Why do liberal Americans believe in the climate change meme?

>>127977964
Because it falls neatly into their black & white world view

>environmentalism: good
>industry: bad

Why look into the details when it confirms your world view so nicely?

because they're not paid off by big business to lie that it doesnt exist

>>127977964
Because they study humanities subjects at school, not STEM.

>>127977964
>Why do liberal Americans believe in the climate change meme?

Why do conservative Americans believe the bible meme?

1) It makes them "good people" because they are saving the planet.
2) It is the perfect cover for implementing the big-government, anti-human, anti-business policies they love.
3) Groupthink. The science is settled!

File: 1495717940711.png (471KB, 810x598px) Image search: [Google]

471KB, 810x598px

>>127978091
>because they're not paid off by big business to lie that it doesnt exist

This

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/329587-energy-companies-donate-millions-to-trumps-inauguration

>>127978289
You forgot to archive it.
>http://thehill com/policy/energy-environment/329587-energy-companies-donate-millions-to-trumps-inauguration
--> https://archive.is/z3EOU

Wayne Lambright is a schizophrenic homosexual transient.

>>127978176

christianity is a faith

faith doesnt involve billions of wasted dollars does it

File: 1483903465905.jpg (268KB, 800x743px) Image search: [Google]

268KB, 800x743px

>>127978270
>big-government, anti-human, anti-business policies they love.

>complains about jews
>jews out the planet for exxon mobile.

>>127978328
>faith doesnt involve billions of wasted dollars does it

Or thinking

>>127978091
You got some articles to read little bo sheep.

>centuries of factory emissions, cars, pollution from all kinds of sources

>temperature still the same

>still cold in winter, hot in summer

where is the evidence?

you realize climate changes naturally, right?

>>127978514
>still cold in winter, hot in summer

>cold in winter

Uhhh no. It snowed like crazy when I was a kid and now it's mild if not balls to the walls hot all winter.

>>127978391
>implying Christians don't doubt
>implying all Christians are just mindless followers
>implying there aren't Christians that were atheists/agnostics before hand

Nice projecting friendo

>>127977964
many reasons
>Experts say it is, so if they parrot they think they're smarter then those who deny
>saving the planet, holier then you
>black and white world view
>lack of understanding of politics and economics
to name just a few

>>127978091
You do realize that the scientists claiming man made global warming have absolutely no facts or substantial evidence to support it, also do you know where their funding comes from in the first place?

>>127977964
The majority of the world, especially educated people, believe in the "climate change meme".

File: 1484078088476.png (1MB, 1513x606px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1513x606px

>>127978616
>You do realize that the scientists claiming man made global warming have absolutely no facts or substantial evidence to support it,

1. Go to google
2. Tab evidence of climate change
3. Go to https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
4. Look up evidence

>>127978557

prove climate change is man made.

>>127978514
>temperature still the same
Fakin wat. The average temperature has risen by over 1°C in the last 100 years.

>>127978585
This.

>>127978711
>>127978701

>>127978701

>google

strike 1, they have an agenda

>climate change website

strike 2, agenda

>evidence

strike 3, there is no proof. only THEORIES.

>>127977964
Because it's true dumbass. Look at the evidence not who's supporting it you dunce.

>>127978701
>rural and suburban retards meme

So this is what real shitposting looks like...

>>127978774
>strike 2, agenda

NASA

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_government_of_the_United_States

Also you have an agenda

>there is no proof. only THEORIES.

Do you know what a theory even is?

>>127978854

>because it's true

E V I D E N C E

>>127978299
How's it going tumblrism?

>>127978887
1. Go to google
2. Tab evidence of climate change
3. Go to https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
4. Look up evidence

>>127978876

where is the proof that climate isnt changing naturally.

show me concrete evidence that we are causing it, IF ANY change.

>>127978908
>everyone with a norwegian flag is tumblrisms
Yep, it's Wayne

Wayne Lambright to be exact

With Wayne Lambright there's no dazzling light

>>127978876
>not looking at the flag you're responding to
>taking the Leaf bait this easily
There's a reason that they're the most filtered/ignored flag on /pol/.

>>127978973
>where is the proof that climate isnt changing naturally.

The evidence for rapid climate change is compelling:
Sea level rise
Global temperature rise
Warming oceans
Shrinking ice sheets
Declining Arctic sea ice
Glacial retreat
Extreme events
Ocean acidification
Decreased snow cover

>>127977964
Because they mistakenly believe they will benefit from the wealth redistribution that climate change mandates.

>>127979008
Well you're the only one who is THIS obsessed w/ Wayne. Why do you hate him so much?

>>127978336
It's perfectly possible to believe in anthropocentric climate change without accepting the left's prescription for the problem. After all climate change is a scientific problem while the solution is an economic / political one. Refer to Byorn Lomborg among others.

If you dislike Exxon you should support small government because it discourages corporatism and encourages the foundation of new companies (possibly more environmentally friendly) that might replace them.

>>127977964
Carbon tax is the ultimate "sin" tax. If you disagree with/express skepticism about it, the retort of, "WHY DO YOU HATE THE PLANET YOU SELFISH PIG" is right at hand.

It's even more powerful than "Why do you hate America/God."

>>127978908
>>127979127
I'm just breaking your balls because sometimes you flip out and it's hilarious. On a more serious note, I might have a job for you as CEO of a new company.

>>127978924

do you have conclusive proof?

no?

thanks for playing.

>the big bang is true!

no that's a theory. prove it happened. you can't.

what happened before the big bang?

>BUT IT IS TRUE

bullshit, prove it.

everyone agrees that climate change is occurring
about 95% of researches are in agreement that climate change is man-made (to some degree)

just because there's the possibility that climate change is currently naturally occuring doesn't automatically mean that humans don't have a part in it
it's not a question of either THAT or THIS.. it's really not a hard concept but you fucking faggots would gladly suck trumps dick no matter what he says

>>127979174
I already own a business. Also, I haven't seen Wayne flip out in ages. He's mellowed quite a bit.

>>127979122

so the history of our planet and the many climate changes that happened without factories and cars and industry, didnt happen?

the ice age is a myth?

the earth was always like it is now?

Liberals are too stupid and low IQ. They can't actually get into reading scientific papers. They just rely on misleading media articles which make up results and abuse "meta studies" results.

Unfortunately liberals are just too stupid to do proper research and don't really understand the definition and requirements of science. Science is a methodology and they treat it as a "set of facts" and act like every scientist can't be wrong or bias.

Sadly. The Low IQ monkey libtards don't even research things like the usage of precursor sulfur dioxide gases to create global dimming.

I feel sorry for libtards and their broken little shit brains.

>>127979122
>anon asks for proof
>responds with buzzwords
the science is settled!

Liberals are too stupid and low IQ. They can't actually get into reading scientific papers. They just rely on misleading media articles which make up results and abuse "meta studies" results.

Unfortunately liberals are just too stupid to do proper research and don't really understand the definition and requirements of science. Science is a methodology and they treat it as a "set of facts" and act like every scientist can't be wrong or bias.

Sadly. The Low IQ monkey libtards don't even research things like the usage of precursor sulfur dioxide gases to create global dimming.

I feel sorry for libtards and their broken little shit brains. It's painful to see them use "science" like religious people use "bible".

>>127979267
I mean you are also asserting that putting tons of CO2 in the atmosphere has no effect. That's not even a theory. More like a hypothesis. Also I'm fairly sure you actually have no clue what "theory" means in the scientific world.

>>127977964
Because they're realists.

do people seriously think a bunch of meme solar roofs and some windmills are going to "save the world from disaster"

we will all be dead the second a nuke is launched. regardless, the planet will be fine for billions of years even if nothing changes.

>>127979326
Just shut up and give them your money and liberty so they can save the world. 99.9% of people who call themselves scientists demand you to do so. Even Bill Nye, the greatest scientist of our time agrees!

