Climate change

>>128290121
Kill yourself

>>128290239
Good job voting a legit retard into the worlds most powerful office friendo

>>128290121
>appeal to authority
Kys kraut

File: 1478755257673.jpg (72KB, 800x532px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 800x532px

TRUMP WILL NEVER WIN IN IOWA!!!!!

>>128290121
>Send out survey to scientists on global warming
>Get the information back and weed out people that disagree with you from the study
>Look guize 97% of scientists agree

>>128290121
the first ~10 or so minutes of this suck because it's just anecdotal shit that barely makes sense, but after that it gets interesting when he goes into detail about the falsification of major data sets

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gh-DNNIUjKU

File: 1495547873836.jpg (26KB, 411x412px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 411x412px

>>128290625
>hurr durrr me, someone who has no clue on the subject, knows better

You don't know better than people who have studied this stuff ALL THEIR FUCKING LIVES, just because you read some sceptics blog doesn't mean shit retard.

Give me one (1) reason why you rather believe some nutty sceptics than the scientific consensus

>>128290121
Who cares what the causes are? Everyone should realise that efforts towards cleaning our cities and protecting the environment are benificial to everyone.

>>128290121
It is real, but not the most important thing right now.

Oy vey!! The carbon!!
Instead of planting trees and protecting wild places, just shut down your entire manufacturing sector and outsource it to China (who totally doesn't pollute!!) Import millions of third worlders into your countries so they can destroy your natural places and breed like rats (because "racial justice" is a form of environmentalism, goy.) Make unilateral concessions to the advantage of third world shitholes filled with military ambition! It's the Kosher thing to do. Remember - it's not real environmentalism unless it negatively impacts the white working class.

Scientist are just people

They do not get some divine shit from above and always know the truth

Often they are wrong.

And more importantly everyone is biased. Scientist who don't support climate change likely lose funding. You really think they just have truth on their mind

Maybe in centuries we will look at Trump like we look at Columbus
The only one who knew the Earth was round and everyone around him was stupid thinking it was flat.

File: 1ninetymileslkLrd1tfpkqdo1_1280[1].jpg (62KB, 720x679px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 720x679px

>>128290121
>this lie has been debunked but if we keep lying about it maybe the goyim just won't know

How many carbon credits will it take to offset all you lying kikes being stuffed into an oven?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong

>>128291219
>Maybe in centuries we will look at Trump like we look at Columbus
>The only one who knew the Earth was round and everyone around him was stupid thinking it was flat.

It was already a widely accepted conensus back then, what a shitty fucking anology.

>>128291018
The climate "scientists" have been wrong so many fucking times. Every prediction they have made has been wrong, ever since the 1970s. Scientists have become the new priest class, to disagree with them is heresy

>>128291498
Always archive. Thank you.

>https://forbes com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong
https://archive.is/dxQgv

1. The paris agreement would not fix it, and consensus or lack therof over the science is not why we pulled out

2. The evidence that recent warming is due to atmospheric chemistry is sketchy. The earth should be much hotter now if it were the case. While the greenhouse gas effect is absolutely real, its magnitide is unknown

3. Even if recent warming is due entire to atmospheric chemistry, lots of people just don't give a fuck. Lots of places have become more livable, not less, and agricultural output will dramatically increase in colder regions. CO2 reaching toxic levels would be required before the temperature caused a serious problem

>>128291219
go back to the donald jesus christ

File: Horse.gif (2MB, 175x152px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 175x152px

>>128290121
We need to argue for a separation of Science and Appeals to Authority. That caliber of dogmatism is blatantly anti-science. The worst of the Christian Luddites in the late 90's and 00's could never have imagined doing this much damage to the Scientific Method.

>>128291153
>muh china boogeyman
>muh jews

>>128291670
give me a source how "every" prediction was wrong

>>128290121
if 99 people said that earth is flat and one said it isn't, which one would you believe?

>>128292435
The evidence.

>>128290121

>97%, agree that it is caused by man. If you went to 100 doctors and 97 told you that you need a live saving brain surgery or else you die

But that's not what the 97% agreement pertains to.

Its more like 97% of doctors agree you have cancer, but they don't agree on what type you have, how long you have to live, and what sort of treatment plan should be pursued.

consensus doesn't mean jack shit you autistic kraut faggot kill yourself

>>128291018
The climate scientists would probably lose their jobs if there wasn't a cause for alarm.

>>128292300
man some people here are really ill, you anon are one of them. its important to separate the average user from someone whom is suffering mental illness.

You're right I'd probably get the surgery. I think medicine is also much less politicized than climate science, by its very nature. Don't you at least find it interesting that 3% of climate scientists aren't part of the consensus ? Wouldn't you like to at least hear what they have to say ?

>>128291908
You are retarded

File: proofs.jpg (15KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 250x250px

>>128290121
>The great majority of scientists, 97%, agree that it is caused by man

>>128290121
Blah blah blah polls, blah blah blah popular opinion.

>The HuffPost presidential forecast model gives Democrat Hillary Clinton a 98.2 percent chance of winning the presidency. Republican Donald Trump has essentially no path to an Electoral College victory.
>98.2%

Clinton’s win will be substantial, but not overwhelming. The model projects that she’ll garner 323 electoral votes to Trump’s 215.
>323

>Scientific Polling

Sound familiar ? When you control the media, you make science say what you want it to.

>>128293038

Not an argument

File: image.png (11KB, 495x460px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 495x460px

>>128290121
>97%
umm no sweetie

>>128292346
When you sheeple bri g up climate change, %80 of the time you are conflaiting 3 separate asserions.
1: climate is changing
>true although not at an extreme rate
2: Humans cause climate change
>not proven at all. Correlation is not causation. models based on CO2 levels have grossly over predicted trends.
3: slight heating and CO2 increase would be catastrophic.
>made up and not true. Grow more food at higher latitudes, warmer weather is nice.

>>128293093
Did you make it past the fifth grade faggot?

>>128293161
I know. I'm just stating a fact

>>128293241
Blah blah blah Ad Hominem because I have nothing.

>>128293030

And also the consensus is that the Earth is primarily getting hotter as the result of human activity. What about the consequences and how bad they are ? Is there a consensus on that ?

Inb4 muh polar bears and muh Marshall Islands

>>128291018
Study the history of the earth's climate, nigger.

Human action probably contributes some of the change in climate but how much it does is up in the air. We cannot fully control the climate, it will change no matter what we do.

Do you think you can stop Africa and China shitting everything up? US and Europe produce fractions of the amount those shitholes do. The cost of switching the entire world to more 'sustainable' energy would be astronomical, and then the climate still will change because guess what? The amount we affect the climate is not that significant. Saged.

>>128290121
>go to 3000 doctors
>97 tell you you need surgery
>3 say you're fine
>the rest tell you to fuck off and stop wasting their time

>>128290121
>He doesn't understand how climate "scientists" are set up and work

Climate Change is very real, even the retards here know it they just suckle up to their retard papa too much to actually admit that he (and them) are complete mouthbreathers

File: WkAHGgG.gif (2MB, 576x238px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 576x238px

>>128290121
youre missing the central point.

perhaps man is responsible for this nearsighted rise in climate temperatures as is supported by science. no argument with that correlation.

the objection is to the solution. there is no evidence to suggest there is anything man can do to reverse the increased climate temperatures. and there is no convincing evidence to influence rational minds to jump on board with a "solution." it's all ooga booga green pussy bullshit.

>>128293346
You, only good leaf

>>128291018
>scientific consensus

yeah, except when the NOAA fucks with the data it ceases to be scientific fact.

Frankly, the main reason more scientists aren't speaking out about it is that their jobs are potentially on the line thanks to people like you believing that this is some sort of consensus or fact.

I wouldn't expect a german like you to understand the need for skepticsm though- it prevents shit like dictators rising to power from occurring

>>128293030
There's no such thing as a climate scientist, the climate is a complex thing.

>>128293474
If the planet warms it will mean we can grow crops in places we couldn't before, the displacement wouldn't be immediate or large enough to offset this alone.

Also the planet doesn't warm uniformly, rather the poles tend to get warmer than at the equator, meaning this will primarily affect places we cannot currently grow a lot of crops like Canada and Russia.

File: Beringia_land_bridge-noaagov.gif (367KB, 700x458px) Image search: [Google]

367KB, 700x458px

>>128293474
20,000 Years ago Natives crossed the bering straits because sea levels were 500m lower.

You fucking retards think it was because of industry ?

20,000 years is the blink of an eye in terms of the age of the planet.

>>128290121
1. If they were all being paid millions upon millions of dollars to tell me that, I'd be skeptical.

