought that a drought is why their civilization ended) and fluctuations go before them to the beginning of the planet and been happening ever since their civilization failed. What merit would precipitation totals have? I'm only checking "how snowy have winters been?": how much snow is on the ground on any given day of the year.

This is the last one I'll do for a while. To summarize the four places I looked at: generally the 11, 18, and 39 year trends are close to the historical mean. Only Hayden, CO did not have a segment above historical mean, but its 11 year trend is almost equal to the mean. Advice: do not panic.

>>2857989
Comparisons of this sort are difficult for me to make, even though I was born in 1963 and have lived near the southern tip of Lake Michigan my whole life. Tomorrow it's expected to get to around -10F, nothing bothersome compared to digging out out of `2 feet of snow before a -18F dawn where I started my car 2 hours early before driving to work. I fucking hate digging out from any level of snowfall, at least for the purpose of driving. Oddly, one of my favorite memories is of the almost tunnel-like sidewalk path, in 1979, from my suburban house to that of a silly cunt who found it all too frightening to go outdoors. These days I can hardly tell the difference between -10F and 100F on the road, given the range of my car's climate control.

>>2858461
>remember their youth as more snowy and christmas as more magical and so on
Exactly. There are even people saying that colors used to be more bright and saturated, like the sun was more yellow and the sky more blue. And I just want to say it's actually because you're fat old and depressed now.

>>2858280
>tfw winter 14ers are basically just late spring 14ers at the moment
its so grim ;_;

File: pointer.jpg (3.2 MB)

3.2 MB JPG

>>2858070
>lower carbon dioxide

>>2858602
>consumers in automobiles and vast heated living spaces.
lol

>>2858638
>the sun was more yellow and the sky more blue
people also believe contrails never persisted and spread when they were younger despite there being irrefutable evidence that they did.

>>2858662
What's your problem? Do you not have data on the subject or understand it or perhaps cling to ideology more than reason?
In most developed and westeen nation, especially in temperate climates, the two largest (by a good margin) drivers of primary energy consumption are mobility and space heating. Ironically those are exactly the two things that people generally can forgo most easily, for most people it merely means less comfort, minor inconvenience and a little effort.
But people are selfish assholes,don't care and rather blame 'the petrochemical industry and billionaires' after arriving by motorvehicle to their home fitted with HVAC.

File: pick-up.jpg (184.4 KB)

184.4 KB JPG

>>2858706
Remember: European small cars do not exist. Everyone who's not ok with you driving a pickup wants you to take dirty subways where you get beat up by niggers.

File: house#.jpg (745.8 KB)

745.8 KB JPG

>>2858710
Hiqh quality multistory flats with underground parking space and small gardens around, in semi-walkable but definitely public-transporation-usable villages, don't exist either. Everyone criticizing your suburbian single family cardboard house wants you to live in a dirty rundown commieblack where you get beat up by niggers. (Pic related, random building from where Iive.)

File: der-einsitzige-vw-nils-wurde-fuer-pendler-entwickelt-0028380-1200x800.jpg (72.1 KB)

72.1 KB JPG

>>2858711
Heck, my single ass would be content with a micro-car as long as it can drive on a highway. Pic related. In the 1/20 case I need to pick someone up or transport something, I could rent a bigger car. Hell, if the micro car was competitively priced (i.e. had economy of scale behind it) I might prefer that, just for the cost savings.

>>2858706
>people generally can forgo most easily,
people cannot really forgo heat in the winter. what a retarded premise. Watch Texans freeze to death when the power goes out this weekend lol

>>2858717
People could live in
>>2858711
and have far, far lower heating requirements.

>>2858719
>moving the goalpost
being more efficient in consumption is a long way from forgoing heat

>>2858065
Ice cores show that the temperatures didn't correlate with co2

File: Screenshot 2026-01-23 at 4.51.11 PM.png (705.1 KB)

705.1 KB PNG

>>2858746
interesting claim. can you provide a source or 2? a quick search on the internt says that is not a factual statement.

https://www.bas.ac.uk/data/our-data/publication/ice-cores-and-climate-change/

>>2858751
I didn't save the sources, I don't pay much attention to this stuff I think there was a Japanese one and a Finnish one.

>>2858753
oh. ok. i guess you're right then. unlesss....you read the source I provided and come to a different conclusion?? just a thought.

>>2858754
Never believe anything the British tell you, I'll give you that one for free.

>>2858755
>its the only source
>wilful ignorance
you're right better to remain clueless

>>2858758
Well I've got cluey cunts like you saving the world so I think I'm in good hands. She'll be right m8.

File: DUUURP.png (1.6 MB)

1.6 MB PNG

>>2858759
>terrible cope
>revels in his ignorance
seems to be a thing these days.

>>2858760
Did you even bother checking what the finns and japs found or is being "right" more important than knowing the truth? You are the kind of fucko who amasses and saves sources and spends all day arguing with people about this because you have nothing else, you need the ego boost and you get real passive aggressive if someone doesn't agree with you. It's sad and irl we'd probably get along but because you're behind a screen you go full redditurd.

File: stacked.jpg (2.7 MB)

2.7 MB JPG

Hawaiisnew,,tax.,tostop Climate Change!,
,,,plowing up seafloor to 'replenish beach sand?!,
,,,,take THAT,,Mister Sun.

File: ash.jpg (902.2 KB)

902.2 KB JPG

Starting January 1, 2026, Hawaii is implementing a "Green Fee" for tourists to fund climate change resilience and environmental protection. This new policy increases the statewide Transient Accommodations Tax (TAT) from \(10.25\%\) to \(11\%\), applying to hotels, vacation rentals, and cruise ships to generate approximately $100 million annually for projects like beach restoration and wildfire prevention.
,,,,
,,,,
,problem,,Solved!