>>127979653

omg, 1 degree farenheit in 120+ years

now prove this is man made and not natural

CORRELATION != CAUSATION

>>127979653

also that chart shows global temperature went down, with a constantly increasing CO2 level, periodically.

explain that.

also, prove this isnt natural climate change.

>>127979663
Yea the planet will be fine. Obviously. It's just that humans will have a harder time living on it.

>>127979577
The science falls apart upon simple examinations. Not in the carbon phase though. But rather in the solutions search space.

The usage of "only solution space" being reduction is false. The solution space includes any geoengineering techniques and any adaption techniques. The solution space is so wide on the subject that choosing "reduction in carbon emissions" is almost certainly wrong. For one, reduction in carbon emissions has almost no effect on climate change, which is something even the fear mongers admit. So basically everything revolving around climate change is moronic retards who refuse to look at the full range of solutions and are pushing for a solution that does nothing or has minimal effect.

Think of it like this.
- Your house is on fire
- Let's remove some objects that will feed the fire
- house burns down still

This is the current climate perspective in terms of

- Carbon in atmosphere increased
- lets slow down this increase
- carbon in atmosphere still increased

Show one bit of science that shows that carbon reduction will do anything to solve the problem. It absolutely has no scientific or logical basis to doing so. Rather the focus should be on geoengineering, technological advancements, and adaptations.

Why?

In the most optimistic carbon reduction scenarios you get like 0.05 degrees difference in 50 years from expected. It's meaningless and definitely within the error bounds

File: life_cycle_of_sun.png (49KB, 872x210px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 872x210px

>>127979653
>global temps are rising gradually

Hmmm.. Surely the only explanation is CO2.

>>127979892

there is no "risk" to the planet

I imagine in 100-1000 years people will be colonizing the galaxy, and we'll have planets far nicer than this one. regardless, there is no "risk" nor is the climate change at the moment drastic, or made by us.

>lets revert to a caveman state because of some emissions

no.

Because 99% of scientists and all reputable evidence points to the fact that it does exist.

also people forget that the paris accord doesnt do shit.

>china is in it

have you seen china?

literally a disgusting mass of smog.

Imagine what China will be like in 20 years.

The US is going down the same road with the EPA regulations being removed/ignored.

We need to severely increase cheap energy production to leave this shithole within 100 years. Hawkins said so, right?

>>127980132
jesus christ you're fucking retarded

>>127979912
Well if were using metaphors:
Geoengineering climate change away is like seeing your house on fire and instead of fixing the issue you build a wall around the fire and hope it is able to contain it.
Obviously the push for solar is a meme since the production of solar cells causes more pollution than burning coal. It also doesn't mean we shouldn't be looking for alternative energy sources since oil coal and gas are limited.

File: 1496265530314.jpg (1MB, 3080x4432px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3080x4432px

Liberals like unsolvable problems because it gives them a perpetual reason to be outraged. When will climate change be "fixed"? Not in our lifetimes! So get angry about it and vote for who we say for the rest of your life, goyim!

>>127980132
correct

>>127980266
Nah he's just a trolling leaf. Ignore him he wants attention.

>>127980331
Alternative sources have nothing to do with using existing sources.

>>127980406
I don't exactly know what you are trying to say but if we produce more electricity from renewable sources and nuclear we don't need to burn as many fossil fuels.

>>127980266

>ad hominems

and you lost your argument

>you're retarded

I didnt elect a cunt that is turning berlin into refugeestan.

File: 1496039923683.jpg (46KB, 424x470px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 424x470px

The (((Climate Change))) agenda is basically yet another incarnation of the of the 'seize the means of production' communist theory. Enforce an artificial limitation as an effort to controls economic, industrial, and overall development.

I find this thread to be hilarious that on /pol/, the so called home of the fascist and commie destroyers, that the obvious communist agenda piece that is the very essence of (((Climate Change))) is not called out 24/7. Instead you have so many young and newfags who do not understand how Communism actually works and they actually start believing the (((Climate Change))) lie.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_production

>INB4 But.. but... anon the weather is 1.7364782 degrees warmer than last year and my college professor said that the science is settled and (((CNN))) said that anyone who questions (((Climate Change))) is a "denier".

>>127979653
>1880

File: kot.jpg (21KB, 400x323px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 400x323px

I think climate change is the single most annoying bullshit ever.

i almost got cancer from reading facebook comments on the subject.
its amazing how gladly people swallow this diarrhea and ask for seconds.


makes me wonder....... if the eco-terrorists won, the human race would emit exactly ZERO pollution, but the climate would still be changing, what then?

they will try to..... what?
stop the earth from doing its own natural cycles?

i....iii just dont get the whole (((((((eco)))))) craze.
it doesnt even make sense.

>>127980635
Depends on grid/usage/reliability still. Try again.

>>127980734

THIS, THIS.

>>127978328
Faith does indeed involve the waste of billions if you consider how often religious groups are free taxation

I wish some of these renewable global warming people would do that math on solar for instance.

Imagine if a country actually did spend huge amounts of money 5 years ago on solar panels. they would be FUCKED on that investment. No reliability, no storage, and the cost of solar back then was much worse.

You would be hurting your own economy while also having near zero effect on climate.

carbon tax is just "environmentalists" jewing you out of money.

>>127980982
>>127981288
I already said solar was a meme. Doesn't mean there aren't reliable renewables like tid and geothermal plants. Also nuclear is pretty reliable.

>>127981499
*tidal

>>127978091
Implying scientists aren't paid off by big government to lie and say it exists.

>>127979396

Conservative average IQ is lower

>>127981179
Not paying taxes =/= "waste of billions".
This is usually a berniebro talking point not to differentiate gibsmedat and tax cut.

>>127978585
>>Experts say it is, so if they parrot they think they're smarter then those who deny
This is one of the big ones. See >>127978698

You wouldn't want to have a different opinion than the settled science from the experts, would you anon?

>>127981288
>>Imagine if a country actually did spend huge amounts of money 5 years ago on solar panels. they would be FUCKED on that investment. No reliability, no storage, and the cost of solar back then was much worse.
But they did. The largest Solar industry in Yurop, SolarWorld (a German company), just filled for bankruptcy in spite of receiving gorillonz of subsidies.

>>127981756
The one study I've seen on that was bull shit the took normal beliefs (i.e. Women should be allowed to work) called them liberal the took reactionary beliefs (bare foot and pregnant) and called them conservative. it was total bs, which not surprising.

File: republicans smarter.png (106KB, 922x742px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 922x742px

>>127981756
This is patently false though.

>>127977964
because they are retarded subhuman cattle, they are braindead, do not have souls and are not sentient.

>>127979326
Cant you understand that we are just making it happen faster?

>>127981499
All are either dependent on climate or use up too much space/resources to be seriously considered as an alternative for fossil fuels. Next to no one touches nuclear after Fukushima and won't for the next 20 years, you might as well wait for thermonuclear fusion

The idea that the climate is changing so quickly that actions that control industry and curb development in the third world are necessary is incredibly valuable if you're heavily left wing.

>>127983295
I'm pretty if we ever manage to harness the power of fusion people will just say: ow it's too dangerous we better stick to fossil fuels.

I hope someone can answer this,
How do they measure the average global temperature? Maybe they have sensors everywhere, but in the last hundred or so years they must have made new sensors, how do they integrate those into the model of global temperature? Maybe ice cores can say the amount of ice, but how do they derive from that the global temperature 100s of years ago? I could see Europe measuring and recording its temperature but not Africa or vietnam, which coincidentally are very hot places which when measured, the average measurement will go up. I hope I am not getting memed

File: coverage stations.png (71KB, 1001x402px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 1001x402px

>>127984405
>How do they measure the average global temperature?
Satellites, thermometers and buoys everywhere, pic related is our coverage

>but in the last hundred or so years they must have made new sensors, how do they integrate those into the model of global temperature?
Yeah quite a few, there are statistical techniques for homogenising the raw data points

>Maybe ice cores can say the amount of ice, but how do they derive from that the global temperature 100s of years ago?
Proxy measures whose accuracy and error is verified by our thermometer record, these include ice cores, tree rings, boreholes and isotopic analysis of water.

