the planet's temperature is always changing, that's a natural cycle
but the rising CO2 levels are caused by humans burning shit on an industrial scale
and CO2 is a greenhouse gas that helps warming up the planet faster

i'm more concerned about the CO2 as a gas rather than the weather impact
it's at 400 ppm now but should get nowhere near 1000 ppm
around 1000 ppm is when it starts to affect your concentration

>>16511869
>CO2 is a greenhouse gas
no it isn't. mars would be extremely warm if co2 was a greenhouse gas since mars has over 30 times more atmospheric co2 per unit surface area than earth does. mars has no measurable greenhouse effect and this proved that co2 is not a greenhouse gas

>>16511874
mars is cold because it barely has any atmosphere and is further from the sun than earth
venus is the extreme example of CO2 greenhouse effect making a planet hot

>>16511874
Mars has a thin and less pressurized atmospheres, meaning its less of a heat trap than Earth. This is the same reason why it's so hard to land a probe on Mars. Also it's further away from the Sun which means it receives less solar radiation.

>>16511892
how come the co2 on mars doesn't produce a greenhouse effect? is co2 magically only a greenhouse gas on earth? does physics work differently on earth than it does on mars for some reason?

>>16512190
>how come the co2 on mars doesn't produce a greenhouse effect?
It does: the effect of CO2 on outgoing radiation has been clearly observed on Mars and Venus (see pic)
Why the overall temperature change is small: 1) Mars is further from the Sun, so the surface is cooler due to lower solar input, and emits less outgoing radiation; 2) thin atmosphere leads to low pressure broadening and lower absorptivity of CO2; there's no water vapour to enhance the greenhouse effect; and so on, and so forth.
If you still disagree then, by all means - show quantitatively that the modern greenhouse theory doesn't predict Mars temperatures after taking the above points into account.

>>16512557
Mars how zero measurable greenhouse effect yet it has massive amounts of atmospheric CO2, so CO2 is clearly not a greenhouse gas

>>16511874
> CO2 isnt a greenhouse gas

Can you analyse the absorption spectrum to check something?

>>16511245
Definitely overblown even if humans are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. Given that there are such huge variations in global temperature in the past >>16511865, there's no way to objectively determine "normal" global temperature over the last 2 centuries. Without a control, you're basically guessing.

Those temperature/year/CO2 graphs are very deceptive as you can easily adjust the scale of any axes to show a strong, weak, or no correlation.

Scientists have never done any serious experiments to test the climate change theory. That alone should tell you that their arguments are specious at best.

>>16513506
mars doesn't have a measurable greenhouse effect, that proves that co2 is not a greenhouse gas

>>16513451
Are you a parrot by any chance?

>>16511245
>Why do people say climate change now instead of global warming?
Because the Bush administration ran a very successful psyop and climate change sounds less threatening than global warming. Change can be a good thing, right? Things are always changing, right? So we can ignore it and keep burning fossil fuels, leaving Bush and his cronies rich.
I wish, I was a schizo for typing this.
>In 2002, a memo was written by Frank Luntz for the Republican Party on how to address environmental issues (Luntz, 2002). Luntz suggested that Republicans should update their terminology when discussing the environment, by describing themselves as conservationists, rather than preservationists or environmentalists, as the former had more positive connotations. Secondly, he suggested that Republicans use the term climate change instead of global warming, as the latter was deemed less controllable, more catastrophic, and more emotionally challenging. It was suggested that these simple changes in terminology would assist the Republicans in winning the environmental debate.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0272494419307376

>>16514312
>mars doesn't have a measurable greenhouse effect
But it does. So does Venus by the way.
>that proves that co2 is not a greenhouse gas
The fact that both planets have measurable greenhouse effects consistent with their respective atmospheric pressures proves that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

>>16515168
>Venus
It doesn't, you're just too ignorant of physics to account for the ideal gas laws' impact on Venusian surface temperature.

>>16515574
Huh, the very definition of Dunning-Kruger in action. Takes a couple chem and physics classes and thinks he understands the universe.