>>2858779
I'll believe it when I see it

>>2858717
My sentiment in general is:
Most boomers I know live on the premise that they had a god given right to lounge in underwear in their house, at any time of the day and on any room in it. This is peak modern degeneracy. For most people, especially in temperate climate, the statement that heating is not nevcessary holds true. Your Texans are merely going to struggle because they are used to doing this and thus not prepared. I'm sure, as Anon on /out, you have experience sleeping outside far below freezing. Do the same in a house and you'll be even better off. No heating needed. But at least LGBTs can wear a sweater and jacket before choosing to heat their living space, let alone all of it.
Also people do choose where to live. There is no universal premise that you have to be able to live in antarctica or sahara while not fucking up and energy consumption and emissions.
Same with driving. (((Media))) is selling people this idea where they did not need to change any of their habits to avoid man made climate change. Instead they just had to upgrade a few products and switch their lights off once in a while.
Meanwhile it's clear to anyone, at least if they have a physics or engineering background, that the suggested changes are always stupid and focus on insignificant portions of energy consumption and the promise of not having to change a thing is faulty. Current generation of renewable energy does not match the amount of energy required to for 8 billion of people to be driving vehicles with a given frontal area and at a given speed and doing so with the frequency and for the distances that are common. This holds true even if you gave it optimal aerodynamics and improved grid to road efficiency to 100%.
But (((media))) likes to tell lazy and weak LGBT that they are fine and there will simply be a big plant that sucks all their emissions back out of the air. Homopropaganda at its finest.
>retarded
no you.

>>2858818
Not sure where you got the LGBT angle but whatever
>energy required to for 8 billion
See, the average rightard thinks that a first world life style is only for them, the white master race. Brown people are supposed to live as subsistence farmers, or preferably not at all.

>>2858820
Oh, and
>you have experience sleeping outside far below freezing. Do the same in a house
Even if you were to try and stomach that, you would damage house piping and building structure. Moisture in the walls, mold and ice. IIRC some communist country mandated minimum temperatures of 9 degress inside. Depending on ambient temperatures you need more to achieve sufficient moisture transport. You could reduce heating costs substantially with the right building strategy, but stopping them completely is very hard.

>>2858765
>cant be bothered to back up his claim with an actual source
everything I can find on Japanese ice core research says the same thing as all the other research.

https://www.nipr.ac.jp/english/info/notice/20170629.html

>>2858765
>you need the ego boost and you get real passive aggressive if someone doesn't agree with you
no. its not that. its that you derp out some bullshit that isnt true and then get butthurt when someone calls you on it. Then, when provided with information that is contradictory to your beliefs, you double down on retardation instead just saying oh interesting- i'll take a look. Your inherent bias and bitterness preclude you from learning. Wilful ignorance is cringe and worthy of redicule.

>>2858818
Sorry. When its -40, I need some heat.

File: frosty.jpg (3.6 MB)

3.6 MB JPG

>>2858833
snowinsulation,,,youll befine.,
,,the focus ison CO2?,
,,,justop breathing.,and your dog.,
,question?> HOW LOW DO YOU WANT CO2?,

>>2858836
Ban he

>>2858820
Not sure why you bring up the binary worldview meme.
Well in my mind it is only a fair assunption that my behaviour can only be right if it scales without causing issues. It's the same with people who happen to be in a situation that provides them with a spurce of energy to cover an energy intensive lifestyle and then argue they were sustainable because 'muh wood, muh PV and so on'. Again: Ressources are limited, if a single individual consumes more energy than the sum of renewable energy divided by the global population - then they are responsible for fossil fuels. The market doesn't care about the isolated case. If Bezos went and bought all ressources that provide renewables and then constructed a spaceship that uses them all he can not claim it was sustainable, as he sure knows other peoples basic energy requirement will remain unchanged and they will rather act selfish than just perish.
>>2858830
Of course you damage pipes by freezing them. If you have running water installed the simple solution is to drain it when freezing is expected.
>mold
Weird. People always tell me that if they haven't been to my home. But guess what: You can vent your place. In many buildings this happens naturally. Structures built to later standards requires you do something commonly known as 'venting' aka open the window and you'll never have mold issues.
>sufficient moisture transport
Through the gaps in construction or the open window my dude.
Me personally, I do fire up the stove to cook and sometimes to get some warmth in the kitchen. But that is definately not needed. Things like clothes, bedding, food and resilience exist.
>>2858833
This is not the case for most people most of the year. If I had to guess (You) are heating your space on other occassions too. It's like the eternal motorist always instantly citing some bulky and heavy load when in reality they drive their fat lazy ass and nothing else to work and back every day.(...)

>>2858843
>simple solution is to drain it when freezing is expected
so, be without running water for 4-6months of the year? lol sure thing bro

>>2858843
>>2858833
(...)
If motorism and space heating were solutions for exceptional circumstances, like moving what is not humanly possible to move otherways and not fucking dying in - 40, we wouldn't be having this discussion or the problem.
Also regarding - 40:
People choose where they live. A habit of HVAC reliance makes more people choose more adverse climates.
Inuit, AFAIK, traditionally didn't rely on extensive heating.
Jamal, it pays to reside in your ancestral lands, you know?
You can't just demand to be living anywhere and burden the environment and society with your choice. What's next? Does someone owe vitamin D supplements when pigmentation doesn't match insolation?
It's just like not everyone can demand to work a job that requires math, if they suck at math. You can't just demand you're given that job and damage the company and by extension society. Just like you can't either demand to receive the same pay if your labour isn't worth the same.