>I could see Europe measuring and recording its temperature but not Africa or vietnam
Thermometer record goes back to 1880, not sure where the first stations where but the lack of coverage is accounted for by proxy measures.

>>127982984
>One study shows conservatives are smarter
>"All the others are loaded with unfavourable questions this is the only explanation"

>>127977964
because ive graduated from highschool. conservatives cant say the same apparently

Here's the deal. Something is happening. And nobody knows what. First it was global warming. Now temperatures are dropping. So it's climate change. Nobody has a fucki g clue. But somethings going on either natural or man caused. Should we pump toxins into the air? No. Smog is a bitch. Should we care about this beautiful earth we live on? Yes. I have no idea what the problem is. We don't need to tax people millions because we don't have an idea yet on what's happening or how to fix it. Give more money to scientists let them figure out a plan than listen to them. They are smarter than some guy with a we show saying alians walk amongst us.

File: land.ocean.temperatureanomaly.png (228KB, 1024x819px) Image search: [Google]

228KB, 1024x819px

>>127988592
>Now temperatures are dropping
???????????

File: UAH-v6-LT-with-2016-projection.jpg (394KB, 3000x1800px) Image search: [Google]

394KB, 3000x1800px

>>127988944

File: redpill.png (80KB, 256x252px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 256x252px

>>127977964
>Why do liberal Americans believe in the climate change meme?
Not a meme
The climate changes
Science is something we understand and accept
Unicorns and sky daddies are something you "believe"

This is very import for you to understand. Wealthy tobacco corporations pushed to keep weed illegal until they could secure vast farms in the South to grow marijuana.

Energy corporations (like Duke Energy) have been pushing hard for ridiculous state laws and rules against residential solar panels, meanwhile they are building massive solar farms in Florida.

Fossil fuel corporations lied. shilled and disinformed the public to create the false narrative that the Earth's climate never changes. Now that they have been able to divest themselves of much of their capitalized oil and gas operations, they can finally admit that climate change is real.


The wealthy own 98% of the suburban coastline properties. They need idiots to buy them out for top dollar. The only way that will happen is if there is a pool of gullible buyers who can be hoodwinked into believing the seas aren't already rising from climate change.

File: UAH_LT_1979_thru_April_2017_v6.jpg (335KB, 2340x1350px) Image search: [Google]

335KB, 2340x1350px

>>127989242
lol you can clearly see the upward trend, even in the UAH data set

>>127989449
I see ups and downs and a downwards trend at the end, but carbon is rising all the time.
What is really going on?
Obviously carbon has nothing to do with it.

>>127990214
ever heard about internal variability?

>>127990381
why would it vary internally?

File: Evolution Of Stupidity.jpg (99KB, 700x564px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 700x564px

>>127981685
>Implying scientists aren't paid off by big government to lie and say it exists.
Oil and gas industry scientists are paid to produce the result that their corporations expect. They lie for a living. This is a huge liability for them. The tobaccos scientist are a perfect example. They were paid to claim that smoking cigarettes was healthy so they did.

Now we see some of those same tobacco "scientists" working for fossil fuel companies to muddy the water and obfuscate the real science.

So the energy industry attacks the government scientists as though they are the paid shills, thus shifting the payola culpability in the credulous minds of the feeble and infirm.

It's a clever tactic, but eventually, just like tobacco, the overwhelming evidence will prove what liars they've always been. But by then, they will have moved on to the next cash cow, no doubt with the same troupe of sellout "scientists"

File: 3B0pt3M.jpg (40KB, 800x642px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 800x642px

>>127979653
go to google and search correlation and causation. Educate yourself

>>127990968

you are saying scientists will publish findings consistent with the wishes of the organizations that are paying them. Therefore, scientists that are paid by governments to say man-made global warming exists are merely carrying out the wishes of those governments. i agree

>>127990907
because there are several mechanisms that can introduce short term changes in the atmosphere (short term in this case means a few years)

examples for these mechanisms are:
El Nino southern oscillation
pacific decadal oscillation
Arctic oscillation
North Atlantic oscillation
Madden-Julian oscillation

>>127977964
I don't believe in climate change as in MUH SEA LEVELS.
What I do believe in is the toxicification of soil and environment via coal power being the single most dangerous thing in the world.

We should be going towards a clean nuclear age after the past 60 years of history proving it's relatively safe and less dangerous than coal.

Natural gas burns relatively clean.
Nuclear is getting better every day.
Solar via panels is shit and only suitable for homestead and caravans.
Solar via concentrator and molten salt is only viable in the med and desert style climates. Not an option for the modern world in the slightest except for 2 months of the year.
Wind is a brilliant choice now it doesn't require raw earth magnets but large turbines are only efficient out at sea.
Tidal/ocean turbines are a brilliant choice (can be combined with wind turbines) if you have coastal waters but the tech is unreliable at the moment due to a lack of investment.

I'm entirely for a green economy. It just needs to be about conservation of resources over MUH CLIMATE REEEEEEE.

If everyone was living a balanced life, free of pointless excess (excess is inevitable) like $800,000 cars produced 1000km that produce 5x the pollution in manufacturing but serve no practical benefits over a $20,000 car aside from status then the world WOULD be a better place. It's just that it's not viable with the current population and mindset.

It's why rural communities and poor communities like the appalachias and north of England tend to be higher than cities just a much more regressed lifestyle.

They have been indoctrinated to believe all that they are told by government and "teachers".

>>127978289
>>127978422
>>127978616
>>127981685


Global warning is a fact since we measure it.

The average temperature is increasing since the industrial era.

BTFO retard

File: niccage.png (34KB, 973x483px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 973x483px

scientists are having problems mapping down variables in closed experiments and you want to tell me they have mapped down all the environmental variables including, the sun, the bottom of the sea and how mankind is responsible for the raising of the temperature... Let alone the lies about 97% of scientists or the paid results to fit the model.

>>127978091
This

>>127991700
>since industrial era.
Except it's since earlier than that retard

>>127991981

Before Industrial era, there weren't meteorology to prove your point retard

>>127977964

The theory is sound as it is rooted in a proven spectroscopic concept which students in undergrad and even highschool can test for themselves, and the correlation between atmospheric chemistry and global temperature is strong. Plus all the propaganda, but most of it comes from a good place.

What most people do not consider is that models that attempt to attribute global temperatures to atmospheric chemistry have resulted in consistent overestimation of future warming, suggesting that recent global warming (which is real, but very much exaggerated by the media) is due only partially or not at all due to atmospheric chemistry, OR that the relationship between atmospheric chemistry and global temperature is supralinear. (Actually, it MUST be supralinear, as there is only so much light emitted from the earth which CO2 can absorb, but the point at which this becomes relevant is unknown, or at least unpublished on).

>>127992219
there are actually more explanations for a slight overestimation of temperatures than that
three others that come to mind is either a slight overestimation of climate sensitivity, errors in the transient climate response function or errors in the model parametrization of certain forcings

File: main-qimg-778f751e11793dd841552bd08082672f.jpg (83KB, 602x452px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 602x452px

http://clim8.stanford.edu/Images/

>>127990968

Government scientists being funded via grants are paid to produce results which result in larger and more sustainable grants.

That's why noone EVER finalises a government climate change research project because the data is conclusive that global temperatures are rising (half way through an ice age cycle so what the fuck do you expect?) but the data on it being totally man made is completely inconclusive. The association is purely by coincidence because world temperature cataloguing only began WITH industrialisation, not with human history.