>>16511869
CO2 is an isolator for very few wave lengths. As a trace gas it has nearly no heat transport capability. The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere (wich has all this) is 100 times greater and has way more greenhouse properties than everything else in the atmosphere. Further is the concentration rise a lie. i know because people calibrating smoke detectors have the equipment. Measuring station on an active volcano on Hawaii and in city traffic prove the utterly evil of scammers and liars calling them self "experts" while living in the ass of goberment for gibs.

>>16514312
What is Mars' atmosphere density compared to Earth?

>I heard its just the sun spots

>I heard co2 is mostly from volcanoes
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Chapter01.pdf#page=35

>they are still unsure if its really co2 that drives temperature
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep21691.pdf

and if thats not enough, simply check for if climate chage is real with reinsurance companies worldwide.

>>16516242
Guter Pfost da

>>16511245
Climate change is a local phenomena, while global warming is global.

For instance rainforests likely wont change their climate at the world warms, it'll remain a tropical climate, while other parts of the world, will have their climates change. An example is that a larger proportion of the US has a humid subtropical climate now than 100 years ago.

>>16516267
>volcanoes
holy shit the scum bags are really runnin the same disinfo campaigns 50 years later

>>16516267
ipcc is a UN political propaganda outlet, not a scientific body

>>16516387
Global warming and climate change are a right wing conspiracy theory. They literally adopt these words to make scientists out to be kooky/crazy/deranged/woman-like/etc. Picture Jim Jones or some other suicide cult like J6.
The only official narrative is not some doomer-tier end of the world non-sense. The non-sensational version is undetermined intermittently unseasonable environmental variance.
It is crucial to unpack this statement, but if you aren't apart of the scientific community, then you are going to lead yourself astray here. I will give you some breadcrumbs.
>environmental variance
Why isn't this temperature variation? Well, there are many variables that are affected. By limiting the scope to temperature, the precision excludes knock-on unseasonability.

>>16511869
>and CO2 is a greenhouse gas that helps warming up the planet faster
So why isn't CO2 used in double glazing?

>>16515166
Funny if that's the reason, because climate change serves the environmentalist agenda better than global warming. Talking about global warming when it's extremely cold outside or there's a particularly snowy winter makes people scoff. Climate change can be applied to virtually anything.

>>16511245
Why warm global when you could burn local?

>>16519511
thats why they changed it

>>16513608
Enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is good for nature, it might be the smartest thing humanity has ever done

>>16511245
>Why do people say climate change now instead of global warming?

It was an attempt at 'better' Science Communication and public marketing.
When people heard "Global Warming" the average person thought of palm trees growing in the UK, dramatic increases in arable land in Canada & Russia, and so forth. They changed it to "Climate Change" in an effort to better communicate the fact that when the planet heats up due to increases in greenhouse gases what you actually get is more extreme weather systems: worse droughts, worse rain, worse winds, worse winters, etc..

>Is global warming a meme

Not completely, no.
Is Anthropomorphic climate change fake and gay? No, see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1SgmFa0r04&t=40s&ab_channel=NASAGoddard Without any frills what's basically happening is Northern Hemisphere countries (like America and China) create seasonal spikes in emissions during the winter months when energy demands are at their highest and this creates atmospheric discrepancies & disturbances the planet finds "yucky" (The planet craves homeostasis: if we released the exact amount of emissions, every year, for a hundred years, it would be better than sporadic amounts) which result in storms, droughts, climate change, etc. Emission levels then lower during the summer when the plants come out and engorge themselves, but every year there's a little bit more excess that doesn't get ate up - that's what climate scientists are worried about and what actually contribute to the planet getting warmer.

With all that said: everything negative we commonly attribute to global warming can be alleviated with better environmental stewardship.
Carbon credits are a scam, net zero is a scam, the only thing that *actually* makes a differences is sequestering and preserving habitat for plants and animals. Which isn't hard, nor does it actually cost money, but it doesn't *make* money, so it may as well be satanic.

>>16511869
/thread

>>16522480
Hello fellow esteemed traveler, I also spread red paint on youtube to convince people to eat bugs.

climate change due to humans filling out the biosphere was always inevitable, and we will adapt. No, globo homo scientists are not able to reasonably predict climate, but it may get disasterous (and 2 billion dead south east asians will be a good thing)

>>16522480
>environmental stewardship
This has always been a conservative buzzword

>>16523247
I've always been confused by the term "wilderness management".
If a region is under management then it isn't wilderness, wilderness is unmanaged by definition

>>16511874
Those CO2 studies on concentration are flawed.