>>2858844
>REEEEEE but my inflated demands
>fuck the environment and everyone I have demands
>I insist to live anywhere and anemities must be independent from the location
Can I just go to a desert and demand I get to swim? Even if enabling that means damaging the environment?

>>2858846
>People choose where they live
>just move to california and florida
this is really naive thinking not born out by reality.

>>2858847
>running water must be foresaken
lol

>>2858847
People like you are why the environmental movement isn't going anywhere

>>2858846
>People choose where they live
no

>>2858617
Aha! I completely misunderstood what you were talking about. I thought you meant snowfall, not snow accumulation.

>>2858851
>not snow accumulation.
I mean "average snow depth"

>>2858849
But conservationsim has no point if it's purpose was completely replaced with a new unrelated purpose: Encouraging everyone to lie to themselves to feel good. The math just doesn't currently let everyone have everything that currently is the standard in the first world while reaching goals like the 1.5 or even 2 K.
And (((media))) lying to naive or uneducated people or at least deceiving them in thinking it was somehow possible doesn't really help it either.
Reality is not about popularity.

>>2858864
If you want people to support environmentalism, you need to tell them that they need to make sacrifices they can do. Like, live in a smaller house, in a multistory flat, drive a smaller car, stuff like that. If you tell them "you need to live in an unheated house in winter" they will tell you to fuck off. And you will achieve nothing.

File: itsnow.jpg (2.8 MB)

2.8 MB JPG

CO2,,,,thell gas., exhale and kill a whale.,
,,,thisyour fault!

>>2858872
Take your meds.

>>2858866
You're certainly right as far as that is a surefire way to improve the situation as in reducing emissions and thus delaying change.
But my issue with popular (((media))) is that they will also frame it like turbing off the water while brushing, turning the heat down by a few degrees and sqitching lights off is all that is needed. Meanwhile they completely ignore the elephant in the room and avoid all math - I wonder why!
>>2858872
Bacon go fuck a horse or tie a knot in your legs for a bit. Not that I had an issue with you or didn't appreciate your input but I believe you made your point. But also you're wrong. Raising greenhouse gas levels and as a consequence average temperatures fast isn't a good thing.

>>2858882
>turning the heat down by a few degrees and sqitching lights off is all that is needed
I dont get that from popular media- doing stuff like that is more about somewhere to start for those who want to do something but feel powerless. I have never heard anyone ever say that turning the heat down a few degrees is all that is needed just thats its a start - a small thing that plebs can actually do...

>>2858924
>plebs can actually do
like not using motorized means of transportation? Relying fully or at least majorily on personal insulation lile clothes and blankets instead of space heating? That is easy too and covers the two most impactful items pretty good.
Also WYM when you insinuate plebs were somehow different in that regard? Is it that a billionaire can somehow do more than simply not engage in LGBT / nog related behaviour like motorism and other degeneracy or is it that theme again where allegedly insustry and elites etc. somehow were heavily engaged with processes no one asked for and no one offers them money or labour for?
Is this a theme where allegedly it's not consumer demand that makes someone produce what the consumer demands and they then as a result become elites but instead somehow there was elites first and they then out of spite decided to produce motorvehicles and petrochemicals and consumer slop and somehow forced everyone to first earn money and then forced them to spend the money on said slop? I never get how this idea is so popular or how it's even supposed to work - unless it's once again a feel good delusion.

>>2858929
>like not using motorized means of transportation
no. people will not quit their jobs because to too far to walk or ride a bike. People need to eat first and then worry about the environment. They can reduce but asking to eliminate is not a rational suggestion.

>>2858935
You do realise in the west people choose where they live and where they work. Idk about you but I find it quite arrogant to decide to take up a job beyond your natural reach and simply burden society and environment with your decision.
I also claim strawman. The motorist will always errect strawmen:
-Load too bulky and heavy
-Distance too great
-Family too large
etc.
As if they walked and biked everywhere unless one of those exceptional cases manifested.
Meanwhile the reality is they (on average) /will commute a mere 30 miles round trip every day, alone in their car, without that imaginary bulky load.
Guess what? I, like many others, don't use homo transport and still manage to feed myself.

>>2858872
It doesn't even snow that much in Smith Valley you fuckin idiot. Shut the fuck up.

>>2858937
>people choose where they live and where they work
No. This is naive, wishful thinking. If you truly believe this then the rest of your premise fails miserably. Some do. Most do not.

>>2858941
>Some do
Like I said: In the west.
>then the rest of your premise
This is not logical to begin with. Why would one presumed error invalidate the entire argument?
But importantly: It is not false. You are free to choose residence and work if you live in the west. Who forced you and how?
It is also telling that for a while ITT the only rebuttal presented focuses on minor tangents but avoids the core argument.
(((Auto lobby))) have normalized individuals commuting a mere 30 miles a day, individually, by motorvehicle, without additional cargo. This is very common. And they will construvt exactly those snowman as to why they can't electric car, bike, walk etc.
-Sometimes distance
-Sometimes cargo
etc.
But still they do choose to ride the gaybox every morning, alone, without cargo, for only 15 miles or so. The hypocrisy is obvious.

>>2858944
It's hard to go against the majority. So you want to live without a car? In some areas of europe, and some bigger cities in the US, you can do that. Anywhere else, you generally can't. Why? The jobs are not where the homes are. And there is no public transportation inbetween. Nor roads suitable for riding a bike. Then you want to buy groceries, or anything bigger. The store is not where you live either. Then you need something bigger, or services, or basically anything - you can only get there by car. And so on.