That means they have 100 years of data of increasing temperature and it all falls under post industrialised European data. That means out of the sample data, it's entirely one sided and there's nothing before to say that the global temperature was stable before industrialisation despite the desertification of Africa being a fact since the Egyptians and people of the Fertile Crescent started writing which lends itself to the fact that global warming has been on the rise since the BC era of civilisation and has fuck all to do with humanity.

You can argue that humans have a negative effect on the time taken for global warming but it's a completely natural occurrence and we could easily just be at the peak of natural climate change before beginning the descent.

>>127992201
>Before Industrial era, there weren't meteorology to prove your point retard
Except small things like Romans growing grapes in England, Eric the Red setting up a colony in Greenland..gee I wonder how it got that name?
The planet is still coming out of the last ice age, we should expect a sea level rise, I have no sympathy for the pathetic pacific island niggers who haven't noticed their islands shrinking over the last 10000 years and now start blaming the west

File: 1495394056230.jpg (17KB, 500x376px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 500x376px

Scientists all agree. But wait, did I hear that right? A liberal said it also was true? Well then, now we know it's false. Phew. Thank god and may god be with us. Burger bless!

>>127992636

Well it's a lot more than "slight", climatologists a decade ago genuinely thought we were absolutely fucked by now

I see these faggots appropriating Pascal's Wager all the time. Their version is:

If I'm wrong, we still have a pristine environment with clean water and air; if you're wrong, we'll live brief and miserable lives in a smog covered globe until we're inevitably engulfed in flame or wiped out by flooding.

>>127978091
One of the great things about Trump is that he's so rich as to be unbuyable. The libs/shills are running out of whines.

File: Lysenko_with_Stalin.gif (201KB, 563x319px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 563x319px

>>127978854
WHO is supporting it is important. It helps you understand true motivations, which in this case is increased government control and theft of tax funds. Their grass roots support is highly suggestible and are easy to manipulate by men in lab-coats.
It is very important to note that it's a leftist narrative.

>>127977964
Because they are told to and cant think for themselves.

>>127977964
Yes cause if they were smart they wouldn't be liberals

File: christy_new.png (196KB, 1280x912px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 1280x912px

>>127993194
no I think "slight" is an accurate term

what are you basing that second claim on?

>>127979653
Correlation =/= Causation

>>127993532

All the doomsday talk from around that time

Also a 100% overshoot is quite a lot, even when the result is still technically within your 95% confidence interval because your interval is so god damned huge

>>127977964
This has all happened before in the Soviet Union and the more you know about Lysenko, the more repugnant the Climate movement becomes. The left is unoriginal.

>http://archive.is/fme6r

>>127993821
>http://archive.is/fme6r
/thread

>>127993731
>All the doomsday talk from around that time
I get that, I'm asking you to give one or two examples

also the confidence interval isn't huge, it's about as small as it gets for climate models and has roughly the spread of internal climate variability. The confidence interval only gets huge if you go into the distant future

>>127993107

>scientists all agree

prove it is fucking man made

scientists also "agree" on the big bang, an unproven event. a theory.

T H E O R Y

>>127991357
This this this this this.
It's a farce. The hot thing right now is ocean acidification. That one will die off in a few years once enough data is actually accrued and enough scientists who haven't been bought off debunk it.
The model is this:
>Get funding for "climate research study" or something to do with the environment and saving the planet.
>Make startling discovery that "the world as we know it is ending" based on conjecture and misrepresented statistics
>Ignore actual scientific methods and present your completely unproven hypothesis as a scientific fact
>Get TONS of cash to do further research
>Spend most of that defending your asinine research and getting other scientists to agree
>Now you're a well known and respected climate "scientist"
>Repeat this process ad nauseam, getting more money each time because now you're well known and respected in the "climate science" community

>>127994401
Retarded cunt detected. There are literally photographs of the left over of the big bang.

>theory

>>127980199
they thought about a carbon tax once and didn't implement it. Reason being it would obstruct their market.

real important agreement there.

>>127994551

what happened before that?

how can an event occur without the material required to cause said event?

can you create matter out of nothing?

retard

>>127993107
>Scientists all agree.

Where's the list? If someone isn't on this "consensus" list, then they're not a scientist?

How comes meteorologists don't believe in the whole "The Earth Mother is mad at us and sends storms because we live too well", primitive religion of Global Warming?

>>127983295
molten salt reactor = no more fukushima's

>>127977964
>Why do liberals believe in the climate change meme?
Because the scientific fields are overrun by leftist/Marxist leaning people. Confirmation bias and tribal consensus are kicking the scientific method to the curb.
There is a war on science, and science is losing:
>http://archive.is/ocfuE

>>127993107
>Scientists all agree.
Consensus isn't science it's politics, go back to your women's studies

>>127993821
>Those who promote the theory are favored with billions from government grants and neo-Marxist environmentalist largesse

yeah look at all the climate scientists driving around in their limousines, wining and dining in their seaside mansions. The last time I went to a climatology conference, I thought I was at a meeting of the Forbes 500

>>127994493
You realise that people outside of climatology use climate models? It isn't a set community. Many different people from many different disciplines collaborate with climatologists. For example, climate models are developed to test potential climates on other planets, inside and outside of the solar system.

>>127978728
In the 1700s, it changed more than 1 degree C in a year. Sooo? That doesn't mean shit. Nature can change it much faster than that if it wants.

>>127988944
There is a problem of people dumping warm water into the ocean that had been used in factories and power plants. I think even hydroelectric dams have a problem with this.

Which makes the stats regarding the ocean and its temperature a tad misleading. Since are the people taking reading going miles beneath surface or just sticking to the surface? I'm guessing researchers are doing the latter.

We've seen from plenty statistics that show little to no change in global temperatures in the air, which seems to matter if we're wanting to claim the earth is heating up like some oven.

Also we've already seen from Copenhagen which had its scandal that researchers are editing their data to create trends where none truly exist. In that case they removed 75% (thereabouts) of the data they collected conflicted with their hypothesis.

I once believed in global warming and at this point it just seems absolutely ludicrous to me how anyone can still buy that bullshit.

Sea level rise is a good thing.
It will drown all those liberal coastal elites.

>>127994612
Simply because we cannot answer what happened before the big bang literally does nothing to discredit the evidence for the big bang. You really are retarded.

>how can an event occur without the material required to cause said event?

>can you create matter out of nothing?

>retard

Let me guess, you think your bronze aged fairy tale leader gon dun it?

>>127994800
Yes, and a lot of the scientists outside of the climatologist community disagree with the climatologists' conclusions. They just keep their mouth shut so the keep getting the raw data.

Y'all tards

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle

>>127990968
Green energy industry scientists are paid to produce the result that their corporations expect. They lie for a living. This is a huge liability for them. The tobaccos scientist are a perfect example. They were paid to claim that smoking cigarettes was healthy so they did.
Now we see some of those same tobacco "scientists" working for green energy companies to muddy the water and obfuscate the real science.
So the green energy industry attacks the government scientists as though they are the paid shills, thus shifting the payola culpability in the credulous minds of the feeble and infirm.
It's a clever tactic, but eventually, just like tobacco, the overwhelming evidence will prove what liars they've always been. But by then, they will have moved on to the next cash cow, no doubt with the same troupe of sellout "scientists"

>>127995066
> They just keep their mouth shut so the keep getting the raw data.

I am a scientist, and I literally have never experienced what you are talking about.

Because memes https://youtu.be/1m49GSVqeOo

File: Sin título.png (76KB, 625x869px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 625x869px

>>127977964
Yup, they are.

>>127979267
>doesn't even know what a theory is
>LEMME TELL YOU ALL ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE DUDER

Fucking retards mang

>>127995179
>Now we see some of those same tobacco "scientists" working for green energy companies to muddy the water and obfuscate the real science.