2. If most of the 97% weren't neurosurgeons I also would be skeptical.

File: IMG_0012.jpg (118KB, 800x531px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 800x531px

>>128291018
Daily Remind

>>128294148
>Global warming will cause fewer hurricanes
>Anyone ever said this

Daily Remind you're a retard

its always germcucks, they're the only real millenials on pol, they all believe what obama told them desu

The great majority thought Hillary would win too. Mass agreement doesn't equal truth.

>>128290121
anyone pushing the "muh 97%" is a shill - that's been debunked many times

>sunny days
>rainy days
>muh climate change
I deny man-made global warming

>>128294287
literally took google less than a second to show you are a dumbass

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/global-warming-is-causing-more-hurricanes-8212584.html

>>128294580
Arkivert

>http://independent co uk/environment/climate-change/global-warming-is-causing-more-hurricanes-8212584.html
https://archive.is/HRYr3

File: Ariana Boomba.jpg (67KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 1280x720px

Please tell me you're trolling and not this ignorant.

But just in case, I'll bite...
1. Science is not about consensus. It is about facts. Trying to get scientists to arrive at a common consensus is antithetical to what scientists do. The consensus thing is pure propaganda. Just one sample (work the google and you'll find so many articles and reports of how this "consensus" has been debunked)...
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425232/climate-change-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle

2. The "science is finished" tagline is utter bullshit. This is an even deeper level of ignorance and propaganda. When you're talking about climate, which is a problem of huge, slow moving data with a tremendous amount of variables, the science is never finished.

3. "Global warming" was re-branded to "climate change" when the results of all of the models failed to reach the doomsday apocalypse levels climate "scientists" predicted. Subtle, but another effective propaganda technique on useful idiots.

4. The climate gate email leak scandal from 2009 has been quietly swept under the rug. Remember that many so-called scientists were busted for massaging data and pushing agendas to further fuel the global warming hysteria.

But our scientists are pure and good, right?
Our politicians and business leaders are looking out for the interests of our citizens and mother earth, right?

I don't know what's more disgusting; that so many people are naive and ignorant to have swallowed the hysterics hook-line-and-sinker or that powerful figures and the "scientific" community have worked so hard at building one of the most powerful propaganda engines in recorded history.

Grow the fuck up.

>>128294287
Global warming means fewer—but more powerful—hurricanes

https://arstechnica.com/science/2015/05/global-warming-means-fewer-but-more-powerful-hurricanes/

You were saying retard ?

>>128291153

What legitimate downside is there to outsourcing production to China? We get cheaper shit without polluting our country
and millions of slants get poisoned, so it's a win-win

File: tmp_10667-1496385004675-978445960.png (108KB, 1440x1080px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 1440x1080px

whoops, 99% of climate temperature models are wrong

but let's go ahead and destroy Western economies only, while letting the biggest polluters (China and India) keep polluting

>>128290121
tTHE ONLY RETARDS IN THE WORLD WHO DESBELIEF CLIMATE CHANGE ARE THE SHEEP FROM USA BUT THEY ALSO BELIEVE THAT THEY ARE GOING TO WAR IN SYRIA . AFGHANISTAN IRAQ LIBYA TO LIBERATE THE PEOPLE SO....

>>128290121
where did people get that 97% from. got any source on that?

File: 1495781204095.png (174KB, 614x641px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 614x641px

>>128290121
Of course climate change exists, climate changes every day.

>>128290121
> BUT THE POLITICIANS SAID IT WAS GOING TO FIX THE CLIMATE'S BOO BOO AND NOW KRONALD BRAMPF IS DESTROYING THE WORLD

Yeah... because the Paris agreement was *totally* about saving the world rather than being a really fucking huge money grab if you actually sat down and took in the details of what it was going to 'fix'.

If the average person did their part on an individual level we would already be more effective than the "100 trillion dollar to delay warming by 8 months over 100 years" meme agreement. But that idea is well above and beyond you isn't it? Actually doing something to fix the problem and not having a massive cry. Nothing is more pathetic than some eurocuck sucking the dick of authority for the sake of it and not questioning anything. The U.S isn't going to be the ATM of Eurodindustan anymore. Too bad. It's not like this shit even matters for you guys anyway, the native populations of your continent are probably going to be violently genocided by Islam within the next few generations desu senpai. Good riddance.

>>128290121

>appeal to authority instead of evidence

File: IMG_20170516_211315.jpg (49KB, 799x663px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 799x663px

>>128293293
Classic leaf

Germans don't understand anything.

>>128290121
"Scientists" have literally zero liability for being wrong, and every financial and political motivation to lie.

By contrast, the doctor gets his license revoked and sued into oblivion for forcing an unnecessary treatment for you.

Better question: When using lefties' OWN MODELS OF PREDICTION, even if all of the western countries had their carbon emissions at zero tomorrow, it literally wouldn't matter with how China, Africa, and India pump out CO2. Why is it only white people's job to save the world from the crappy decisions of nonwhites?

File: 1495471728232.jpg (104KB, 300x352px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 300x352px

>>128292682
Penis!

>>128294746
you lose millions of jobs and you lose a manufacturing capability that is strategically important

protip: before all the jobs were outsourced, the cost of goods was still reasonable - you're not gaining much by throwing away entire industries only to save a couple of bucks

>>128290121
Look up global greening
>research global greening
Look up global greening
>research global greening

>>128290121
>inb4 china
>ctrl+F "China"
>7 results
notice how americans can't make an argument without using China as their scapegoat

most burgers on this board are rural and suburban retards

>>128295037
Being correct is pretty big financial and political motivation.

>>128291018
nice argument you blithering faggot

File: China destroying Amerikeks.jpg (450KB, 1534x1000px) Image search: [Google]

450KB, 1534x1000px

>>128295282
American inferiority complex confirmed?

File: Pyramidz.jpg (159KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 1000x667px

>>128290121

Climate is always Changing. Humans haven't made any impacts on the Cycles.

Geo-Engineering/Warfare is "Man Made Climate Change".

The CC Agenda is connected to Agenda 21/24 & is used to de-industrialize & de-populate places.

http://archive.4plebs.org/_/search/subject/knowledge%20bomb/username/anonymous5/tripcode/%21%219O2tecpDHQ6/

File: 1496440326876.jpg (30KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 600x600px

>>128295282
the burgers have been real ass blasted eversince drumpf pulled out of the paris treaty, attacking literally anyone with an eu flag

lmao

>>128295251
>Global Greening by actual climate scientists
Greening of the Earth and its drivers

Overall, climate change has dominant contributions to the greening trend over 28.4% of the global vegetated area(Fig. 3c,d). Positive effects of climate change in the northern high latitudes and the Tibetan Plateau are attributed to rising temperature, which enhances photosynthesis and lengthens the growing season, whereas the greening of the Sahel and South Africa are primarily driven by increasing precipitation
(Supplementary Fig. 13). South America is the only continent where negative climate effects were statistically significant
(Supplementary Figs 10 and 11b). This is particularly important owing to the role of the Amazon forests in the global carbon cycle 19,20
. Ecosystem models may tend to overestimate the responses of vegetation growth to precipitation 12 (Supplementary Section 10), which is one of the reasons why the fate of the Amazon forests continues to be debated.

http://archive.is/fQqv1

>climate change has dominant contributions to the greening trend over 28.4% of the global vegetated are

>>128295251
Ya, who cares if this will make 100s millions humans and animals suffer. Plants will prosper.

File: IMG_0369.jpg (222KB, 960x712px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 960x712px

>>128290121
>The master of lies
>The master of lies
>The master of lies

You Germans said it best back when you were red-pilled

>>128295282

>smogposting

>>128290437
>>128291018

youre arguing with ideologues that are so blinded by their own that even entertaining criticism is something that is beyond them.

your attempts here are appreciated, but will mostly fall on deaf ears. thanks anyways.