>>2858706
>In most developed and westeen nation
what about the rest 90% of the world population that shits on the street and wipes with the hand while burning plastic trash to cook food?

>>2858947
Doesn't actually produce a lot of carbon dioxide.

>>2858866
>Like, live in a smaller house, in a multistory flat, drive a smaller car, stuff like that.
Just NEVER tell communist billionaires who fund shills like that to cut down on private jet flights, or stop moving businesses to the third world to avoid environmental regulations and taxes they use to kill off competition. It's white people having a back yard that are the problem, always.

That's how you get cancelled in the climate advocacy industry.

>>2858948
How about chemicals that are actually relevant to the environment and not just a totalitarian WEF agenda? Like plastics, heavy metals, acids, forever chemicals and so on. Btw, China alone produces more co2 than all white countries combined.

>>2858944
>construvt exactly those snowman as to why they can't electric car, bike, walk etc.
It's funny that the freudial slip happens exactly when talking about things that are made completely unviable by a slight cold.

>>2858946
>It's hard to go against majority
sounds like a woman problem
>You want to live without a car
I do.
>Anywhere else you generally can't.
You're wrong. It's almost a decade ago that I chose to abandon motorized trnasport and I live in a rural setting. I just cycle to work, I can walk there, did that sometimes, for example when I popped a collar bone or AC joint, but it takes 3 hours to run and longer to walk so I rather cycle.
>jobs are not where homes are
I know. That's common. But you have legs and should have strength, stamina and determination unless homo, child, negro, cripple, woman or otherwise degenerate. Idk about those but they make it seem credible there are differences.
Also: In the west you still choose your job. There is a feedback loop. Reliance on fast transport feeds it. You can always prioritize a job closer to home or a home closer to job.
>roads aren't suitable for riding
absurd.
Maybe get yourself a bike and figure out how those work. Or walk along a road or something and realize why people since before antiquity built those: Because they work. They make everything much faster and easier, walking, running, horse, driving, biking...
>public transportation
I'm making an argument against motorism, not for it.
>Buy groceries
This is so repeptitive: Are you saying the average westerner, with a short (20 km or so) commute, uses their car every day because every day they stop by a shop to buy more groceries than a bicycle carries? Please explain.
I for example fetch my shit on the way back from work, using a bicycle and I only do that once a week, twice max.
>>2858948
Mostly true. It's not too inaccurate to just divide global emissions / global gross product and use that figure. More income roughly more emissions. 400 USD a year thirdie ~ not much emissions.
>>2858951
How's there a freudian slip?
>completely unviable by slight cold
Why? It's perfectly fine to use a bicycle or walk far below freezing. I do that weekdays every winter.

>>2858952
No thanks anon. The level of discomfort everyone should be forced to tolerate is exactly the level I am willing to tolerate, and yours is a bit too high for my tastes. I'd be willing to drive in
>>2858713
but not a bike.

>>2858954
So I guess we agree to disagree while thinking and argueing in very typical human patterns:
Exactly ones own situation, comfort zone, effort etc. should apply to everyone else. Meh.
But you have to appreciate this one thing:
The current supply of renewable energy does not allow for everyone to be doing what you want while reaching any of the common climate goals (1.5, 2...).
Maybe and hopefully in the future. We will have enough or even excess renewables so every human can affordably push that sort of frontal area against the wind at high speed for as long as they want without ever having to go for fossil fuels. But that's not the present.
I also hope that in such a future there will still be people who still don't choose the easy way out and end up in the degenerative downward spiral.
athere is also other issues associated with motorism. Those might also be fixed by technology one day.

>>2858955
I haven't run the numbers, but I feel like climate neutrality is possible within a decade for first world countries, assuming my suggested standards of living become the norm. There is a massive, MASSIVE overhead of absolute wastrels in our countries, people who live in single family homes, driving large cars dozens of km per day, vacationing in australia, eating tons of meat...

Either way, this discussion is entirely academic. The US is on the road to fascism partly because americans cannot be arsed to even slightly curtail their consumption. At current, it seems like they will use fossil fuels even beyond the economically expedient, merely because they hate environmentalism.

>>2858952
>It's perfectly fine to use a bicycle or walk far below freezing. I do that weekdays every winter.
you're an unemployed NEET living with your parents. be thankful you get to vote.

>>2858957
>I haven't run the numbers
No one has or can down to arbitrary levels of detail. But I've looked into it, out of personal interest and it's probably natural for me as an engineer and math / physics / academia inclined person.
I have no idea how long it takes to reach a supposed 'net zero'. You can't calculate policy, motivation etc.
But I can tell you three things:
-We're very far away from anything like it.
-The math (((they))) like to do on many things (CO2 offset, tree planting, lifecycle assessment...) is built on a badly flawed premise. CO2 magician with a tablecloth.
-Whenever technology advances to provide better efficiency alot of the anticipated reduction is made up for by most peoples drive to consume as much as they can afford.
>Vaccationing
It's almost as bad as perpetually flying a bunch of geriatrics around the world and to Davos for the purpose of irrelevant and abstract discussions and other things the state uses taxes for like military equipment.
>fascism
It doesn't really help anything to continuously hollow out every word known to man, driven by the hope it's negative connotation makes a sentiment popular. Lately everything is a nazi, fascist and what not. People might soon start to believe those things mean 'average joe'. The US isn't even on a way to strict totalitarism.
>partly because... curtail consumption
THIS. The worst part about fossil fuels is that it lends incredible stability to whatever political system existed when oil was discovered. Unfortunately for most of the world this happens to be dictatorship or monarchy. The motorist knows this and still supports oppression and war with their choice.
>because they hate
Seen several online contributions of people buying incandecent lamps because the ban was lifted and they feel the need to demonstrate something. Drill baby drill norway is next and dont forget to fill up Putins war chest.