Name one. I'll name three scientists who worked to cover up the smoking-cancer link and who also opposed the evidence behind anthropogenic climate change:

William A. Nierenberg
Frederick Seitz
Fred Singer

>>127992201

>Don't believe in modern data led by modern meteoroly

>Believe in old fairy tails

retard

>>127977964
they dont they are just white genociding commies

because liberals believe everything their favourite hollywood star says.

>>127978616
KYS corporate shill.

File: Marcott.png (55KB, 909x705px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 909x705px

>>127992974

File: IMG_1282.png (10KB, 213x237px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 213x237px

>>127977964
Because they hate "religion" but crave meaning so they latch on to an equally apocolyptic, almost pagan view of man and earth and the need to pretect mother Gaia

Ask any of the people how the Paris accords or "carbon tax" will arrest climate change? Why giving billions to the un will result in environmental improvements?

They don't know, it's just the tithe we must pay to save Gaia from our sins of abuse and industry

File: surface.loweratmosphere.anomaly.png (38KB, 632x410px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 632x410px

>>127994809
>dumping warm water into the ocean that had been used in factories and power plants
the volume of that water compared to the global ocean is so vanishingly small that it is basically indetectable in a globally averaged anomaly.

>Since are the people taking reading going miles beneath surface or just sticking to the surface? I'm guessing researchers are doing the latter.
you're wrong in guessing that. The way you worded that makes me think that you think climatologists have to be there in person to take the temp measurement, but that's not what happens. There are thousands of ARGO floats deployed in every ocean and they periodically rise and sink several kilometers to take temperature and salinity readings at the surface, the shallow ocean and the deep ocean.

>We've seen from plenty statistics that show little to no change in global temperatures in the air
That's just not true, the lower atmosphere has clearly warmed at a statistically significant rate

>researchers are editing their data to create trends where none truly exist
I can go more into detail on this if you want but for now I'll only say that the East Anglia e-mails showed absolutely no evidence of any willful wrongdoing

File: 1488321251960.jpg (22KB, 253x293px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 253x293px

>>127980734
don't forget to pay your ((((((((Carbon tax)))))))))) either goy

>>127979267
It is a theory. It's known that it's a theory. There's a fucking TV show called "The Big Bang Theory". However, no governmental policies are written revolving around this theory or any other theories that rely upon it.

>>127994493
Is the problem.

And
>>127995129
Feeds the demon. Because "OMG SAV TEH PLANIT"

>>127995647
It was more of a mockery of his stupid post. I was going to change it from tobacco to something else but I assumed people would understand the meaning of me doing that.

Pro tip: did you know that Big Corporation X stands to make gorillions of dollars in Big Oil while Corporation Y stands to make gorillions of dollars in Big Green Energy? It's like some people are pushing agendas for shekels. Ah who am I kidding, it's all the same corporations pushing in all directions to expand their markets. The same oil tycoons are now pushing green energy because they stand to make a shit load more money.

File: camel_doctors.jpg (1MB, 1895x2726px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1895x2726px

>>127993107
>Scientists all agree
Science is not a consensus and it is never "settled".
The problem with liberal influence is that they tend to poison science with a political agenda. If they believe something that has been proven by a rigorous scientific process, that's cool - when "science" panders to them, we get pseudoscience about "a spectrum of genders" and "The penis is a social construct". Climate change is highly suspect.
Liberalism is cancerous to science, they should stick to hairdressing and serving frappuccinos.

Liberals cause climate change by making businesses outsource manufacturing jobs overseas to countries with the worst record in environmentalism.

Fuck these evil hypocrites.

>>127980202
The enviroment of today is cleaner than it has been for 100 years and there are more forests than in the 1800's

The EPA has done its job yet it continue to grow as is the nature of beurocratic institutions.

Nobody is "eliminating" the EPA (although you arguably could) they are just reducing it. You don't need to hold up infrastructure projects for ten year environmental impact studies to protect the enviroment

There is such a thing as too much

>>127995191
Consider yourself lucky.

File: HADCRU-1880-2009.png (13KB, 552x336px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 552x336px

>>127995846
Nice time axis you have there, how you take a look at a chart with a reasonable scale, not quite as alarming is it Mr Gore?

>>127983243
There is zero proof that we are making it go faster since we can't measures the rate of natural change and calculate the difference between man made change and natural change.

But fine. I'll play Devils advocate. Let's say you are right. Are you going to give up your first world living standards to fight muh climate change while countries like China and India don't give a single fuck?

>>127980955
Lefty replacement for religion

Man craves meaning and it cannot be found in science or logic, but it can be found in saving THE EARTH from man's decedance

File: 1475894693195.jpg (214KB, 345x336px) Image search: [Google]

214KB, 345x336px

>>127978701

1. Take a bath
2. You tree hugging hippie faggot

>>127996192
> The same oil tycoons are now pushing green energy because they stand to make a shit load more money.

Oh yeah, that's exactly why Exxon covered up research produced by their own scientists which showed a clear link between anthropogenic carbon emissions and a warming planet.

But hey, you can't even defend your original argument. You literally just confessed to basically making shit up to suit your ideology.

>I was going to change it from tobacco to something else but I assumed people would understand the meaning of me doing that.

And failed miserably.

File: Climate Change.png (689KB, 1891x4901px) Image search: [Google]

689KB, 1891x4901px

>>127995846
>>127996292
How about a REAL scale?

File: 1492506956324.jpg (57KB, 607x455px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 607x455px

>>127977964

Science: its not about what you believe or dont believe, duh. only conservatards cant see that.

File: Shakun_Marcott_HadCRUT4_A1B_500.png (44KB, 500x397px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 500x397px

>>127996292
Kek, denialists complain when people don't look at a large enough time scale, then complain when we do. 1 degree Celsius per century is a rate of warming around 20 times faster than the rate of warming experienced when earth was leaving the last ice age. Note at the end of this plot there is an overlay of the projections to 2100, you can see the data you just posted in that last slither.

>>127996061
>That's just not true, the lower atmosphere has clearly warmed at a statistically significant rate


There are many statistics showing no real change.

>I can go more into detail on this if you want but for now I'll only say that the East Anglia e-mails showed absolutely no evidence of any willful wrongdoing
I may be getting this mixed up with a separate scandal as I'm not sure about the emails (as I didn't read those from that occasion) as I'm mostly aware with the data editing that occurred regarding research conducted in Russia. And due having gone over many of those charts at the time I got to see what kind of bullshit they were doing.

This was nearly a decade ago so my memory is a bit fuzzy on details.

But main issue these days is a lack of scientists involved in "climate science".

>>127996492
Interesting how the rusky uses paleoclimatological data but then refuses to acknowledge the clear link between CO2 and temperature that the very same people who generated those data sets discuss in their papers.

Take the Vostok ice core, as an example:

https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v399/n6735/full/399429a0.html

"Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane correlate well with Antarctic air-temperature throughout the record. Present-day atmospheric burdens of these two important greenhouse gases seem to have been unprecedented during the past 420,000 years."

>>127996931
>There are many statistics showing no real change
like what?

I can't really respond to anything you say about any alleged scandal when you can't name any specifics

>>127994983

>B-BUT IT HAPPENED

your own laws of physics imply this isnt possible.

you cant create energy out of nothing.

Jesus fucking christ, /pol/. Even if provided all the evidence in the world you will keep on stating that the global warming is a lie because "muh globalists believe in it!"

You'd rather believe to a couple of paid off low level scientists instead of overwhelming evidence for no reason at all other than to challenge globalists even though everybody besides them also believe in it

>>127996752
OK, let's assume those predictions are accurate and not based on conjecture. Prove that it has anything to do with Humans, and that changing what we do will prevent it.

>>127980202
You are a dumbass and have no idea how things work. You do realize that states havr their oen environment departments??? The EPA is a redundancy and lacks congressional oversight. The only thing the EPA should be doing is providing info to congress and the states.