Doctors are wrong 69% on the initial diagnosis. But I bet you Germans believe them 100% of the time.

http://www.alternet.org/story/88515/the_startling_truth_about_doctors_and_diagnostic_errors/

>>128295556
Here's the archive

>http://alternet org/story/88515/the_startling_truth_about_doctors_and_diagnostic_errors
https://archive.is/GNxYg

>>128295480
https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3004.epdf?referrer_access_token=mmOVmpNNLvJnq1h8bkU7-9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0OYJHZxvEebXSMq9zMi6Q2vWe61M7QFieokWQcY1PQbxR4gAi8CQShwirX-GNMfMbB7JlnUTFMOkqRUD6C92ct5jwqJe4v6nhm8R7B81mKAzl98Ul_reSpOghIsPkiVnLNzNsiJ2E7ynCAVTN5Uhp7-RSh7O7QEjfI_yrYnDe9Svg%3D%3D&tracking_referrer=www.bbc.com

>Original source

>>128291622
Source one document that states the Earth was round from before Columbus

File: 1459249254364.png (10KB, 492x310px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 492x310px

>>128295484
>100s millions humans and animals suffer

>>128290121
>The great majority of scientists, 97%, agree that it is caused by man
Fake news
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html

who is trying to sell us the global carbon tax/credits system?

it's the MSM, it's Hollywood, it's the giant bilderberg corporations, it's the corrupt Rockefeller founded UN, and most importantly it's the big banks

that's enough for anyone to figure out that even if anthropogenic climate change were as dire as they claim, the solutions being offered are total shit (yet another tax on the people) and won't solve anything, other than handing control of our economies to criminal banks

>>128295372
Not at all. Lefty media's constantly and almost exclusively wrong -- Russia, smearing Trump for being "anti-gay, racist" etc. -- and make buckets of money doing it. "Scientists" are now asserting that gender isn't biological, even, and are making themselves and governments TONS more money, not to mention more control over populations.

So, no, you're incredibly wrong.

>>128295484
Yes, an abundant food supply and more habitable surface area will certainly be animals undoing.

File: IMG_0338.jpg (38KB, 320x354px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 320x354px

>>128290121
KYS you fucking sheep

>>128295648
You idiot they did not have records before Christopher Columbus.

>>128291018
>200 years of measuring temperatures on Earth. >Trying to use this to say something about a planet that is 4,6 billion years old

ITT ignorant shitheads hating our erath

>>128295448
Hey Frank, when is the next KB bro

File: costanzabaseball.jpg (24KB, 360x360px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 360x360px

>>128295974
What are books ?

>>128290121
>The great majority of kike-funded scientists, 97%, agree that it is caused by man.

>>128296130
The 97% fraud doesn't ask the question of whether it is man made or what contribution we are making.

97% believe the climate changes. I can buy that.

>>128290121
>The great majority of scientists, 97%, agree that it is caused by man
Fake news

only like 35% believe its caused by man, the vast majority of scientists haven't attributed it to a cause yet.

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

46KB, 424x470px

>Leftist non-stop push of (((Climate Change))) agenda
>Leftist ask how can people still #resist their agenda

The (((Climate Change))) agenda is basically yet another incarnation of the of the 'seize the means of production' communist theory. Enforce an artificial limitation in an effort to control a nations economic, industrial, and overall development. Also, there is no enforcement mechanism other than (((Globalist Governance))) by way of sanctions or military action. In other words, if you do not promise to obey our (((Climate Change))) agenda you will be punished by way of sanctions or ultimately military action.

(((Climate Change))) = Justification to put in place (((Global Governance))) aka (((One World Government)))

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".

Seriously, (((Climate Change))) is too intertwine with leftist politics to every be considered a standalone issue.

Their plan is to raise trillions of dollars by taxing people - but the don't even say where that money will go, or who gets to spend it

the reality is that it will get spent on a global enforcement system which amounts to a global government

any carbon tax/credits system is a scam, designed to destroy your sovereignty under the guise of being environmental

they are preying on people's naive "muh polar bears" emotional good will and ignorance

but climate change is natural
There is a reason why greenland is called green-land

>>128295484
No it means we can grow more food. Any indoor farm operation keeps higher levels of CO2 to increase yields. Also it allows areas previously untenable for farming to be used.

File: 15TRILLIIIIIIOOOOON.jpg (277KB, 982x1152px) Image search: [Google]

277KB, 982x1152px

>>128296478
15 Trillion nowwwwwwwwwwwwwwww!!!!

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/al-gore-trillions-investment-decarbonize/2017/05/09/id/788993/

>>128296287
let alone what solutions are being offered

if you are an actual well meaning person who thought the world was going to end imminently, you would be pushing for direct government investment in research and development for groundbreaking new close-to-free decentralized and renewable energy sources for all

you definitely would NOT be pushing the global carbon tax SCAM, where big banks get to control our economies while being exempt themselves

>>128295974
>they have no records
>but I KNOW they knew the Earth was round
Wew lad, I just got BTFO by that flawless logic

>>128296022

Forgetting about those ice core samples though. Millions of years of CO2 levels in there.

Turns out CO2 in the atmosphere spiked around the same time we began pumping shitloads of CO2 into the air.

File: earth_saved.jpg (467KB, 1200x1201px) Image search: [Google]

467KB, 1200x1201px

>>128290121

For the sake of argument, let's say it is real. How do you think some money shuffling scheme is going to fix it?

File: you'll never see it coming.jpg (62KB, 500x358px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 500x358px

>>128290121
People here don't generally deny Climate Change anymore.

We mostly discuss what its net impact will be, if it will be good or bad for society, and if it's bad how we ought to deal with it.

>>128297320
Turns out human life expectancy, living standards, advances in medicine, human rights and population all happened to spike at the same time. Strange how that works out.

File: drgirlfriend.png (519KB, 835x764px) Image search: [Google]

519KB, 835x764px

>>128297479
I personally don't think a carbon tax is effective. I don't think taxes are that effective when it comes to dealing with commercial businesses compared to consumers (The tobacco tax hurt cigarette sales because consumers are more sensitive to short-term losses).

I think we ought to be subsidizing companies that shift over a portion of their energy consumption to green or nuclear alternatives. Similarly, I think we also ought to give subsidies to energy companies and energy start ups that are considering investing into green and nuclear energy. The best way to get energy companies to shift over like that is to minimize the short-term hurt that investments in Nuclear power plants and Solar/Wind Farms cost.

I was happy that Trump at least voiced an interest in clean air and water, I'd be happier if the guy he put in charge of the EPA wasn't a corporate shill willing to let companies throw all manner of bullshit into the water supply because it's cheaper than proper processing.

Still, the best way to pursue a green agenda in the US is to enable and promote businesses to invest and develop those solutions on their own.

Cities and States could put out contracts for the major tech companies to develop air-cleaning technologies that convert the CO and CO2 in the air into Oxygen and Carbon separately.

>>128294941
literally every single climate change initiative is either political grandstanding, a fuck huge cash grab, or both at the same time. Climate change is gravey for the (((powers tha be))) because they can use it to justify any money pits or voter importation scams they dream up and all they have to do to render it immune to any and all opposition or criticism is to give it a green varnish and call everyone who balks an evil hitler who must return the scoops immediately

>>128298049
Our use of Carbon fuel sources correlates with the technological progress which often required more and more electricity use (ie, how living standards, medicine and life expectancy shot up).

As we developed better technologies, those nations rose to international dominance and were able to spread the liberal ideology (true liberal ideology born from philosophical and political thought in the West, not leftism).

The question now is, recognizing the potential harm of raising the concentration of a gas that holds more heat than the other substances found in the atmosphere, do we have the technologies to theoretically shift full off and away from Carbon over time?

I would argue we can, first with Nuclear as a transition source as we R&D Solar and Wind inefficiencies to the point where they could arguably supply most of our power needs (while keeping Nuclear power plants around to cover the difference)

>>128290437
>New Syria
>Implying you didn't just vote a retard into office

File: CMIP5-73-models-620px.png (68KB, 620x476px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 620x476px

>>128290121
were any of the IPCC AR5 prediction models proved correct?

NO!

also you are using ad populum and ad authoritam fallacies

in short your a retart

>>128298076
>Still, the best way to pursue a green agenda in the US is to enable and promote businesses to invest and develop those solutions on their own.

True. Perhaps offer universities and other folks doing research money to develop tech only after some discovering proves worthy (I know how much that could potentially be abused. Promising tech first, money later).

File: human-global-warming.jpg (79KB, 582x240px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 582x240px

>>128298578
>The question now is, recognizing the potential harm of raising the concentration of a gas that holds more heat than the other substances found in the atmosphere, do we have the technologies to theoretically shift full off and away from Carbon over time?
>I would argue we can, first with Nuclear as a transition source as we R&D Solar and Wind inefficiencies to the point where they could arguably supply most of our power needs (while keeping Nuclear power plants around to cover the difference)
I would argue we don't need to. The earth has had concentrations of CO2 hundreds of times higher that current and life has always adapted. The carbon that is being released are of course the remains of the carbon based life forms that once walked the earth. The net carbon content of the earth has never changed as demonstrated by the law of conservation of matter. It has only changed forms.
It is a fruitless endeavor to believe we will ever be able to "stop the clock" when it comes to the evolution of the planet. We will adapt and lifeforms that thrive under present conditions will thrive, creating natural sinks.
I believe it is arrogant to believe we have any great impact on this. Regardless of how much our CO2 output has increased, it still only represents 4% of the overall CO2 output from all sources. It is insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

>>128295648
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes

File: IMG_1332.png (517KB, 2208x1242px) Image search: [Google]

517KB, 2208x1242px

>>128299900
Global warming

>>128298204
Solar harms the environment more than its benefit. Wind is inconsistent and inefficient while having a comparatively stunted output. Nuclear produces more energy in a less destructive fashion than any other source. What I find funniest about this entire non-situation is it was created by the lefties decades ago when they demonized Nuclear Power.