>>2858959
>you're a NEET
>live with parents
ad hominem. Doesn't contribute to the discussion either. Besides that you're wrong.
>you get to vote
I would never. Democrats are disgusting.

>>2858955
>The current supply of renewable energy does not allow for everyone to be doing what you want while reaching any of the common climate goals
"Fossil fuels" are renewable though.
>degenerative downward spiral.
athere is also other issues associated with motorism
everyone who mentions the word "motorism" should be beaten to death with a pipe wrench in public.

>>2858961
you're a worthless leech which is why you advocate for nonsensical and restrictive disruptions of society that you parasititcally don't engage in.
>I would never.
ok, so the nigger is underage too.

>>2858952
>t's not too inaccurate to just divide global emissions / global gross product and use that figure
What an excellent way to demonstrate the futility of emission restrictions in appeasing self righteous fanatical social warriors when you can just make everyone poor and unproductive instead which is the real goal here.

>>2858962
They are not renewable. Don't sleep in class kids. The carboniferous age is over. Microorgabisms now devour lignine.
More precisely: It can still hapoen in isolation in deep parts of the ocean. But at a scale that's a curiosity if anything, nothing near renewable in relation to global consumption.
Now if you make a few simple assumptions:
Same insolation during carboniferous, same planetary surface and ratio of land to sea, same fauna etc.
and you quickly do the math you will find that even if you assumed a utopian 100% sequestration during the carboniferous humanity still currently consumes in only 1 year what nature needed 400 to produce. It goes without saying that sequestration was rather an exception instead of the norm, as all leftover biomass would be consumed once microorganisms evolved sufficiently, unless the biomass was already burried sufficiently, in acidic bogs or at the bottom of the ocean and would also not resurface ever since until now. In reality this puts efficiency closer to 0‰ rather than 100% and thus its not even the same order of magnitude as the figure of 4e2.
But you either know all this and are being dishonest or youre low intellect and taking part in discussions that you have nothing of substance to contribute to.
>WHHAAAHAAAA WHAAA HATESPEECH OMG PUNISH FOR WRONGSPEAK
go back home Jamal

>>2858967
Another guy that is wrong.
We can simply reduce emissions. Hopefully humanity will one day reach a point where there will be zero environmental damage associated with productivity. Then you can be a trillionaire without there being any issue associated with that.
The actual fanatical warrior here is (You) but your dishonest attempts at framing the discussion in some way are thinly veiled.

>>2858963
>you advocate for restriction
Unrelated. And I do certainly not. Please show me where I do. Restraint is not restriction. I bet you're much more in favour of general restriction than I am.
>leech
Ad hominem. I have never received any wellfare or such.
>parasitical
Ad hominem. Again: You're wrong.
>nigger
Ad hominem.
Whiter than you mutt.
>underage
Ad hominem. Also wrong.
Can you please stop ad hominem + being wrong? It makes you appear mentally substabdard even for 4chan.

>>2858971
your entire viewpoint and criticisms are ad hominem because you're a useless mentally ill NEET.

>>2858970
>We can simply reduce emissions.
Why? China or India won't and until we reduce our GDP to their level you won't be satisfied regardless. How about you start being honest about just wanting to destroy prosperous white societies out of jealousy?

>>2858973
can you please contribute to the discussion instead being insufferable and trying to derail? It is almost as if you have no argument for your position and so resort to dishonest tactics.

>>2858969
They're so renewable that making them is 100 year old tech by now. No isolation deep in the ocean needed.
>nothing near renewable
Now you're honest, you just want to destroy society rather than fix anything like a subhuman luddite.

>>2858976
the best way to contribute is to make you kill yourself or never go on the internet or into society again, the next best thing is to get you banned, then you fleeing and putting off your spam for some time. you're literally the most insufferable faggot on the board and you spamming about how consumption is the devil and boast about your NEET lifestyle without bearing the cost of it is how everyone should live.

>>2858975
That is nonsensical. You're proposing a race to the bottom. 'No you first'. It's like two dudes sharing a room and no one ever cleans up the place because 'I wont as long as you don't'.
>India and China
Nations are not individuals. It is almost like some ethnicities - mutt for example - also reliably resort to this strategy to feel better about themselves: Just compare your national emissions to the emissions of a more populous country, prefferably after outsourcing alot of your manufacturing there.
The average chinese or indian is a faggot and as such is riding a motorvehicle, typically on a scooter, makes the emissions worse locally. But the mutt is even more effeminate and needs an entire F450 to do that for them.
>prosperous white societies
Motorism is not white and it also promotes degeneracy of the mind and body. Whites should and do not engage in it.

>>2858977
>making them is 100 year old tech
you're being dishonest again. You again either know this is merely energy conversion with inefficiency and thus does not provide energy or you're again unfit to participate in the discussion.
>destroy society subhuman luddite
Wrong also ad hominem and you seem to not have understood.
>>2858978
KEK. Also ad hominem.
Again: 0 arguments in favour of your presumed stance.