>>16515574
this venus has 93 bar pressure
thats 93 times more than earth

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCadcBR95oU

>>16519511
>Talking about global warming when it's extremely cold outside or there's a particularly snowy winter makes people scoff.
Only if those ESLs don't understand the concept of "global"

Emission nimbyist liberals when they discover we lost more coastal land 10,000 years ago than we did for the prior 44 million

There's nothing we can do to stop the change except reduce population size ( ideally clearing India and Africa would be a great start! )

>>16525459
>the global warming institute
this must be an objective impartial source of scientific information and not a massively partisan political propaganda outlet shilling fake statistics

>>16525498
good job.
but now off to /pol/ with you.

>>16511245
Its just marketing term.

>>16525978
wrong board.

>>16525953
and here you find data that isnt faked:
>>16516278
whoopsy
I can reassure you, after all, you only ever have the truth in mind.
even with targeted disinformation, you can still see exactly which source of information is genuine and which is a lie.
always.
incidentally, this is due to the necessary comprehensibility that science requires.
always.

>>16511245
>Is global warming a meme?
A trace gas at 0.04% will destroy the planet if it goes to 0.08%. despite having been there before. It's by pure chance the main thermostat of the planet and at the same time a gas that human activity produces.
Only a small priesthood of people with a stake in its promotion can do the calculations that show how it works and they are aggressively hostile to all outsiders.

Yeah it's a meme

>>16511245
>Why do people say climate change now instead of global warming?
because, in the wintertime, when you say, "global warming is bad," they reply, "yeah, but i'm freezing right now so, fuck off, i'll take it."
it's just re-branding to avoid an inaccurate connotation.

>>16516238
...
>>16516291

>>16511245
>Why do people say climate change now instead of global warming?
you are a fucking retard
global warming leads to climate change you retard

>>16530724
>semantics
the climate isn't changing significantly and the globe isn't warming

>>16511245
Because an unfalsifiable theory needs a moveable goalpost.

>>16530336
its amazing how things have changed so dramatically over the past couple decades, can't have happened organically

>>16511869
>Muh CO2
Why do you people never talk about rising GDP, rising population, rising living standards? CO2 does jackshit to the environment and that's why people don't believe it. The problem is the people themselves, tell them to fuck off.

>>16532526

/thread

>>16532616

Not an argument.

>>16525503

You're on the wrong website. You need to take your shit and fuck off back to r.eddit with the rest of the sheep herd.

>Why do people say climate change now instead of global warming?
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz
>He advocated use of vocabulary crafted to produce a desired effect, including use of the term death tax instead of estate tax, and climate change instead of global warming.
>In a confidential memo to the Republican party,[30] Luntz is credited with advising the Bush administration that the phrase "global warming" should be abandoned in favour of "climate change", which he called a "less frightening" phrase than the former.[31]
Because right wingers are sheep.

>>16533668
>>16533675
>>16533684
retarded af

Its an overrated threat and the best response is reforestation efforts, investment in nuclear, and more recycling of agricultural and sewage waste.

>use petrochem to make fertilizer
>runs off into the ocean
>instead of recycling that waste back into the environment and increasing soil fertility it creates oceanic dead zones

There is a stupid amount of waste that could be recycled back into the system. The technology exists in the form of biogasification and supercavitation supercritical water oxidization. Can sink a ton of carbon into the soil and make very fertile soil that last for centuries.

>>16534066
One issue is flood mitigation bc the most likely outcome is increased high rainfall events. Desertification is a bullshit lie outcome. Global warming leads to warm wet climates, not desertification. Floods are the primary threat. Current hydro projects might have to be expanded to handle high level rainflow events. I would not buy property on a 1000 year flood plain, bc those will become 100 year flood plains, and 10 year flood plains.

>>16534074
Thus the best use of flood plains is flood plain agriculture, rice and fish aquaculture. Chinampas are a historical solution as well.

>>16534078
Rising sea levels are not a big deal.

Look at the Netherlands.

They literally built land into the ocean, this method can be reproduced globally. Big barrier island projects to protect from hurricanes.