Nobody ever mentions Hydro.

>>128290121
Who are these climate scientists? Who is funding there work? Do other theories fit what we have observed in the subtle changes in our climate better than green house gasses such as urban heat island effect or increased sunspot activity?

>>128290437
Either CTR or retarded merkle voter

>>128300067
It took you that long ? I guess you never heard of Copernicus. Well thanks for that but it doesn't really mean anything since the point is that the vast of people once believed theories that were incorrect.

Just 2 weeks ago Scientists believed that humans came from afirca, a new finding now makes Europe more likely. Next week it could change again.

Science is not static and needs to be open to scrutiny.

>>128298578
>using nuclear to cover the costs of solar and wind.

Aside from personal use Solar is not fit for large scale electrical generation. Wind wastes a bunch of space and is ultra high maintenance. If you know nuclear is efficient and you are using it to cover the costs why are you even using it to "cover the costs" and not go full nuclear.

>>128290121
>The great majority of scientists, 97%, agree that it is caused by man.
Appeal to authority. (It also happens to be a myth that most of you libfucks are too stupid to actually go research.)
>If you went to 100 doctors and 97 told you that you need a live saving brain surgery or else you die, and only 3 say you are fine, why believe the 3?
Keeping with the analogy, the 3 aren't getting paid by globalist demon-kikes to convince people they need brain surgery.

Hey dumbfuck, when you go back and read their predictions that Antarctica was going to melt, and then you go read their own data that shows it is gaining ice instead of losing it, exactly what goes through your soggy fucking head?

>>128300559
The famous scientific consensus story is alfred wegener, but your cute little soft-sciences analogy works just the same.

I don't disagree with any point you made, leaf. I don't understand the hostility.

File: fuckgermany.png (2MB, 1324x1504px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1324x1504px

>>128290437
good job having illegal opinions and words

File: Literally just a picture proving climate change is a myth.jpg (943KB, 1891x4901px) Image search: [Google]

943KB, 1891x4901px

>>128290121

>>128294650
>Science is not about consensus. It is about facts.
>I have never read a single book about scientific methodology
How do you think we decide what are facts and what aren't facts, guy?

How something becomes factual: Someone comes up with an idea and it gets corroborated by lots of experimentation. People continually become less skeptical of the idea with time. Eventually people stop arguing about it. Now it's a fact.

This isn't to say that climate change is factual, though

>>128301014
What hostility ?

>>128301230
>What hostility ?
Your flag, it offends me.

>>128291498
Learn to actually read an article before you just look at the title and say "oh, this article proves my point," because later in that very article the author says this:

>If you look at the literature, the specific meaning of the 97% claim is: 97 percent of climate scientists agree that there is a global warming trend and that human beings are the main cause

I agree. I still haven't been able to find a clear explanation of why people think climate change isn't real. As of now, I'm neutral on the subject and just trying to figure out the truth.

>>128293093
>thinking Huffpost would be unbiased
>not knowing CNN gave her a 78% chance of victory on the morning of the election

File: canadausolympics.jpg (158KB, 930x600px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 930x600px

>>128301550
It's laundry day. I only wore it because it matches all my Olympic Hockey Jerseys.

>>128290121
I do believe it's happening, I just believe it's overblown for political points, redistribution of wealth, power for the political elite, and destruction of the middle (white) class. The free market is handling it fine, just look at Tesla. I wouldn't mind Arizona doing a public works project for dollar though due to the jobs it will create as long as illegals aren't doing the work.

>>128290121
The 97% consensus is 100% a lie.

97 percent of doctors recommend statin drugs while there is zero evidence of efficacy. Arguing from authority is a fallacy.

>>128301932
>https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong
>If you look at the literature, the specific meaning of the 97% claim is: 97 percent of climate scientists agree that there is a global warming trend and that human beings are the main cause--that is, that we are over 50% responsible. The warming is a whopping 0.8 degrees over the past 150 years, a warming that has tapered off to essentially nothing in the last decade and a half.
>0.8%

Let's pretend for a second this document is not just a bunch of paid shills, and ignore the fact that every predictive model they have made has been wrong.

So what ? I don't give a fuck if it is 6 degrees. Prove that this is bad. It doesn't matter to me if you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that my dick is going to turn blue, prove that is bad, and prove I can stop it.

>>128303407
Here's the archive

>http://forbes com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong
https://archive.is/6gupM

>>128290121
>false equivalency
>character from a children's show
This is why we don't care what you think.

>>128303414
Ok thanks. My bad.

File: 18893383_10154920466978935_108635301470331475_n.png.jpg (83KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 900x900px

>>128290121

>>128291622
>widely accepted consesus
Setting aside for the moment the fact that your wrong, majority rule isn't particularly scientific.

>>128304171
In fact, it is a logical fallacy.

Argumentum ad populum

>>128290121
Who made this poll?
Do you really believes polls?
Not being sarcastic or arrogant

File: 1496037771252.jpg (22KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 480x480px

>>128301123
>>128299292
>>128294766

Always the same retarded chart by climate change sceptics, ignoring the fact that satellite data indeed was contradicting temperature changes in ground stations because they were inaccurate.

Satellites don't measure temperature directly, this chart likely cherrypicks UAH temperature trends which have been proven to be inaccurate, but are now in line with the more accurate RSS datasets. We have many other ways to measure global temperature besides satellites, but these don't fit the sceptic narrative so they are ignored.

You people are unbelievably dumb, do your own research, check your sources.

File: 1495801994527.jpg (56KB, 769x703px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 769x703px

>>128305107
A scientific consensus is NOT an argumentum ad populum, stop spouting this dumb bullshit

>>128290239
Great argument

>>128305388
HH

your response to the charge of fallacy ad populum + authoritam?

File: (((InconvenientTruth))).png (361KB, 1045x462px) Image search: [Google]

361KB, 1045x462px

>>128305568
>Kill yourself
He is right you know.

File: melt_the_ice_cream_vanilla_war_now.jpg (92KB, 480x625px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 480x625px

>>128291018
Not knowing that Academian Scientists get paid to continue their research from certain donors and are 100% willing to falsify their data and research to keep their donors happy and that sweet grant money rolling in. Money has ruined sciences. Do you think a majority of those scientists agree with the "Data" they're putting out? No, I can guarantee that would rather be honest but would be threatened with unemployment. Like Conservative college professors or conservative actors. These people get black listed for straying even a centimeter off of there bosess agenda.

>>128293588
Oh looky here we have soomeone who thinks he knows more in the subject than the scientists

>>128295421
alright, but hear me out, they are all of these things, but they aren't producing the same amount of pollution as america, or at least similar enough amounts to warrant all sorts of climate related deals??

>>128305388
90% of atmospheric thermal energy is absorbed by the oceans which also hold almost all of the earths latent heat content.

Maybe we shouldn't be asking why the surface is hotter, maybe we should be wondering why the heat is not being absorbed ?

You can flaunt satellite data all you want, the atmosphere is not a closed system and so it all proves exactly nothing.

File: 2422522.jpg (7KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 225x225px

the ancient ayylmaos on venus had this same argument about climate change

look what happened to them

CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL

>>128290121
as i understand 97 is number of scientist who believe that co2 has atleast some effect on temperature, but not necessary is major factor, i remember watching some documentary and guy who was sceptical about co2 role was in those 97% simply because he agreed that co2 has some effect

>>128290437
you too friendo

>>128305388

Typical Teutonic bootlicker. Each one of you defends authoritarian behaviour, because your grandest fetish is to get a modicum of power or status and then being smugly condescending and passive aggressive to people while constantly mentioning 'the rules'.

I can virtually guarantee that you hold a whole host of typical German 'intellectual' opinions ranging from: a) Supporting Mutti 'as the rational option' b) Getting a boner from the EU c) Believing democracy is 'dangerous' d) Supporting multi-culturalism e) Believing in environmental factors determining human behaviour f) Haha Trump is a clown memes.