>>2858979
>You're proposing a race to the bottom
That's you since you are so hellbent on destroying white countries.
> 'No you first'.
It's not even about "first", it's about engaging it at all, which those countries don't do.
>and no one ever cleans up the place
It doesn't matter how much you clean up if your neighbor litters twice as much the next day.
>Nations are not individuals.
Why are you absolving these nations of responsibility? Is it because it doesn't help you vilify white people in your vitirolic rage?
>The average chinese or indian is a faggot and as such is riding a motorvehicle, typically on a scooter, makes the emissions worse locally.
More like he'd smash your face in if you tried your preaching there.
>But the mutt
you are the mutt here.
>Motorism is not white
everyone who mentions the word "motorism" should be beaten to death with a pipe wrench in public.

>>2858980
>You again either know this is merely energy conversion with inefficiency and thus does not provide energy
There's infinite energy in the universe, the fuel is renewable.
>Wrong also ad hominem
Right and proper description of your flailing. Get a job instad of shilling for deindustrialization, neet.

>>2858982
>infinite energ, in the universe
Wrong also again a dishonest reflection. Almost comical at this point. Please harness some of that energy, will you?
The energy available to humanity at the current time is not only limited but there is scarcity. This is even more so when discounting energy sources commonly associated with high emissions.
>more ad hominem and so on
The archetypical temper and mental ability of the motorist. This is turning into a character study.

>People ITT claim fossil fuel is renewable
The fuck.
Also I rest my case. Americans are going to burn every last drop of oil they can find out of sheer spite.

>>2858985
>Please harness some of that energy, will you?
Ok. *lights wood on fire*, *splits the atom*, *pours salt on ice*
>The energy available to humanity at the current time is not only limited but there is scarcity.
There's more available to us than we know what to do with.
>more ramblings against industrialization
you are still an unproductive NEET that wastes more Earth resourses than 10 F450s combined.
>This is turning into a character study.
We've studied how much of a useless luddite neet you are plenty.

>>2858986
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer%E2%80%93Tropsch_process
no need to samefag just because your spam campaign is failing, luddite-kun

>>2858988
I'm not that guy, I did in fact argue with him previously.
Also how does the transformation of coal into gasoline make fossil fuels renewable?

>>2858989
because it's not limited to coal but can use basically any biomatter, which you'd know if you did try to read it

>>2858990
How is biomatter fossil?

>>2858991
how is fuel fossil? what sort of a retarded question is that?

you know that the "fossil fuel" meme was invented by the oil industry to associate massive oil reserves with dinosaurs to make them look scarce, right?

>>2858986
Hes just riding the technicality that everything chemical can be derived from synthesis, even total synthesis if you wish, provided the required energy. You could use the carbon and water in the athmosphere and synthesize hydrocarbons. But if we had that energy to spare to begin with we wouldn't be having this discussion so it's just one of mamlny dishonest attempts.
Ironically such contributions to discussions do more harm. than good for their own position. I am missing a single honest argument. Even 'well I want to do all of this and fuck the environment and other people I only care about myself and close family' is a valid and honest argument. But nope. Bla bla neet and synthesis of hydrocarbons it is.
>>2858987
>light wood on fire
You do realise this is a limited ressource and if you scroll up you'll see why this again is mathmatically not viable.
Energy is scarce in our day and age.
>More available than we know what to do with.
Why then do we have positive prices for energy and why are we even bothering drilling for oil and excavating coal? Can you please undercut my electrical works?
>wastes more ressources than 10 F450s
I am pretty sure this is not the case but that's just an estimate, I don't see why your ramblingshould promt me quantifying that.
>>2858988
Everyone knows how synthesis works.That's not the point. In fact you could use all the energy available to us by just synthesizing hydrocarbons and using their energy to run further synthesis. Efficiency would just multiply.

>>2858993
>Why then do we have positive prices for energy
Because it takes energy to make energy and it takes effort to use and deliver that energy to where it needs to go, plus all the things like manpower to manage it all which cost money. You'd know this if you weren't a useless mentally ill leech that hasn't worked a day in your life.
>I am pretty sure this is not the cas
you contribute absolutely zero to society so it's 100% the case.

>>2858993
>and why are we even bothering drilling for oil and excavating coal?
Because it's the most accessible and useful fuel source available, duh. It literally flows out of the ground.

>>2858991
Really? It is not the point nor the question.
Plants do not create energy. Global insolation is limited. Besides the environmental desaster it would spell to harness every viable biome on earth just so some get to run their automobile, the energy harvested in such fashion would be no where near what is being consumed currently. Again: Scroll up. The hint is there. Processes are only solutions if they can be scaled accorsing to need.
Also it has long been shown that an apparatus can be made that easily outclasses crops. We have surpassed plants conversion efficiency.
... I hope I'm not giving the next bright guy an idea.

>>2858994
Thats funny. As an electrical emgineer I am pretty confident in claiming that your claim I didn't understand this is just as wrong as your claim I didn't conteibute anything to society.
Meanwhile you're now really missing the entire poibt of the discussion.
Also the price of energy is bot purely the cost of distribution.

>>2858996
>Plants do not create energy.
Nothing "creates" energy, you've driven yourself into the corner by demaning a way to break the laws of thermodynamics. Which is kinda funny because a useless neet can't comprehend the idea of useful energy or fuel and has to make up this shit.

>>2858997
>As an electrical emgineer
you haven't worked a day in your entire life or contributed a single thing either.
>Meanwhile you're now really missing the entire poibt of the discussion.
there was no discussion to begin with, just you bemoaning how people dare to do things instead of dying in poverty doing nothing for the sake of the environment, except if it's the third world, then they can pollute all they want and you won't even squeak about it.

>ITT
>Anon thinks we should all live like absolute, utter, medieval level poorfags (rather than moderate poorfags) for maybe 0.5K in global warming reduction
>Other anon thinks that any sort of environmental protection is liberal bullshit
The world will burn and both your attitudes will be at fault. God, I can only hope AI kills us all before.