>>16534081
>Look at the Netherlands.
Look at New Orleans

>>16534081
The rise will not be the same for every country. Countries close to the equator will experience a higher rise, countries close to Greenland will see next to zero effective rise, and Greenland itself will rise once freed from all that ice mass.

>>16534230
LMAO, that is a bonus.

>>16525503
Anon, /pol/ is filled with trash like you.

>>16534230
NO was terribly mismanaged.

NO should be converted to chinampas. That would suck up all the agricultural waste effluent that runs off the mississippi and creates the big dead zone in the gulf.
They blame that dead zone on global warming but the real problem is ag runoff sends a shitton of nitrogen into the ocean there, creates algal blooms which suck up all the oxygen and kills the ecosystem. All that nitrogen instead could be sucked up by a chinampas agricultural zone and used for food. In a natural system, swamps would suck up all that runoff, uptake the nutrients, and prevent algal blooms.

>>16534247
This is also the case in the various bays. All the ag runoff carries excess nitrogen waste which comes from petrochem fertilizer. It just gets wasted and creates algal bloom dead zones, but if it was used for either chinampas or aquaculture projects, that nitrogen runoff could be used to grow more food instead of fucking up the ecosystem. There have been at least some programs to promote planting trees and plants along the rivers in ag zones to suck up some of the nutrient runoff but its not a 100% solution. Theres no reason not to recapture waste nutrients. There is no such thing as waste, only untapped resources due to ignorance of the potential.

>>16534250
>>16534247
People like to claim food is abundant, but look at the prices and the waste. Its abundant until some system fails. And it all relies on pumping massive amounts of petrochem imported from overseas, and then it gets dumped into the ocean. It is stupid and wasteful. Bad engineering.

>>16534255
Basically modern petrochem based agriculture is degenerative, it leaches nutrients and natural microbial diversity from the soil in exchange for external inputs. In the long run it is not sustainable even *if* we had infinity fossil fuels.

>>16534259
you have no idea what you're talking about, you've never grown a plant in your life

>>16534259
Consider the CHON cycle rn:

>pump and mine CHON
>spread CHON on the soil
>poop it out into sewage system
>rest of it runs off into the riverine system and drains into the ocean

This is stupid.

Instead:
>grow food
>eat food
>poop waste into sewage system
>sewage system pumps liquid slurry waste through high pressure supercavitation nozzles into supercritical state, reducing all contaminants including PFAS, microplastics, etc to basic elements useful as fertilizer source
>localized circular nutrient cycle

>>16534262
Thanks for the completely non constructive and worthless criticism, big ag shillbot retard

>>16534262
Lets look at net biomass productivity, if we want to really discuss carbon sequestration.

As you'll see, rainforests and temperate forests, wetlands, and estuaries, are all the greatest carbon sequestration environments, thus if you really care about carbon sequestration, you want to convert as much of the ecosystem into these kinds of environments. Your stupid ass machines that are using electricity to suck carbon out of the air are never going to match converting entire ecosystems into carbon sinks, unless you run them off of nuclear plants, which the west refuses to build.

>durrr use carbon based electricity sources to suck carbon out the air

Stupid. Fucking. Retards.

>>16534273
Also, with the right sort of agriculture, you can get more food from a forest environment than from a field system. You can have cattle and bison in a forest ecosystem, theres trees that provide forage instead of growing grain. Forests also clean the atmosphere of pollutants better than fields do, and are water sponges, and also provide for moisture transport from the ocean inland, reducing drought conditions. Theres also ways of landscaping the forest terrain to prevent forest fires (grazing animals to prevent excess underbrush, microponds and subsurface swale water retention keeping the trees retaining moisture, etc).

Ive researched this stuff extensively. You could create nearly self managing long term ecosystems that provide both food and energy to billions of people scattered in small villages instead of clustered in miserable hive cities.

>>16513451
>mars
>massive amounts of atmosphere
anon...

>>16511245
Scientists downgrading global warming to climate change was a tacit admission that they have no idea what's going on. They're just collecting random data and throwing shit theories on the wall, hoping something sticks. If they don't keep pushing a cataclysmic narrative, they would out of their jobs. None of theories they've proposed have been tested in a laboratory. Believing in anthropogenic climate change is like believing in dark matter.