>>128305388
Oh, you mean the flawed ground temperature readings that had to be fabricated in order to fit the narrative?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html

Funny how the day after this renowned NOAA scientist whistleblower went public, (((Wikipedia))) banned the Daily Mail from being used as a source.

How many times now have we seen temperature data being faked?

File: Screenshot from 2017-06-03 15-34-39.png (152KB, 740x621px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 740x621px

>>128306938
Exactly. It is a complete fraud.

Everything is already water

>>128305927

Yep I personally know a neuroscientist who wasn't allowed to publish findings because it contradicted the lab owner's own theory. He literally locked up the data in a locker in his office. The amount of biases affecting scientists are staggering yet rarely conceded. Most academics fundamentally want to be seen as eminent geniuses, which means they will rarely isolate themselves completely from trends in the field. Its very difficult to obtain funding, and its very common-place to 'sex up' your research to appeal to funding bodies. This mainly involves citations and buzz-words, but can also spill over into what conclusions the research reaches, either through motivated reasoning or plain cynicism. Your success as a researcher depends a lot on reciprocal relationships. For instance if you aggressively criticize some prominent scientists, then its possible that their network of researchers will in the future be quite biased against you if they peer-review your papers or happen to sit on funding bodies. Then there's also the aspect of elitism and general leftist beliefs which are pervasive in academia. My facebook is full of them discussing how Corbyn isn't 'sensible enough' because he isn't far left, how Brexit is completely negative and the referendum shouldn't have been entrusted to the public, anti-Trump posts, posts about patriarchy, etc -- and this is people working in neuroscience, biology, machine learning.

File: Climatechangeiseverything.png (2MB, 2400x1800px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2400x1800px

>>128308340
Yep Here are a few "studies" basically telling us that Climate change is responsible for everything. Let's not pretend that "scientists" aren't willing to make money.
>Aging
>arachnophobia
>Alzheimer's
>ADHD
>Headaches
>Rape
>Genocide
>Hair loss
>Claustrophobia
>Aids
>Std's
>Feces in water
>Weight loss
>Weight gain
>Bad attitude
>Dementia
>Asthma
>Low Sex Drive
>Snow storms
>Suicide
>PTSD
Wow that 0.8% increase has sure fucked things up. Aimirite ?

File: IMG_7820.jpg (60KB, 560x650px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 560x650px

>>128291018
Your country which has stood as bastion of white civilization for thousands of years is being pissed away in one generation of retards. Sorry for supporting the commies in WW2 and running Jewish denazification programs on your people but Jesus Christ even the brainwashed should be able to see the damages being done to Germany righ now

>>128290239
fpbp

>>128295974
and yet you know it was a widely accepted theory among scientists back then

whoa are you a prophet ?

>>128290121
The climate is always changing you fucking retard. Climate change is not caused by man, it would happen with or without us.

Are we contributing to climate change? Of course we are. We are here; we must have some impact. How much is the question.

If you study non-truncated graphs of climate change trends, you will see that there is nothing out of the ordinary about the current climate trends.

>>128309550
It was widely known that the earth was round in the middle ages.
>>128310025
>If you study non-truncated graphs of climate change trends
Show us.

File: whyisthisajpeg.jpg (214KB, 735x735px) Image search: [Google]

214KB, 735x735px

>>128310235

>>128290121
Go find the 96% you are referring to. I'll wait bitch.

>>128290121
97% science agree.
Nope, you tried, and also should know the difference between GW and AGW.

Source:
https://www.heartland.org/_template-assets/documents/publications/12-04-15_why_scientists_disagree.pdf

File: post-glacial_sea_level[1].png (23KB, 526x359px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 526x359px

>>128310235

>>128290846
If they weeded disagreeing people out they would have gone to 100%.

File: cooling.jpg (111KB, 802x527px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 802x527px

>>128310235
Daily reminder that the "scientific concensus" using all the best science and all the best data was that the earth was cooling.

Now, 40 years later, we think it is warming. Of course there is new data that has been acquired in the last 40 years but how significant is this to a 4 billion year old planet and if the consensus can change that drastically in 40 years, is it so unreasonable to think it can change again in 40 years ? No, it's a perfectly legitimate question.

I am sure the brain washed left has some reason why things are sooooo much better and more accurate now, but really how much better are 2017 thermometers than 1979 thermometers? How much better will 2057 thermometers be ?

File: Vostok2[1].jpg (60KB, 718x532px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 718x532px

>>128310615
>>128310235
Notice how the current temperature is actually unusually low for the phase of the 100k cycle that we are in compare with the last several cycles.

You will also notice that the temperature changes precede the CO2 changes. Higher temperatures cause more CO2 to be released. Climate alarmist will admit this.

>>128291153
Like how you put everyone who disagrees with you under the same blanket, that everyone that disagrees with you is part of one homogenous entity. What is that, something that you think is inherently leftist? FAST, bring out all the stuff that the left is wrong about. Definetly not making a strawman here.

>>128290121
Climate change is the least of our problems. The most of the problem is pedos and fags
Throw em in a bog!

>>128290121
I don't deny that the climate changes. It always has, it always will. I deny that human's CO2 emissions are the cause, and deny that CO2 is the thermostat for the planet.

>>128310664
That would be too fucking obvious, plus, there are a vocal handful that disagree, which is your "3%".

Science isn't a "consensus". Something is either true or false, it's not a dice roll. This "argument" is stupid and flawed.

File: 1496093768826.png (581KB, 638x477px) Image search: [Google]

581KB, 638x477px

>>128290121
Climate change is caused by nature, you fucking retard, mankind has nothing to do with it.

>>128290912
Heller is doing some good research exposing the adjustments of the data. If you look into his background, he was an environmentalist concerned about the environment, and doesn't like the way the current group who call themselves environmentalists have cashed in on the money with their fraud.

>>128290121
Well, if a Doctor Smith, Anderson and James told me that I needed to stop smoking. And 97 doctors with names including Gold, Berg and other Jewish names implied I could keep smoking and just buy a new pair of lungs. I think I would take the advice of the three, because even doctors have an agenda.

>>128290121
If climate change is actually caused by man, we're already fucked. We should have been fucked 5 years ago even. It doesn't matter anymore.

>>128291219
>They do not get some divine shit from above and always know the truth

It is not the scientist opinion, but their work and study that is taken into consideration.

>Often they are wrong

In matters of hypothesis about unkown things yeah
In matter of well researched scientific theories no.

>And more importantly everyone is biased.
If there was real evidence agains climate change, there would be impossible that everyone just standed down and didnt do anything

>Scientist who don't support climate change likely lose funding.
There are plenty of people that want climate change to be disproven, many of the rich. Money would not be a problem.

>Maybe in centuries we will look at Trump like we look at Columbus
The only one who knew the Earth was round and everyone around him was stupid thinking it was flat

You know that no one in their right mind thought that the Earth was flat, dont you? The only thing that they disagreed was the zise of the Earth.

File: 9outof10dentists.jpg (64KB, 800x412px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 800x412px

wow guys 9 out of 10 dentists recommend Sensodyne.

Why y'all such Sensodyne deniers ?

The science is in, there can be no debate.

>>128311968
There is a scientific consensus that the earth is round no?

>>128291018
Because consensus doesn't mean shit. It's more political than anything. There was a consensus on the earth being flat, on the earth being the center of the universe, and the list of things there was a consensus on goes on and on. It's not a convincing arguement.

>>128312079
But dude. The graphs. It's hand in hand with out usage of fossil fuels and modernization.

>>128312839
No you are confusing consensus with proof again silly.

>>128290121
The problem is 'anthropogenic' global warming, as in, manmade. There is very little evidence that human activity is changing the climate.

>>128292346
Hard to argue with that strawman, Scarecrow.

>>128312839
You believe the earth is round because some guy in a lab coat told you so or because you actually have proofs that it's round?

1000 years earlier you would have thought the earth is flat precisely because some "wise" guy told you so.

>>128312839

If a tree falls in the forest, and a majority of tree-fall-physicists aren't present, does it make a sound?

>>128292346
https://youtu.be/S_19OpAUn4g

>>128305107
Opinion of people = ad populum
Scientific work =/= ad polulum

File: 1 DH3jHtUJzpSyVRrcgXnjjw.jpg (271KB, 1920x840px) Image search: [Google]

271KB, 1920x840px

>>128290121
>global warming meme everywhere in internets
>tfw it's 3rd June
>tfw it's still snowing

>>128290121
Have you ever seen a forecasting model in your half? Ever studied statistics? All models are full of assumptions and rarely are statistically robust out of sample.