>>2858998
>Nothing "creates" energy
consistent with what I said
>demanding a way to break laws of thermodynamics
Please show where. It is you in fact who argues:
>Emissions from hydrocarbon combustions are not an issue because
>Hydrocarbons are renewable we can synthesize them using additional energy which is not an issue because
>Energy is abundant and one of the most accessible source is fossil hydrocarbons
So. essentially youre suggesting to add extra conversion steps at <1 efficiency to somehow fix emissions and complain about others allegedl, wanting to break laws of physics. Btw your use of 'thermodynamics' is wrong in the stated context.
>>2859000
>There's no discussions on image boards
please go away Jamal

It's pretty fucking obvious to anyone who's been paying attention and who's not propagandized by the american right that solar, wind and nuclear are the future of energy. And the resultant lifestyle will be quite tolerable even to most first world people. The question is not even if that will happen, just how quickly, and how much more global warming we will suffer by the time it happens.

>>2859001
>medieval level poorfag
It is not only the automobile and space heating that sets our situation apart from that of medieval poor.

>>2859001
>Other anon thinks that any sort of environmental protection is liberal bullshit
I actually support most environmental measures, especially those imacting local ecosystems like trash, heavy metal pollution, microplastics, industrial waste and so on, even if i think some of them are stupid, counterproductive and wasteful like the current car emissions regulations. I am very much sceptical about globalist environmentalism because of questionable effects, causes and goals of those programs and highly unequal standards of scrutiny and application of those.

>>2859005
Even medieval people were heating their homes.

>>2859007
So?
>>2859006
Sounds like the line just happens to be where it requires effort or reduces perceived comfort.

>>2859002
>Please show where.
You're literally demanding that renewable fuel creates energy out of thin air. using your logic nothing actually ever uses energy either so burning fuel costs nothing.
>Emissions from hydrocarbon combustions are not an issue
Point where i said that nigger.
>Hydrocarbons are renewable we can synthesize them using additional energy
Yes, it takes evergy to create useful energy, thanks for playing.
>So. essentially youre suggesting to add extra conversion steps at <1 efficiency
It takes energy to create useful energy, yes.
>Btw your use of 'thermodynamics' is wrong in the stated context.
tell me what the law pertaining to conservation of energy is called.
>to somehow fix emissions
another strawman.
>There's no discussions
you're not discussing anything with your shitskin spam, neet

>>2859008
>Sounds like the line just happens to be where it requires effort or reduces perceived comfort.
more like the line happens to be where it maximizes the welfare of the people rather than some third world subhumans who cannot care for themselves like you desire

>>2859010
>Anti-environmentalist is also a literal nazi
Huh

>>2859011
if opposing putting white people into unequally taxing positions is nazism then count me in, i'll be the best version of a nazi shitlibs could consider if i wasn't considered one already by being politically right of Stalin

>>2859001
actually even medieval poorfag families had a horse to ride into town so anon is desperate to send us into the stone age for the sake of activist clout

>>2859008
emission regulations have tangible economic consequences like suppressed wages, lost workplaces and more expensive goods and inflation in general but those are outweighed by the improvements in quality of life and health from living in a more clean and habitalble place which is healthier and more rewarding physically and psychologically.

buring down the wealth that has been built up for generations for some abstract highly questionable and likely unachievable goals isn't it.

>>2859009
>you're demanding that renewable fuel creates energy out of thin air
I do not. Again: Please show where. And please do not put words into my mouth.
>nigger
No you mutt.
>point to where I said that
You didn't. But it must be assumed as it is the only way your entire rambling about the process that follows fits into the thread and discussion. It could of course be that you're entirely lunatic and not concerned with making sense, in that case please accept my apologies but also stay out of discussions.
>thermodynamics
Just call the field theory of general relativity but not quantum mechanics. That way you're not only including pressure and temperature or newtonian mechanics but also radiation as is insolation.
Maybe try educating yourself in a general manner.
>shitskin
No. Whiter than you mutt.
>spam
you.
>>2859010
But what if wellfare of the people and conservation of nature - let's assume they are independent of each other for a moment - were purely competing? Wouldn't that then mean no conservation at all?
>like you desire
I'm not entirely sure WYM. I wish for everyone to have the same opportunity and chance but I don't approve of (((foreign aid))) or (((wellfare))).
>>2859011
No he is not. Nazis are literally dead. At best he could be a neo-nazi but I'm not seeing evidence for that. But it's odd to be conservative but also pro automobile and other degeneracy.

>>2859015
>burning down
now that's far fetched. In fact isn't my situation and that of many others who do the same thing proof to the contrary?

>>2859016
>But it must be assumed
i assumed that you want to break laws of physics in your ramblings about how no energy source is unlimited and is therefore unethical or something
>No you mutt.
you're the mutt here
>t could of course be that you're entirely lunatic
Lmao, pot calling the kettle
>Just call the field theory of general relativity but not quantum mechanics
Cute cope out, why don't you try answering my question then, what the law pertaining to conservation of energy is called.
>No. Whiter than you mutt.
you're not white and a mutt here
>But what if wellfare of the people and conservation of nature - let's assume they are independent of each other for a moment - were purely competing?
Then we find the appropriate balance between them that will best accomodate our existing conditions.
>I don't approve of (((foreign aid))) or (((wellfare))).
No need for them if you just wish to destroy the white countries one-sidedly.
>I'm not entirely sure WYM.
Oh, your insistent ignorance of the nonwhtie countries' contribution to the environment of course! I mentioned it plenty but you still persist.