>>16511245
‘You are a slow learner, Winston,’ said O’Brien gently.
‘How can I help it?’ he blubbered. ‘How can I help seeing
what is in front of my eyes? Two and two are four.’
Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once.
You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane.’

>>16536802
>The global warming institute
stop spamming this board with that political activist propaganda, it has nothing to do with science

https://science.nasa.gov/resource/video-climate-spiral-1880-2022/

>>16511245
Because they realized that we are in an interglacial period and still in an ice age. Nobody has any idea if the ice age is coming to an end, or if this is just a brief warm period before another glacial period.

>>16540415
>>16540410
>nasa.gov
thats a political propaganda website, not a scientific organization

>>16543272
cool story, /pol/.

>>16543669
>>16540410
>>16536802
>>16533946
>>16533757
Kneel before your masters you filthy animals.

Look, I don't know if global warming is real or not, but I do know for a fact that there are too many people on earth right now and we're abusing the ever living fuck out of this planet every single day just by existing. That in itself should be enough motive to perpetuate a life denying idea in which we are all responsible for the literal killing of everything good on planet earth. We should literally just all kill ourselves right now forever and never be born ever again because we're ruining the planet just by existing. And guess what? It's mostly white people doing it too, so that's like twice as problematic.

>>16546379
How do you know there are too many people?

The problem is that man-made climate change requires action. It requires that people drive their cars less and take public transportation. It requires a change in infrastructure where we abandon car-centric city designs for more walkability, it requires that we source food from closer to home and don't get to eat every food we want out of season, it requires that we separate our garbage and change our electric grid. None of these things are easy and many of them will put some very wealthy corporations out of business. These corporations will lie, cheat and steal to prevent themselves from going under even if they could easily simply invest in new technologies that would replace them they are terrified of losing their stock portfolios.

So you get denial, denial, denial either from people who will lose money or from people afraid of change. With websites and blogs supported by organizations funded by fossil fuel companies with arguments as stupid as
The climate has always changed
It's just the sun
Climate change isn't bad
Scientists can't even agree
etc. etc. etc.

Meanwhile those same fossil fuel companies admit that climate change is real and caused by humans hoping that, when lawsuits start happening because people's property is being destroyed and their lives are being uprooted they can point to websites admitting climate change is real and happening and say "You can't sue us. We TOLD YOU that our product is destroying property and ruining lives. It's your fault for using our product".

Websites like these:
https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/news/viewpoints/our-position-on-climate-policy
https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/sustainability/getting-to-net-zero.html
https://www.shell.com/sustainability/our-climate-target.html

While they lie to everybody they can through shell companies like the Heartland Institute.

It's not your fault you don't understand man-made climate change and think it's not real. You are being played.

>>16522480
Climate change is a grift designed to steal more money with more taxes.

>>16522480
>preserving habitat for plants and animals
There is no reason to do this.
This is made up to get people to agree to state ownership of land.

>>16522480
>Which isn't hard, nor does it actually cost money
Go do it then. Why do you think it's right for the government to steal people's land and make rules about others stuff?

>>16536802
Yes and?
>BUT YOU NEED TO PAY ME TAXES OR LINE GO UP
No I don't. You are a criminal after my money.

>>16546529
Just look at the environment, clearly we've reached a stage of our civilization where we no longer can live regular lives without turning into mega hitler and killing the planet as a consequence of wanting to eat meat, drive cars that emit CO2 and literally just be alive. We desperately need to die, everyone, all at once, so that the planet can heal. And that's not even to mention the sadistic and cruel nature of slaughter houses where they kill poor poor animals so that rich white people can eat meat and feel good about themselves. If you think about it, it's actually racism and sexism combined. There used to be a time where people would live in ways that didn't affect the environment, there were no such thing as slaughter houses and mass produced meat, we need to go back to those times. But we can't do that either, because during those times slavery existed, so, basically, we just need to all die right now so that the chickens cows and pigs would be the only ones that populate planet earth. Eventually, without humans, there would no longer be domesticated animals, because there wouldn't be anyone to feed them. So, what would happen instead is that they would eventually starve and begin eating eachother, only the strongest ones will survive. And after that, natural selection will start kicking in once again, and eventually, we would have cows that walk upright and have hands just like us. Sounds pretty good to me.