Now, I do know nothing about climatology but I do know (Source: Nate Silver, the signal and the noise) that local weather forecasts are only reliable up to 9 days in advance. So why would you trust global forecasts of 2030 or 2100 weathers by scientists who have conflicts of interest?

Suggested readings to heal yourself of your blind faith in (((science))): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/

Also read Nassim Taleb's books.

>>128313796
* in your life

>>128313627
Just typing the phrase scientific work, does not make it scientific work. What evidence do you have that if we stopped all CO2 output, the climate would stop changing despite billions of years of data to the contrary ?

>>128292435
'muh consensus

>>128313080

2 points to debunk here.

1. You sound like that shitskin on my corner who keeps shouting out the same irrelevant Jewish wordplay and trickery that does nothing to further debate. And only confuses and muddies conversation.

2. Science from 1000 years ago IS an irrelevant whataboutism you strawman kike. Similarly if i was having a debate on Christianity and started criticising a religion from 10,000 years before that ate shit.
We're currently speaking of science on today. Science that can be backed up with evidence. That can be repeated and proven. And if you want to you can get a degree, write a dissertation on and disprove. But you won't because the science is sound and you're a lazy know it all fuck.

>>128313627
If the scientific work is purely objective, I agree with you.

This climate science shit not even remotely objective, as it is using incomplete data and rife with human bias and opinion.

>>128292606
They would certainly lose out on the $2 billion and change the US government spends on climate science research every year.
>but 'muh Exxon knew

>>128290121

97% of scientists who's work was reviewed in that one specific study.

Climate change quite obviously happens and, importantly, always has happened, always will. To presume that humanity is 1) literally causing it and 2) to assume that humanity has the power to alter or prevent it? Hubris. Arrogance.

It is this same arrogant and misguided belief that Humans can "play God" which has brought us the FtM and MtF trannies.

>>128290239
>>128290625
>>128290912
>>128291031
>>128291111
>>128291498
>>128292435
>>128292533
>>128293074
>>128293093
>>128293187
>>128293598
>>128293698
>>128293995
>>128294395
>>128294814
>>128294862
>>128294890
>>128294962
>>128295037
>>128295251
>>128295282
>>128295495
>>128295747
>>128295817
>>128296130
>>128296399
>>128297479
>>128297551
>>128300463
>>128302940
>>128303110
>>128303461
Nothing but conjecture.

>>128290121
>97%, agree that it is caused by man.
wrong

File: download (17).jpg (6KB, 270x187px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 270x187px

>>128314173

You're right. The people who falsely claim that climate change isn't real aren't objective. Here's a list of the anti-paris agreement GOP senators who recieved money from Oil and Gas.

James Inhofe, Oklahoma Oil & gas: $465,950 Coal: $63,600
Total: $529,550
John Barrasso, Wyoming Oil & gas: $458,466
Coal: $127,356
Total: $585,822
Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Oil & gas: $1,180,384
Coal: $361,700
Total: $1,542,084
John Cornyn, Texas Oil & gas: $1,101,456
Coal: $33,050
Total: $1,134,506
Roy Blunt, Missouri Oil & gas: $353,864
Coal: $96,000
Total: $449,864
Roger Wicker, Mississippi Oil & gas: $198,816
Coal: $25,376
Total: $224,192
Michael Enzi, Wyoming Oil & gas: $211,083
Coal: $63,300
Total: $274,383
Mike Crapo, Idaho Oil & gas: $110,250
Coal: $26,756
Total: $137,006
Jim Risch, Idaho Oil & gas: $123,850
Coal: $25,680
Total: $149,530
Thad Cochran, Mississippi Oil & gas: $276,905
Coal: $15,000
Total: $291,905
Mike Rounds, South Dakota Oil & gas: $201,900
Total: $201,900
Rand Paul, Kentucky Oil & gas: $170,215
Coal: $82,571
Total: $252,786
John Boozman, Arkansas Oil & gas: $147,930
Coal: $2,000
Total: $149,930
Richard Shelby, Alabama Oil & gas: $60,150
Coal: $2,500
Total: $62,650
Luther Strange, Alabama (Appointed in 2017, running in 2017 special election)
Total: NA
Orrin Hatch, Utah Oil & gas: $446,250
Coal: $25,000
Total: $471,250
Mike Lee, Utah Oil & gas: $231,520
Coal: $21,895
Total: $253,415
Ted Cruz, Texas Oil & gas: $2,465,910
Coal: $103,900
Total: $2,569,810
David Perdue, Georgia Oil & gas: $184,250
Total: $184,250
Thom Tillis, North Carolina Oil & gas: $263,400
Total: $263,400
Tim Scott, South Carolina Oil & gas: $490,076
Coal: $58,200
Total: $548,276
Pat Roberts, Kansas Oil & gas: $388,950
Coal: $28,825
Total: $417,775
Grand total: $10,694,284

>>128290121
Climate change is real but humans have very little effect on it. Historical data suggests that heating and cooling has been happening in a pattern for a very long time, an actual scientist I spoke to said it was because the earth has a wobble to it.
Also the reason there's so many scientists that believe in climate change is because there are many grants out there for scientists that make a report proving climate change and scientists have to put food on the table too you know.

>>128291018
how many dentists does it take to convince you you that are fine when you have a visible cancer coming out of yo ass?

>>128314446
>This
The undeniable bias that every climate scientist holds in propagating the "we cause climate change" myth is that, the more dire they make it look, the more valuable their opinion becomes.

It's no different that any other scare tactic used to sell a product. If I want you to buy an alarm system, I need to convince you that there is cause for alarm don't I ?

Climate Scientist: "Everything is fine, nothing to worry about"
Government Grant:"OK thanks, I guess we don't need you anymore."

>>128314915
Irrelevant. Political shitcuntery, as abhorrent and vile as it is, is not scientific in any way, shape, or form.

I feel sorry for you if this isn't trolling.

>>128290121
97% of scientists agree? Alright, since there's a percentage, there must be an ennumerated list of scientists out there.

Give us the list so we can judge these scientists on the merits of papers they've published.

File: _73372683_021406675-1.jpg (24KB, 624x351px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 624x351px

>>128315002

>Yes. Of course. Nothing fossil fuel companies do can be taxedone fined or controlled. It's all out of human hands. Yessiree.

File: 7379b983dbaa1cfda59849269a1aec92.jpg (30KB, 610x343px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 610x343px

>>128290121

>>128314644

No you

>>128291219
Common misconception, everyone knew the earth was round you fucking retard

>>128313627
The opinions of scientists isn't scientific work.

>>128315312

I don't understand why 4chan isn't on this. The pentagon and its global equivalants even recognises that climate change is the largest threat we face in the 21st century.

What are you gonna do when the climate refugees from sub-Saharan africa and south America start pouring across the border?

>>128315412
You dare question the 97%???!!!!!!!

We don't need a list. We are talking about science here. Lots of work and evidence. Much, much too complicated for the unwashed masses. Plus they are are written in Latin and locked up the Vatican and only meant for the scribes.

Keep talking like that Galileo and we are going to have to lock you in the tower.

>>128301123
this

>>128315875
>What are you gonna do when the climate refugees from sub-Saharan africa and south America start pouring across the border?
Shoot them.

Address overpopulation before you demand gibs for fucking windmills.

>>128315875
WE WANT THE BORDERS CLOSED, MORON

Turn them into a fine mist with chain guns

>>128290437

Thank you sharia blue

>>128290121
>Appeal to authority
Sage

>>128291670
>>128293808

>predictions and models by mainstream scientists turn out to be pretty accurate
>contrarian models turn out to be complete utter failures

the "skeptics" have failed to come up with any viable alternative theory to explain the data, so now they have to explain away the data.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPSIvu0gQ90

>>128314915
Now list the fossil fuel industry funding of the Democrats who voted for it.

Go to bed loser.

>>128290121
>deny climate change
No one is denying climate change, Hans.
Climate is changing, always.

>great majority of scientists, 97%
BS

>only 3 say
only a few said that the earth is not flat
aka not an argument

>>128290121
the consensus is more like 80-90%. Basically, about as much as the consensus that GMOs are safe.

File: climate-change.jpg (196KB, 900x439px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 900x439px

>>128318063
I forgot pic

>>128317778
You mean the faked data that was created to fit the "mainstream" narrative, and then gets conveniently deleted so nobody can look at it after the politicians ram through their global government plans?

Thank God for Trump pulling out of the Paris scam.

>>128290437
>Good job voting a legit retard

lost me there

>>128317778
>Make up lies
>When called out say "yeah, well then explain how my lies are true"
???