>>2859017
>In fact isn't my situation
being a NEET mooching of others' hard work? yeah, there are a lot of those in the "burn our industry and wealth to the ground" circles.

>>2859019
You're completely stupid now.
>what the law pertaining to conservation of energy
It is called the law of conservation of energy.
I have no idea why you insist on contributing completely absurd statements and then think you were in a position to demand others 'answer this', 'explain that' or correct your obvious errors. That's not how discussions work.
>You're not white
You're literally advocating for motorism and space heating and calling others non-white. Kek. What are you that you are dependent on those? A fag? tranny? woman? child? cripple? negro?
>ignorance
At no point have I insisted anyones contribution to pollution was void. All CO2-equivalent is equal.
Still: Countries are not individuals. As such there not only is no such thing as 'white' countries or the opposite but much more so: It is of no use to look at emissions from a national perspective. It is only relevant and only fair to look at it from an individual perspective. In case you're really as stupid as you make yourself look: Luxembourg probably has lower total national emissions than Simbabwe.
Do you believe that this means no one in Luxembourg should give a fuck about the environment as long as Simbabwe doesn't undercut the emissions of Luxembourg? What is the validity of this shit even? Nations are for fags and negros anyways.
>>2859020
Where do you take that from again? I even made an effort to let you know the opposite. Also, like I said: I for example, like many others, am obvious proof that rejection of energy intensive lifestyle is definately not the end of industry or anything else. It's not like the entire world consisted of HVAC and automobiles only and the only industries were HVAC and automobiles. Wealth isn't limited to those either.
I must also say: It is quite odd for someone who makes a rather uneducated impression to accuse others of NEETing based on nothing when at least statistically it's much more likely the other way round.

>>2857989
wow a 2c change in nearly 100 years.
am I supposed to believe in global warming?

>>2859026
>You're completely stupid now.
you've been stupid the moment you started your shitty spam.
>It is called the law of conservation of energy.
what's its other, primary name? the one you're twisting to not admit?
>I have no idea why you insist on contributing completely absurd statements
i'm just attributing a bit of sense to your nonsensical ramblings
>You're literally advocating for motorism and space heating
No mentally healthy person in the world would rant about this.
>At no point have I insisted anyones contribution to pollution was void. All CO2-equivalent is equal.
You always fail to target any nonwhite countries with your attacks and exclusively focus on the co2 against all actual pollutants. i'll tell you why - because co2 is actually tied to productivity and you wish to dismantle it rather than protect nature.
>Still: Countries are not individuals.
countries are responsible for their individual citizens and you constantly ignore that
>As such there not only is no such thing as 'white' countries or the opposite
Yes there are, you disingenous anti white faggot
>t is of no use to look at emissions from a national perspective. It is only relevant and only fair to look at it from an individual perspective.
national laws and policies are main determinators of individual environmental impacts and non government organizations and corporations are by far the most impactful.
>Do you believe that this means no one in Luxembourg should give a fuck about the environmen
I believe that raging about how Luxembourgian is literally hitler for driving a car to work when mbube the Zimbabwean dumps his nets into the ocean and fishes whole species to extinction without any attention is hypocritical, disghonest and counterproductive but you've got a mentally ill obsession with cars so i expect more malding ramblings.
>Nations are for fags and negros
spoken like the rootless shitskin mutt you are.

>>2859026
>I even made an effort to let you know the opposite
and your efforts in lying are completely in vain, you will never convince anyone that you're not a useless neet that sucks up more wealth than any automobile that you screech about
>I for example, like many others, am obvious proof
that closing mental institutions was a grave mistake
>It is quite odd for someone who makes a rather uneducated impression
i could care less what some luddite shitskin thinks of me, lmao. i hope my impression makes you kill yourself a week sooner.

File: we-don&#039;t-do-that-here-germany[1].gif (1.1 MB)

1.1 MB GIF

>Simbabwe
lmao, shoud've known the fucker is mooching off in Germany

White countries are vilified despite investing trillions into reducing emissions and sacrificing many more while nonwhite countries are left completely unchecked and even get to expand into the shrinking economies of the white countries instead. This situation is not just unacceptable but also completely counterproductive to the matter of countering the supposed antropogenic climate change, and in its hypocrisy - its very notion.

>>2858832
That guy is a classic 80iq retard that saw a post once where someone linked an article and claimed the article said X
if you look at the article it never did say X it probably said the opposite but they never read the research they quote. if you're lucky they will cherrypick a sentence from the abstract

File: hotstack.jpg (3.3 MB)

3.3 MB JPG

treesare,,,treefood.,
,,,trees LOVE CO2!

>>2859032
>ad hominem
Weird. Omce again you are wrong. I may be born and raised a german but became a swede by choice. After all it is (((they))) who decided identity is for sale and migration is positive.
Either way I wont discuss this topic with (You) and your kind any longer, muttoid jew.
I do not even understand why you participate or waste your time in discussions. You believe you achieve something be screeching more and louder and not ever producing an argument. Why? It is almost as if youre not interested in dialectics and don't mind makinga fool of yourself.
Do you beliebe you're 'winning' arguments? There is no point, arguments aren't won, arguments only serve advancing every parties understanding. Meanwhile you're trying to poison wells like your kin always does. Sou're constabtly trying to interject in nonsencial ways, hoping to get debunked, since at least you understand being constructive takes more effort than being destructive.
What you do not realise: Doing so does not benefit your hivemind group, instead youre only helping to invalideate online discussions and ultimately online spaves entirely. Mutt. There's your ad hominem.