>>16546591
why don't you kill yourself if you're so upset about overpopulation? why not be part of the solution instead of just moan and crying about it like a bitch?

>>16546800
>why don't you kill yourself if you're so upset about overpopulation?
That's dumb. You only need to kill one more person you'll double the effect on the climate.

>>16546591
Get a knife and cut your throat right now, we don't need ignorant morons like you.

>>16546985
Alright, then go on a spree killing and suicide by cop

>>16546554
I am really curious to see how the climate denier scene will deal with this in the coming years.
what psychotic fruits the conflict between denial of reality and natural disasters brings forth...
I bet its them aliens

>>16547264
They'll just say it's natural and because it's impossible for humans to affect the environment there's nothing we can do to stop it either. They just genuinely don't care about reality.

>>16547361
>reading this and looking back at 2024
does it still look to you as if nothing is happening, really?

>>16546591
More and more electricity is coming from renewables.

Theres a demographic slowdown which means carbon output will slow down as well.

All the worst case scenario predictions havent come true.

Sea level rise takes a century, theres a lot more forestation going on to absorb it, tundra is turning into taiga and people are replanting the deserts into savanah.

Plus nuclear becoming more common, less petrochem being used for agriculture. It will be ok.

Theres a lot of regenerative agriculture being implemented focused on sinking carbon into the soil. For every problem there are solutions.

>>16547422
Wind and solar are going up exponentially. Much faster than carbon output. Things will rebalance.

>>16547400
Nothing? No, the 1% is horribly abusing the planet in BRICS nations.

Why do you think taxing the poor in White countries solves that?

>>16511874
>mars has over 30 times more atmospheric co2 per unit surface area than earth does
It's more like 11 times. Or am I wrong?

>>16516286
Is that Spain on the left? If so, the flooding in Spain was entirely due to Spain demolishing over 100 dams that had keeping floods in check for decades https://www.thelocal.es/20230424/why-is-spain-destroying-dams-in-the-middle-of-a-drought

>>16533757
>death tax instead of estate tax
Estate tax is ambiguous and misleading. The event that triggers the tax is death.

>>16547400
None of that shit Hansen predicted came remotely close to happening.

>>16547433
It's uh cuz all the glaciers in Sweden melted. Yeah, and that caused the land to spring back up. Totally.

Daily reminder that the glaciers have been retreating for as long as we have been observing them, since long before the age of the glubble-wubble cult and the supposed effects of industrialized human activity.

>its not happening
>its not that bad
>its not our fault
why not being honest?
>I dont care
>I dont mind the extend
>I dont give a fuck about what will happen after me
do you have kids and love them? makes it so much easier for you, just type
>Im a really retarded faggot

>>16534250
While the hydrogen in ammonia / ammonium / etc usually comes from oil or gas, the nitrogen mainly comes from the atmosphere, so the association with petrochem is not very strong and I don't see the point of emphasizing it so much. You could source the hydrogen from water and still have the same problem with nitrogen runoff.

Prove to me that it's real without using NASA data, data from any university funded by a western government, any organization that believes in climate change and any data that could possibly have been faked.
Go

>>16552867
you're the only one here who is obsessed with politics, the rest of use are discussing science

>>16548757
I personally claim it's real. Prove I'm wrong.
Go

>>16548192
>Claims to care about children
>Supports abortion
WEWLAD!

>>16548757
Go
(two times deleted post posted a third time)

>>16553212
Disproving the CO2 global warming theory is extremely simple, there are many means of disproving it, observational data has already disproved it long ago. Sea level isn't rising, temperatures aren't climbing and it was warmer recently in Earth's climatic history during periods when atmospheric CO2 was lower, further in the past there were periods of far, far higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations when no mass extinctions took place.

>>16511245
Because it's lying with statistics. It's politics, not science, and politicians and their cronies lie saying snow is white and the sky is blue

>>16554325
>>16554327
>What is an ad-hominem fallacy and why is everyone telling me it is the last resort of someone who has lost an argument?
(Pic unrelated.)

cool story, /pol/.