>>128290121

I appreciate the effort OP but these people are too far gone. All they care about is identity politics and memes rather than a legitimate issue that significantly effects us as a species.

File: 18766121_233404663824481_4097369240359489477_n.jpg (54KB, 403x549px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 403x549px

>>128291018
>Give me one (1) reason
Have one that includes the 'authorities on stuff' you seem to like so much.

>>128318240
>>128318391

>search scientists faking global warming data
>search results come up with shitty blogs with people who don't have any understanding of the science and dailymail

???

>>128305927
>>128308340
Screencapping these two posts that coincide with my personal experience as well.

>>128305568
There can be no argument with someone who bases his worldview on 'faith' rather than facts and logic. OP will never bother to check who, how and where ever came up with his magic 97% number. He is a cretin, a brainwashed homunculus, a lobotomized subhuman.

>>128317778

Funny how they don't release the raw temperature measurement data from weather stations and satellites anymore. Got to do 'preprocessing' and 'interpolation' before. Funny how that always seems to go in the direction of warming.

>>128319332
Fun fact: We've experienced the coldest fucking May since 1960 I think, in Lapland. It literally snowed few days ago.

Certain pages earlier in spring said that it's gonna be among the warmest ever, because global warming and stuff.

File: images.jpg (4KB, 234x215px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 234x215px

>>128293187
>Doran

I know it's pointless responding to this shit but I'll do it anyway.
No climate scientist ever said the climate never changed before this, never said the climate does not go through fluctuations in temperature based on numerous factors.

The relevant information is the trend and the speed of change, human impact on that trend, and making a model based on as much data as possible to forecast how that will change the environment.

The crux of this issue is CO2, what is it, what are it's physical properties, etc.
We've been studying CO2 for at least a hundred years at this point and have learned a lot about it.
Burning almost anything releasing a certain amount of CO2. We can detect it, create it, study it, etc.
You can go down to the store and get canisters of it from Walmart or many other places.
We can detect CO2 by IR and light intensity to get a value of the concentration in any particular area.

If you take that CO2 and place it in a box with an IR camera on one side, and heat source on the other side, the CO2 will block most of this heat. Essentially camouflaging the heat signature. The US Air Force did a lot of research regarding this, studying its effects in the atmosphere.

The more we burn things, the more we slowly increase that concentration in the atmosphere.
So why does that matter?
The sun produces high intensity, short-wave radiation. This heats our planet and allows us to live. After the heat reaches our planet, it is absorbed by water, the ground, pavement, etc.
The heat is the radiated back out as a lower intensity, long-wave radiation.
If you stick your arm out in direct sunlight, it's probably going to burn rather quickly.
If you wait til dusk and stick your arm a foot or two over pavement, you can feel the heat radiating out, but it's not going to give you a sunburn.

So why does this matter?
That long-wave heat goes into the atmosphere and radiates out in to space.
Part 1 of 2

>>128319884
Part 2 of 2
If all of this heat radiated out, we would freeze and die.
So what holds this heat in?
"Greenhouse gases"
Of which, CO2 seems to be the main controller.
Other prominent greenhouse gases are H2O(water) and CH4(methane).

Water concentration is relatively high, but why do you never hear of this?
Water absorbs are rather small band of radiation, so a lot of water still doesn't absorb too much of that heat.
Methane absorbs an even greater amount of radiation than CO2, but is much lower in concentration and is primarily released by livestock, swamps, and methane trapped in ice that is released as it melts.

As the concentration of CO2 rises, the amount of heat that can be held inside the atmosphere rises with it.
This can cause effects leading it to be self-reinforcing.
The rising CO2 creates rising temperatures which allows the heated atmosphere to contain a higher water content, furthering the problem.
The heated air causes more ice to melt, releasing more methane, etc. The cycle continues.

This is why increasing the CO2 concentration is a primary driver, and like deleterious, to us who live on the planet.

Feel free to ignore all of this for political bias though.

>>128319553

Yep when Pekka Pouta is crying in exasperation you know something isn't right.

>>128318942
Imagine that, the mouthpieces of the giant corporations who are pushing the scam are ignoring the story.

>>128318942
You are not looking hard enough.

Former NOAA Scientist Confirms Colleagues Manipulated Climate Records

>Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas): “I thank Dr. John Bates for courageously stepping forward to tell the truth about NOAA’s senior officials playing fast and loose with the data in order to meet a politically predetermined conclusion. In the summer of 2015, whistleblowers alerted the Committee that the Karl study was rushed to publication before underlying data issues were resolved to help influence public debate about the so-called Clean Power Plan and upcoming Paris climate conference. Since then, the Committee has attempted to obtain information that would shed further light on these allegations, but was obstructed at every turn by the previous administration’s officials. I repeatedly asked, ‘What does NOAA have to hide?’

http://archive.is/pz9kY

>>128290121

97% of scientists agree the earth is flat and the sun revolves around it. The other 3% are heretics to be burned at the stake.

>>128320202
This is bullshit, Lamar Smith is lying and the scientist that he is referring to has repeatedly asked him to stop using his name, stop referencing him, and has blatantly stated that he saw no falsifying of data. The scientist does have issues with NOAA and some of their stances and methodology, but he does not take issue with overall data that they produce.

>>128290121
those 97% are some 77 climate reasearch interns
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDK1aCqqZkQ

>>128290121
I love how you shills are still on this one.

'Climate Change' is just a commie trick to encourage wealth distribution.

>>128320686
You are fake news.

Don't take my word for it let's see what John bates has to say about it.

>In the following sections, I provide the details of how Mr. Karl failed to disclose critical information to NOAA, Science Magazine, and Chairman Smith regarding the datasets used in K15. I have extensive documentation that provides independent verification of the story below. I also provide my suggestions for how we might keep such a flagrant manipulation of scientific integrity guidelines and scientific publication standards from happening in the future. Finally, I provide some links to examples of what well documented CDRs look like that readers might contrast and compare with what Mr. Karl has provided.

>I also provide my suggestions for how we might keep such a flagrant manipulation of scientific integrity guidelines and scientific publication standards from happening in the future.

>flagrant manipulation of scientific integrity guidelines and scientific publication standards

http://archive.is/b9ku4

>>128320202
>>128320686

>In an interview on Monday with E&E News, Dr. Bates appeared to distance himself from some of what he wrote in the blog post, and from the way his criticisms were portrayed in the Mail on Sunday article.

>“The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data,” he said, “but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/07/science/2015-climate-study-data.html

>>128290121
No, the only thing scientists agree is that its getting hotter

Big fucking deal and who the fuck cares
So it'll be 5 degrees F hotter in 100 years, who cares.
Modern people have air conditioning and people will have to live a mile more in land.
Fuck the ice caps, polar bears need to learn to migrate south.

The only people this has a negative effect on is below equator shitholes like Africa and South America.

>>128321542
Why are you sourcing the NY times on an E&E article ?

From the actual article

Bates laid out his claims, which are largely technical and related to the sharing of data, on the blog run by Judith Curry, a climate scientist who has broken with many colleagues and called into question the actual extent of humanity's influence on the planet.

The report's authors, Bates wrote, put a "thumb on the scale — in the documentation, scientific choices, and release of datasets — in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming hiatus and rush to time the publication of the paper to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy."

The NOAA administrator under former President Obama, Kathryn Sullivan, refused to turn over the emails because she said doing so could chill the scientific process by making it harder for researchers to communicate openly while they were actively engaged in research. Smith's committee threatened her with criminal charges. The issue is expected to become part of the committee's hearing today into the use of scientific research in crafting federal regulations.

>The report's authors, Bates wrote, put a "thumb on the scale — in the documentation, scientific choices, and release of datasets — in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming hiatus and rush to time the publication of the paper to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy."

Now we can't even believe the scientist own words ?

Which is it ?
>The scientists are credible and to be believed.
>the are not credible and we should not believe them.

Choose 1 and only 1.

http://archive.is/Ck3MB
>

>>128322597
>Which is it ?
>The scientists are credible and to be believed.
>the are not credible and we should not believe them.
>Choose 1 and only 1

Don't get to experience a leaf that shuts mouths often in /pol/.

>>128322597
The EE articles won't pull up for me, it's still a direct quote from him and the original is linked there.

A little digging and I found a link that works
https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060049630

4th paragraph.
Smith is intentionally misrepresenting Bates claims.

He took issue with them not following proper protocol on releasing, archiving, etc of data and questionable timing of the release of documents to increase their political impact.
All valid complaints, none directly put into question the merit of the data contained within the document, AKA the actual research.

>>128323308
It's too late, the NOAA's budget is getting slashed and a lot of those greenie shills are going to have to find real jobs.