>>127997167
the relationship between CO2 and temperature is a bit more tricky and complicated than a straightforward "CO2 did all this", but you're right that there is an evident link between CO2 and temperature during the geologic record

>>127997167
And what your studies don't prove is that CO2 levels are the cause, and not a correlation.

>>127996487
Jesus Christ are you retarded? You didn't even address the points.

People are shilling muh climate change or global warming or whatever the new meme term is so they can push green energy and make billions of dollars in a new market. And retards like you are how they're going to get away with it.

You're so fucking concerned about the environment, you fund the research and grants, stop being a commie fuck and forcing everyone else to. Since the science is so water tight and the arguments are settled, you should have no problems throwing money at it.

File: Nye_the_nonscience_guy.jpg (47KB, 640x632px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 640x632px

>>127996492
>How about a REAL scale
Nice pic, watch for Bill Nye waiting to hand you a summons to the climate inquisition
> end of this plot there is an overlay of the projections to 2100
And how did they predict that exactly? The computer models do not work, in fact from my experience (8 years) writing software that models turbulent flow in fluidized bed reactors, I can say with great confidence modeling the global climate (chaotic system) and getting anything other than an expensive guess, is impossible at this time.

>>127997263
You can't which is why it's stupid, if we wanted to reverse the co2 emissions we would have had too 30 years ago

Whoops!

It's okay though it will actually make many millions of acres in North America and russianavailable for human habitation

>>127977964

Because they can't fathom that the world doesn't revolve around them and their choices. Even if we contributed more then 2% to the total effects of global climate change we could not cause any serious change in the time frame. Whether we drown in 2160 or 2260 is irrelevant. We still drown. We should be working towards making the change survivable through technology.

Climate change deniers and claimers stand in front of a charging bull and try and figure out how to slow him down instead of just moving the fuck out of his way. The climate will change, it's a given as it is the natural cycle of the earth. Whether it happens 100 years earlier is irrelevant. We need solutions to coping with it after the change not slowing it down.

>>127979653
>innacurate measurements dating back to 1880 whoch probably werent even correctly made.
Co2 does jack shit, its a weak greenhouse gas. Water vapor is a better greenhouse gas than co2.

>>127996752
>end of this plot there is an overlay of the projections to 2100
And how did they predict that exactly? The computer models do not work, in fact from my experience (8 years) writing software that models turbulent flow in fluidized bed reactors, I can say with great confidence modeling the global climate (chaotic system) and getting anything other than an expensive guess, is impossible at this time.

>>127995129
>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle
If I understand this: If I were to make the claim that eating pancakes causes ice-ages, then we need to ban them until someone scientifically proves that they don't?
>I have a PhD in Pancakeology so I'm an expert in the field.

>>127997172
Wasn't it recently proven that energy did indeed come out of nothing?

https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/a-mathematical-proof-that-the-universe-could-have-formed-spontaneously-from-nothing-ed7ed0f304a3>>127997238

>>127997422
You didn't read it dufus.

>>127978138
I am in a stem field " food science and industrial tech" and from what I've seen climate change is pretty convincing. Only done organic chem 2.

>please search what a flavor chemist is and makes before ya make a retard out of yourself.

>>127997263
>what is co2

>>127995129
total faggotry
this is just code for precious snowflake being afraid of trying anything
fuck that shit

>>127978086
>Why look into the details when it confirms your world view so nicely?

I looked into the details. Climate change will benefit Canada and Russia, and send a billion refugees fleeing from Africa.

Really activated my almonds.

You guys are larping, right? There's no way you guys are actually denying climate change, r-right?

>>127997263
Even if we do not assume the predictions are accurate, and just take the data as a given, are you really going to try and argue that such a rapid rise in temperature over such a short period of time is purely coincidental? That it has nothing at all to do with the 30 or so gigatons of CO2 humans emit every year? That releasing large quantities of a gas which is well known to absorb infrared radiation will have no impact on the temperature of the planet?

You really want to argue that is purely coincidental?

>>127997172

Actually, the laws of physics as we understand them do not say whether or not it is impossible because they break down before you reach the initial point of the big bang. You really have no clue, do you? Take a science class bro.

>>127991700
Climate change isn't what's being debated. It's whether or not it's caused by humans and if we should do anything about it.

>>127997693
Refugees welcome, am i right bro?

>>127997758
It probably started as irony, but since this place is an idiots magnet they probaby bought into it just like flat earthers

>>127997675
A gas that has existed since before the earth was created.

>>127997849
fuck off, we're full
their problem for choosing to live in unhospitable shitholes, and never having done the slightest shit against it on top of it

>>127997773

so you have a theory, but no proof

got it

just like global warming!

>>127997422
>that picture
Global warming causes rapid shifts in temperature. Here we only have +8c today despite it being june.
These weird hot to cold summers and springs have been going on for at least 7 years now and it's due to the gulf stream weakening thanks to the climate change

File: shills say it isn't caused by humans.gif (21KB, 700x453px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 700x453px

>>127997862

>>127997974
But fuck precaution?

what if I told you climate is ALWAYS changing, regardless of what we do?

>>127979862

>Global temperature went down

Holy shit you're a fucking retard

>prove this isnt natural climate change

The fact that it has never happened before is your first clue

File: IMG_2519.png (65KB, 380x276px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 380x276px

>>127997862
A gas which is reaching all time high concentration levels within the atmosphere, coincidentally when we started mass producing in industry

>>127997375
What evidence do you want? Do you want evidence that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation and traps heat? Would you like direct measurements on the Earth's energy balance changing due to increased GHG emissions?

>>127977964
Until they change the name of the problem to overpopulation they need to shut the fuck up and quit crying.

>>127997500
do you think there is a difference between the conclusion climatologists have come to over the course of 100 years of study and a random thought you came up with 10 seconds ago?

>>127997758
Bruh these faggots will follow trump to the depths of the Congo, line up and merrily take it up the ass from a black hiv poz bull. All in the name of kekistan.

>>127987547
>conservatives are against statism
>put statism in the conservative catagory anyway to fudge the numbers
pls stop shitposting

>>127998038
>fuck precaution
fuck yeah.

if we can't overcome climate changes without lowering ourselves like fucking hippies, we're not worthy of being considered Humans anyway

>>127998071
Stop sending missionaries to Africa to preach against contraception.

>>127978091
>big business
http://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/big-business-urges-trump-stick-paris-climate-accord-n766641

>>127998047
I would answer that this doesn't justify humans undertaking one of the biggest geophysical experiments in the history of the planet

>>127998185
You don't seem to understand how many more Africans global warming will bring you.

File: trump-roman.jpg (188KB, 745x931px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 745x931px

>>127978091
>muh big business

implying the corporotacracy doesn't fully support the globalist left at this point

>>127998310
Yeah it's totally not like mass industry groups like oil companies profit from climate change denial
>muh ebil left
>muh bazzid jewpublicans

>>127997991
You are too retarded for me to explain big bang nucleosynthesis to, the reason why there is a ratio of 75% hydrogen and 25% helium in the universe (predicted by the big bang), or the cosmic microwave background (predicted by the big bang), or the large scale structure we observe in the universe (predicted by the big bang), or the observed cosmological redshifts we see for almost every single galaxy (predicted by the big bang).

But yeah bro, keep hammering the "just a theory" punchline. You clearly don't understand what a scientific theory is.

>>127998295
>implying they won't find another silly (((reason))) to try and come anyway
wandering niggers for one is an objective problem
we'd much better fix this actual one instead of chasing warmist unicorns

>>127997991
You're the one who seems to believe in nothing but your own brainlet head.

Anon provided enough evidence as it is and instead you, backed by almost no viable theories, have the burden of proof

File: good goy.jpg (46KB, 600x337px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 600x337px

>>127998310
>>127998295

Yes goy, trust no one expect god.

