Man made climate change is not real

Join this conversation but keep it good faith and rule abiding. 
I have 4 big points against man made climate change:

1. Nature predominantly controls carbon levels.
2. It's impossible for us to know how carbon behaves in an atmosphere with a billion variables.
3. Temperatures can be used incorrectly in a graph overtime because there may be 400 options in an area and they pick 200 of them involving bias of selection and then technology and location changes.
4. Renewable energy is not so renewable.

Bonus note: Australia rarely gets above 25-30 degrees Celsius yet in 1896 it was hot that summer.

It's also important to see that green energy wind turbine blades can't last forever and they also cannot be recycled. They'll often end up in land fill or in some Australian instances, just be dumped in the middle of the forest. By 2050, it's likely that all wind and solar energy from today will have been moved to landfill.

Kid, coal produces way more pollution than wind.

So even if global warming didn't exist, it would still be smart to move off of fossil fuels.

1. If we are taking nature and humans as seperate entity then yes nature predominantly controls carbon cycle but that does not mean humans dont have any hand in this. There is no doubt that the activities of humans have caused a change in the carbon cycle of the planet. Deforestation with pollution of atmosphere with CO2 had affected the carbon cycle of nature.

2. We dont have to know all the billion variables, we just have to see the correlation between carbon level and the change in climate. Which is evident in all research data.

The trend we see is that as carbon level increase in the atmosphere, there is change in the climate over long periods of time and thats enough evidence.

3. Dont know what exactly ur trying to say here. Can u make it more clear.

4. Steel is 100% recyclable. So no, the steel used in windmills will not end up in landfill. Also the coal used in generation of willmills can be seen as an investment. When u make steel first , sure it will cause pillution but then after making it, it can ve used for a long periods of time to generate more energy than the energy used to create then while also being renewable. Is that not a net positive?

We r using non-renewable energy to make a machine that will produce renewable energy and eventually will compensate for it by producing more renewable energy that the non-renewable energy used to make it.

Hey, fun fact, I heard from one source that coal might actually release more radiation than nuclear power into the environment.

Our current nuclear power plants are very safe, the few major catastrophes happened with outdated plants and bad management. The risk of another Chernobyl is low.

TELL THIS FACE THAT MANMADE CLIMATE CHANGE ISN'T REAL HOOMUN!!

🤣

A country can't survive without fossil fuels. Green energy isn't a serious option as its one of the most expensive forms of energy that the private sector won't build themselves without coercion and reliance on subsidies. The lack of energy in the end would inevitably lead to off-shoring fossil fuels again plus you're already offshoring coal and iron for the steel.
Take this picture as an example for solar.

Plus, with green energy, cars and planes won't be safe anymore. No one would dare board an electric plane and electric cars have a dangerous battery very susceptible to detonating.