>>128323305
Not really, Smith and the 2 people I'm responding are attempting to conflate to unrelated things.

Bates is saying "I have an issue with NOAA handled Y"
This is taken out of context and being repeated as
"Bates says NOAA is falsifying X!"
Which he never said.

>planet used to be really hot and full of co2
>then it got really cold and co2 levels drop
>hurr durr planet is just gonna stay in the middle

I dont deny that climate change is happening I just admit its natural like the seasons except spanning hundreds of millions of years

>>128323308
http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060049630

That's the point. It's not the data being collected, it's the way is presented that is a manipulation. Cherry picking data sets to use for a study is not a corruption of the data itself but a corruption of the conclusion that this data is supposed to point to. That is what makes the study just hocus pocus creative accounting.

>>128323688
The said thing is, while much of NOAA's data relates to climate change, that really isn't their primary focus.

I live in a coastal Georgia area that gets occasional hurricanes and storm surges which usually cause a few million in damages each time, cutting their budget impairs their ability to upgrade and research weather detection/early warning systems.

I use their data all the time for my fishing, camping, kayaking, etc.
Their tide data is pretty great.

>>128295542
>youre arguing with ideologues that are so blinded by their own that even entertaining criticism is something that is beyond them.
Exactly! This is why we must never allow these blind ideologues to even slightly question the effects of climate change. We are right and they are wrong, this is 100% fact and must never be denied. Join us or burn, infidels.

>>128324223
Try again, Bates never said any of that.
He's just mad they put it out to try and make a political impact.
This is a literally nothing story that is being taken out of context.
I also notice that you never try to argue any of the actual foundational science behind climate change.
Maybe because you can't?
Cause you're fucking wrong.

>>128319884
>>128319919

>>128324602
They're not firing the machines which measure the tides, they're firing a bunch of shills.

NOAA has too much money anyway.

>>128325058
His words verbatim
>The report's authors, Bates wrote, put a "thumb on the scale — in the documentation, scientific choices, and release of datasets — in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming hiatus and rush to time the publication of the paper to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy."

>>128325174
My understanding is they are cutting their budget about 20% at the exact time they are trying to do massive upgrades to our weather services, particularly emergency related ones.
Our weather service is already leagues behind those used in Europe, less accurate, less data inclusion, slower, etc.

I didn't mean to imply tide charts would be cut, just pointing out that they provide a lot of every day sort of data people don't think about. It's important to everything from fishing to shipping.

Anyways, I'm out. Peace ya'll.

File: v8k-.jpg (49KB, 340x518px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 340x518px

Repent, sinners! There is still time to accept the Green Party as your Lord and Savior.

File: hhdfhfhgfhdgfdf.png (588KB, 800x584px) Image search: [Google]

588KB, 800x584px

Climate change is definitely real and the oil lobby shills are here among us.

>>128290121
Funny that (((global warming))) is now (((climate change))).

>>128290121
>The great majority of scientists, 97%, agree that it is caused by man.
I WANT TO SEE THE SOURCE OF THAT
>bullshit stat with no support keeps being spouted
I WANT TO SEE THE SOURCE OF THAT
>bullshit stat with no support keeps being spouted
I WANT TO SEE THE SOURCE OF THAT
>bullshit stat with no support keeps being spouted
I WANT TO SEE THE SOURCE OF THAT
>bullshit stat with no support keeps being spouted
I WANT TO SEE THE SOURCE OF THAT
>bullshit stat with no support keeps being spouted

>inb4 the guy who profits gets blamed
>inb4 the chinks who pollute the most get blamed
>heh, let's see them argue out of this artificial box I've created to control the narrative

Get bent retard.
Dumb fuck low IQ sponge poster.
Go back to /v/.

More of John bates on The Karl report and NOAA practices

>So, in every aspect of the preparation and release of the datasets leading into K15, we find I finally decided to document what I had found using the climate data record maturity matrix approach. I did this and sent my concerns to the NCEI Science Council in early February 2016 and asked to be added to the agenda of an upcoming meeting. I was asked to turn my concerns into a more general presentation on requirements for publishing and archiving. Some on the Science Council, particularly the younger scientists, indicated they had not known of the Science requirement to archive data and were not aware of the open data movement. They promised to begin an archive request for the K15 datasets that were not archived; however I have not been able to confirm they have been archived. I later learned that the computer used to process the software had suffered a complete failure, leading to a tongue-in-cheek joke by some who had worked on it that the failure was deliberate to ensure the result could never be replicated.

>Tom Karl’s thumb on the scale pushing for, and often insisting on, decisions that maximize warming and minimize documentation.

"Science"

Sounds more like bullshit to me desu.

This was from a man who retired and had nothing to lose or gain but was actually interested in scientific integrity.

See the difference?

File: EndIsNear.jpg (39KB, 476x545px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 476x545px

>>128326408
Sometimes it warms, other times it doesn't. It changes! In the long run, it warms. You wouldn't want Finland to all of sudden be warmer now would you? I'm sure you're quite pleased with the temperature already.

Obey the holy directives of the agreement or the climate shall smite us. Repent, sinner!

>>128326104
How involved in this, and how many times do I have to pray per day?

>>128290121
Your second sentence states why I don't believe in the common man-made climate change:
>The great majority of scientists, 97%, agree that it is caused by man
Climate change can't be scientifically rigorous if scientists don't agree 100%.

>>128327683
You just need to shun the unbelievers and spread the apocalyptic message for all those who doubt anything related to climate change. No praying involved but tipping your fedora is highly encouraged.

>>128328551
I will make a sign saying
"BEHEAD THOSE THAT DENY CLIMATE"

Is that too extreme?

We've signed our own death warrant as a species. That's it, we're done.

>>128290121
Cook and Co. analysed somewhere between 11,944 and 12,876 papers – they can’t get their story straight on the sample size – but only 64 of these explicitly state that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming. A reexamination of their data brought that number down to 41. That is half a per cent or less of the total, rather than 97 percent.

>>128325659
Also his words verbatim.

>Bates told the AP on Feb. 6 that there was “no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious” involved with his colleagues’ study. “It’s not trumped up data in any way shape or form,” he said.

File: Global_Warming_Behead_Deniers.jpg (53KB, 600x360px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 600x360px

>>128328740
Too extreme? Nothing is too extreme in our crusade to save the world. You are a credit to our cause.

>>128328740
We are talking about the extinction of all intelligent life in 200 years, how extreme do you think the situation is?

>>128327558
Finland beat it's snow record(June) yesterday. One thing that I know for sure is that it's not getting warmer.

>>128329132
>>128330805

So the climate has been 6-8 degrees warmer with a vast amount of species of large creatures alive yet few degrees of warming will kill a species which is on the cusp of creating general AI within one lifetime. Ok then.

>>128290121
>97%, agree
bullshit figure
and its not really an issue of whether its real or not
libtards just offer retarded solutions
if the left actually gave a fuck about climate change they would be shilling nuclear energy 24/7, but the only thing they care about is virtue signaling

>>128330333
>>>
>Anonymous (ID: FCckJpEv) 06/03/17(Sat)18:27:55 No.128328740
>Went over this. The data was not altered however the author put his thumb on the scale pushing for, and often insisting on, decisions that maximize warming and minimize documentation.

If you are making decisions that intentionally push your study to show results in one direction. It is a manipulation.

It's no different than selective polling or any other statistical manipulation which falsify the conclusions.

>>128290121
Cause the 3 don't have lobbyists funding them to push Climate Change Agenda.

Same logic used by those "97" scientists would say that the Ice Age Humans Cause the Ice Age and also the eventual melting too.

>>128329828
>"explicitly"

Terrible methodology. What percent of geology research papers explicitly state that tectonic plates exist? The scientists self-rated their own papers, and they still arrived at 97%.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists%27_views_on_climate_change

>>128331905
Well, it damn well should be! You trying to throw off our data? It doesn't prove anything in the large scale. Damn deniers even go cold just to try to prove us wrong. You will die like the rest on the day of the Climatic Reckoning.

File: 1251 - dappikm.jpg (26KB, 489x499px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 489x499px

>>128332358
>if the left actually gave a fuck about climate change they would be shilling nuclear energy 24/7

This is the single most retarded post I have read on this board, which tried to be serious. The retardation is off the charts.

the radioactive waste that is generated has to be stored dozens of miles in underground facilities and the Uranium starts to decay at 1000 to 10000 years.

>>128332266
oh wow, at least the robots will enjoy themselves

>>128290121
>muh 97%

No.

>>128330805
But that doesn't happen because of global warming, it happens because of great nigger invasion.