Climate change is good.

Africans will stay in their scorched wasteland.

>>127998505

>1 degree farenheit over 120 years

WE ARE DOOMED!

>>127998014
fyi the recent slowdown in the circulation was most likely caused by a negatively phased North Atlantic Oscillation
climatologists mostly think a shutdown is very unlikely because in the past it was associated with the drainage of huge periglacial lakes in North America

>>127997402
Since you can't argue from a scientific stand point you try and go by a round-about conspiracy way. Got it.

>>127977964
>climate change
I applaud your choice of terms with "change" you never would be wrong and science always would be settled.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_861us8D9M

>>127997773
Yes, I am going to argue that. Because when you look at the grand scale of things and don't cherry pick bullshit data, you realize that we have no clue how all this shit works. Think for yourself. Look at it from a holistic perspective. Take the fucking sun into consideration ffs. Realize that we don't have accurate temperature scales that are as granular as what we have now going very far back at all. Do you know for sure whether there was a similar temperature spike a few centuries ago? 500 years ago? No, you don't. You have an infinitesimal data set.

We don't have the data to prove this shit. Be a real scientist and observe. Don't predict based on bullshit data.

>>127991700
The average temperature has been increasing since the apex of the ice age we are still currently coming out of you fucking retard

>>127998310
He actually thinks all of the globalists are on the same page and not competing against one another in a grand chess game for power.

>>127998038
Correlation and causation are not the same thing. And your data set is infinitesimal.

>>127977964
because celebrities tell them to. liberals are the zombie population of the government mind control program.

>>127998185
>we're not worthy humans
You seem to have a rather twisted image of humanity in your ego centered little head.

>hurrr let's not take precautions because then I'd have to look like a hippie
>the whole world can suffer as long as I don't make a fool out of myself

>>127979653
Planet is at least 6,000 years old according to the most retarded sources. Non-retarded sources say it's 4.5 Billion years old. Modern humans are believed to be 200,000 years old
You go back to 1880

Man some of you anons sure think highly of your personal knowledge of climate study. I can promise you that despite what you think you know, you look very stupid in the eyes of people who are actually qualified to comment on the topic (not me, but it doesn't take a scientist to spot an gullible idiot on the internet).

>Show me the evidence see no evidence
>I'll bet thousands of scientists around the world are paid off by big guberment conspiracy I tells ya!
>Muh agenda

All of these arguments are copouts for somebody who has their own anti-agenda. It's obvious you simply DO NOT WANT TO BELIEVE ITS TRUE. You will make idiotic rationalizations that in other situations you would call stupid. You will tell yourself that its false because of evidence you pull out of your ass (conspiracy) even after complaining about how the evidence obtained by climate scientists cannot be trusted This circular reasoning is why you are here bitching and moaning about it on /pol/ rather than practicing an actual science. Now you will say "but the liberal schools will brainwash their students, that's why you cant trust scientists!" In the highly likelihood of a total lack of evidence on this matter and an unflinching belief in it's authenticity (like most retarded shit on /pol/), you will continue to believe that you cant trust anyone, even though you unequivocally trust anyone that says something you find agreeable. You are literally as stupid as the liberals you give the same title. I'll bet you rarely question yourself though. "Am I forgetting something about this topic? Do I really understand what I'm talking about? Am I even qualified to spot false evidence?" Methinks these questions have never crossed your mind. The first thing to come onto your screen that seems correct automatically becomes fact in your head. And when you hang out in an echo chamber like /pol/ too much, eventually all you know will be bullshit.

>>127998765
it's so easy isn't it? Just disregard everything we know about CO2's properties and what effects increases in CO2 concentration had in the past and instead throw your hands in the air and say "we don't know"

>>127998877
Humans always rise
not that it concerns you, fingolian monkey

>>127977964
(checks Flag)
Enjoy your mudslime Cuckanada

>>127998802
see this temperature reconstruction >>127995846

the hypsithermal was thousands of years ago, it's amateur climatology of the worst kind to suggest the current temperature rise is just natural deglaciation as part of the 100kyr cycle

>>127998590
>20 times faster climate change than during the end of the ice age
Yeah it's nothing and definitely not caused by humans

>>127998765
Argument from personal incredulity.

>Take the fucking sun into consideration ffs

There is no appreciable increase in solar flux since the 70's. The way the atmosphere warms will differ depending on what is causing the warming. If the sun were causing the warming then you should see an increase in both the lower and upper atmosphere. If it is increased forcing from greenhouse gases then we should see the lower atmosphere warm while the stratosphere cools. We observe the latter.

> Realize that we don't have accurate temperature scales that are as granular as what we have now going very far back at all.

Actually we have records going back several hundred million years. When the temperature was high, so was the greenhouse gas content.

> Do you know for sure whether there was a similar temperature spike a few centuries ago? 500 years ago? No, you don't. You have an infinitesimal data set.

Actually, we would know, as it would be apparent in the paleoclimate record. There is nothing there to suggest a sudden spike.

>>127991700
>Since (((we))) measure it
Oh you mean the cherry picked data paid for by groups with an interest in perpetuating this hoax? You do realize that over the last 4.5 billion years the earths atmosphere and temperatures have not been static? If the media was around 15 thousand years ago they'd be whining about how we need to do our part to end the ice age.

>>127999053
No. But don't predict the end of the world based on it. Observe. Record. Learn.
Oh and
>effects increases in CO2 concentration had in the past
Is my biggest problem with this shit. Correlation and causality are not the same thing.

ask yourselves this

if this deal is so important why is china always covered in disgusting smog?

do you even realize the paris deal is worthless?

>>127979122
>The evidence for rapid climate change is compelling:
>Sea level rise
>Global temperature rise
>Warming oceans
>Shrinking ice sheets
>Declining Arctic sea ice
>Glacial retreat
>Extreme events
>Ocean acidification
>Decreased snow cover

Sea level has "risen" by, at most, a couple millimeters.
Global temperature "rise" has been vastly less than you morons told us it would rise. It has remained basically flat since you and your fat-ass Al Gore waddled out and told us the sky was falling. (See CMIP5 vs reality.)
You told us Antarctica would lose all its ice, but instead it has gained.
You told us the Arctic would be ice-free by 2013, then 2016.
You told us the glaciers would be gone by now.
You told us there would be "more extreme weather," but there is ZERO evidence for this.
You blame shit like wars and earthquakes on global warming—oops, I mean "climate change."
Your side has been caught REPEATEDLY altering data, intimidating scientists, and interfering in peer-review.

In short, you are completely full of shit, faggot. There is no such thing as anthropogenic climate change. It's just one more bullshit globalist scheme while all your big name hacks fly around in their private jets, live in their giant mansions, and laugh at your stupid ass for being a gullible and easily misled.

The climate record shows clearly that the average temperature has been vastly hotter than it is now in recent periods despite no technology—and the world did not end, you dumb bitch.

>>127999337
Exonn Mobil scientist first to notice trend. Im gonna guess you aren't a scientist ?

>>127998485
>predicted by the big bang

Whats the big bang again?

Oh thats right, a theory

For a lot of bashing on global warming not being a theory all your evidence is backed by theories and not proof.

>>127999069
>humans always rise
>so let's not take any precautions because our species will survive anyway, no matter how battered a world the future generations will have to live in
Are you a masochist?

>>127999351
CO2 absorbs infrared radiation and thus traps escaping infrared radiation. That's a fact. There's your casual link.

>>127999309
>There is nothing there to suggest a sudden spike
Which means we don't know. Look into how these records are created and get back to me. And take what I've said into consideration. Don't go into it with ego. Think about it.

>>127999550
I take it you have absolutely no education in science beyond what you might have done in middle school.