>>16530336
you realize they are making money by exactly knowing how things turn out?
and if you accouse them of faking, how can they be competitive on the market then?
but dont worry, Im sure you have arguments ready for such a question and dont just want to distract with nonsense.
Go

>>16554610
Nice premise, except you know, where those insurance companies were bailed out by taxpayers.

>>16554695
I never heard a single reinsurance company have to be saved by taxpayer money in my entire life. never, nowhere.
you know, those are the people hiring really good and outstanding mathematicians.
in case you forgot, you are still on /sci/.
so you can show me any evidence for the taxpayer rescue of reinsurers?
otherwise, if you could not do so after making such an assertion - in view of the argumentative situation in which you have now placed yourself - that would be clear evidence of a tall tale.
in this case all the readers here would realize you are a liar.
you dont want to be held for a liar expect for you dont care.
and thats the reason you will immediatley reply with a good reason for all of that, dont you?

let me make a counterproposal
you just jump over your own shadow and tell us about the reasons that led you to type these posts.
Im sure this story is much more exciting than your other answers.
dont bore us anon.

>>16554727
Are you actually retarded? 2008? Like wot.

>>16554740
cool.
since you now made your way even deeper in assertions, it will be an easy task to give us something we can check yourselves.

>>16554727
this.

will they ever admit they were tricked by manipulation or will they all pretend they never thought its a hoax?
or will it be those awiens?

>>16554740
so, now where are those reinsurance companies which where saved by taxpayer money in 2008?

>>16547702
>glaciers that formed during the little ice age started melting once the little ice age ended
shocking turn of events

man, still no response to the claim that reinsurers are somehow no longer able to calculate refinancing correctly due to the bailout with taxpayers' money (which is not the case).
time to accept climate change is real.
just kidding, we all long ago know billionaire payed or shilling faggot /pol/tards just cant cope reality.

>>16554234
Image Nuke. Saved.

>>16554450
pic: NOT a chill dude.

>>16557159
Cape Canaveral sits exactly at sea level, if the NASA shills that spread the global warming lie believed their own lies than they would have long since made plans to shut down their main launch site and move it to higher ground.

>>16558022
cool story, /pol/.

https://science.nasa.gov/earth/climate-change/cant-see-sea-level-rise-youre-looking-in-the-wrong-place/

>>16554727
Dumbass
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/insurance-policy-california-florida-uninsurable-climate-change-first-street/
https://www.npr.org/2023/07/22/1186540332/how-climate-change-could-cause-a-home-insurance-meltdown
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240318-climate-change-is-fuelling-the-us-insurance-problem
https://ehsdailyadvisor.blr.com/2023/06/insurance-companies-decline-coverage-due-to-climate-change-risks/
https://www.wdsu.com/article/soaring-insurance-premiums-force-some-homeowners-to-sell/44718815

>>16558062
so you dont even unterstand what reinsurance means?
I am truly not suprised.

nice links since they all show that climate change must be real.
and now post a single link about a reinsurance company that was saved.

>>16558022
sea level isn't rising, the sea level rise meme is so blatantly fake that even the global warming shills have given up on it

>>16559177
tidal range is tidal

it's settled.
global warming is a trash meme.

>>16559177
the bible even says the shorelines are fixed

>>16511869
retard

>>16559180
post a high hide picture then

>>16559648
you're the retard

>>16560361
not retarded.

from LLE plants working with CO2 I know some shit about CO2 limits.
1000 ppm on the long run (your entire life) may already result in severe mental limitations.
up to 2000 ppm without any doubt.
then we will all have time for cave painting again.

over 2000 ppm means deaths and most probably sort of an age limit.
certainly even more problematic in connection with high temperatures.

>>16522480
>create seasonal spikes in emissions during the winter months when energy demands are at their highest
Not really. There is a dual energy demand peak. Summer and winter. Summer peak is somewhat higher due to AC.
>The planet craves homeostasis
Not really. Atmospheric CO2 has an annual cycle due to the difference in Northern vs Southern hemisphere growing seasons.

>>16511869
>and CO2 is a greenhouse gas that helps warming up the planet faster
So why doesn't an increase in atmospheric CO2 block the incoming infrared from the sun and cool the planet down? Over half of the sun's energy reaching the earth is infrared. Block some part of that and we should be getting cooler.