>>127999593
nope, a sadist actually
not that it is in anyway related to this discussion

Humans worthy of this name indeed always rise
ie their situation only gets better and better, whichever the adversities

if the only way out of climate changes is turning into worthless roaches, you can stuff your (((solutions))) up your fingolian flat ass

>>127999351
"correlation doesn't equal causation" would be a valid point if the entire argument for the effect of CO2 were nothing but how temperature and pCO2 go together. But as you should know, there is also a very clear and measurable link between CO2 concentration and atmospheric temperature, which has been known for quite a while now

>>127999550
Do you still not understand what a scientific theory is? Big bang theory has a lot of data backing it

>>127978086
this x14

>>127999934

yeah and theres data in the bible showing there was a guy named jesus

I guess that proves the creation story!

>>127999649
> No evidence for a spike
> therefore we don't know if there was a spike or not

Are you actually that retarded? Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence unless you expect there to be evidence of the event. If there is no evidence of the event then that is positive evidence that the said event did not occur.

> Think about it.

I'm a scientist actually, I do a lot of thinking as it is. I've strolled through the scientific literature on climate change. You clearly have very little grasp on the topic if you don't even understand why solar forcing has been ruled out. I think I'd be better off without your advice, thanks.

File: eloncuck.png (216KB, 868x389px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 868x389px

>>127980715
To be fair, we did elect Trudeau going by that logic.
I am finishing up my electrical engineering degree and for the final exam of my Law and Ethics class for Engineers, there was a section about environmentalism, how we need to be ethical in choosing the company we work for if it destroys the environment. The environmentalism lobby reach is very far.
>>127980266
To the German anon, go out and do your own research, take a statistics course, follow the money trail to see where your news come from. Elon Musk says the only way to save the environment is to build more electric cars, so he gets gibs to build massively inefficient
expensive cars that a few people can actually afford. There are better options in terms of car purchasing one can do to be better for the environment, buying used car almost negates any advantage a new Telsa has(gotta mine all the materials for the batteries)

>>127999795
Insult instead of argue. The mark of someone who has no argument

>>127999439
who is "you" in all of this?
because it sure as hell isn't climate scientists

>>127999924
But it obviously is related to the discussion because you're projecting your own retarded world view as an argument instead of thinking logically

Have one more (you). After that I'm going to stop if you don't actually start providing good arguments

>>127999934
>scientific theory
>theory
You said it yourself sweetie

you people speak as if trump not signing onto this deal will mean the apocalypse

wake the fuck up

People are more secular these days, and the ruling elite need something more than just religion to control people's minds.

>>128000333
When you spout something so ignorant it really deserves nothing more than a smart ass remark.

>>128000109
Except scientific theories come into practise after vigorous testing and objective analyzation. Meanwhile you're ignoring everything people are saying to you because you're too damn thick to open your mind up just a bit

>>127998692
FACT: companies and people stand to make a very large profit off of green energy and all the other "solutions" to the problem of climate change. This isn't a tinfoil hat conspiracy theory. Look at all the money they're making right now, as we speak. This isn't some crazy man's theory. Don't know why you thought I was some crazy guy when I typed that.

>>128000476
Scientific theory is something that has loads of data backing it up. It's not the same as a typical /x/ theory about ghosts and poltergeists as an example because it's not subjective

File: IMG_0318.jpg (86KB, 889x594px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 889x594px

>>128000571
>what is ad hominem?

>>127987547
Conservatism is a meme. All studies of party affiliation shows typical right wing parties having higher IQ. I guess you could say that the vague strawman of "conservatism" is stupid, but it doesn't mean anything for right wing parties.

>>128001005
FACT: companies and people stand to LOSE a very large profit off of fossil fuels and all of the other causes to the problem of climate change. This isn't tinfoil hat conspiracy theory. Look at all the money they're making right now, as we speak. This isn't some crazy man's theory.

>>128001005
>FACT: Oil companies and people stand to make a very large profit off of brown energy and all the other "causes" of climate change. This isn't a tinfoil hat conspiracy theory. Look at all the money they're making right now, as we speak. This isn't some crazy man's theory. Don't know why you thought I was some crazy guy when I typed that.

>>128001005
>This isn't some crazy man's theory
what IS crazy however is the suggestion that climate scientists in the 19th century would gather together to create (over the coming 100 years) an internally consistent scientific theory, fake billions of data points and involve thousands of people in the biggest conspiracy ever to tell a story that stands 180° to reality - all to give somewhat of a boost to photovoltaics and wind energy

>>127977964
Poor Donald, he thought he was teaching him, he didn't realize they knew and were just trying to fuck the system up anyway becuase they're mostly controlled traitors.

>>128001154
I know what an ad hominem is. But you didn't present coherent argument. You literally do not understand what a scientific theory is. Your own ignorance isn't an argument. No more from you.

>>128001244
>>128001191
Hivemind confirmed.

>>128001338
I disputed that you cant prove a theory with another theory. You cant provide a counter point so all you can do is insult.

>herr derr im smarter than you and wont argue with ur point cuz its stupid to me

But you know what it's my fault too. I shouldve checked the flag and realize that your argument was bait from the start.

>>127999934
This is a terrible example. The Big Bang is an interesting model and not "settled science" by any means (well, still 1000x more than anthropic global warming, and there is no such thing as settled science).

File: aus_america.png (393KB, 606x608px) Image search: [Google]

393KB, 606x608px

>>128001453
I got you bro

>>127979653
Pure Coincidence.

>Correlation doesn't equal causation

But we have enough data to know that CO2 is causing current warming.

The major causes of past warming have been

>Solar activity
>Milankovitch cycles
>Green House Gases

Solar activity - steady for decades
Milankovitch - takes 1000's of years to have an impact
GHG - pumped into the atmosphere since 1800's

>>127978091
SPBP

>>128001577
The big bang theory is backed up by observational evidence and I literally listed a bunch of it in the post you first replied to. OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE, not theories, retard.

>>128001599
what other "interesting models" is the Big Bang competing with?

File: terrifying-shelfcloud-moscow.jpg (62KB, 807x503px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 807x503px

Why is the Earth dying? Don't you think we should do something?

>>128001599
Ah, as an astrophysicist I can tell you, depending on your definition of big bang, that it is settled science. It happened. The debate lies over what happened before the first billionth of a second or so.

>>128001892
Competition is not here the main issue. Would you trust, for a technological project, what comes out of a given model like you would the Maxwell equations?

>>128001889
>big bang theory
>bang theory
>theory

You said it yourself sweetie

Answer me this: is the big bang settled science and absolute fact, or a theory?

>>128002408
is your name Kent Hovind by any chance?

>>128002492
No, but i do protest taxes though

>>128002408
Yes, it is a scientific theory, which means that it has been verified by observational evidence and makes testable, observed predictions. The layman version of the word "theory" more closely matches a hypothesis than a scientific theory.

> is the big bang settled science and absolute fact, or a theory?
It is settled science, it is an absolute fact, and it is a scientific theory, just like evolution, plate tectonics, germ theory, atomic theory, electromagnetism, blah blah blah

Troll more pls.

>>128002404
then let me re-phrase my question: what other explanations are seriously being considered by physicists about the origin of the universe?

>>128001914
Lol the Earth isn't in trouble. WE ARE.

>>128002807
>settled science

no, such thing...even tho we come close to the truth

>>127978557

Funny. I remember some winters being very strong and lots of snow and then some winters not so bad or mild. Kind of like it is now.

Now years later I moved back to where I was when young and the winters appear mostly the same.

Strange how things can change year to year but overall be mostly the same.

>>128002989
The fact that the big bang occurred is settled science. How exactly it came about is not known. Not too difficult to understand.

File: 1495932725399.jpg (23KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 400x400px

>>127999550
Go back to molesting children, bible thumper. Leave the science to the big boys.

>origsamole

>>127980346
>Liberals like unsolvable problems
Even worse, they tend to exacerbate them. Look at the trainwreck they made of race relations.