This is for all the climate change deniers on this board. Fuck

File: 1496934078201m.jpg (141KB, 717x1024px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 717x1024px

>>129034832
/thread

Who caused the climate to change before there were any humans?

I'm waiting patiently for your answer.

Soap on a /Sage

File: 1496793907165.gif (4MB, 425x425px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 425x425px

>>129034832
>So asshurt you made a thread.
Look kid, this isn't Reddit or Tumblr where you can block people who aren't as retarded as you.

>>129035097
The climate has always been changing. But now we are changing it.

>>129035097
>climate has changed before therefor it is impossible humans are having an effect.
>ignore all scientific evidence

>>129035097
Nature. Nature still plays a part in it. But now our emissions speed test process up and that will lead to very dangerous situations if not dealt with soon.

>>129034832
We are not killing the planet

We are killing you

Learn the difference

File: Vostok_Petit_data.svg.png (104KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 1024x768px

>>129035547
Are we to assume that humans are warming the planet at the exact same time the planet is warming naturally?

We're coming after the rainforests next.

Expect us.

>>129034832
i dont give a fuck about the planet after i"m gone

File: 1461430111431.gif (2MB, 273x302px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 273x302px

>>129034832
>The 97% “consensus” study, Cook et al. (2013) has been thoroughly refuted in scholarly peer-reviewed journals, by major news media, public policy organizations and think tanks, highly credentialed scientists and extensively in the climate blogo-sphere. The shoddy methodology of Cook’s study has been shown to be so fatally flawed that well known climate scientists have publicly spoken out against it,
>The ‘97% consensus’ article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country [UK] that the energy minister should cite it." - Mike Hulme, Ph.D. Professor of Climate Change, University of East Anglia (UEA)
>The following is a list of 97 articles that refute Cook’s (poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed) 97% “consensus” study. The fact that anyone continues to bring up such soundly debunked nonsense like Cook’s study is an embarrassment to science.
>Cook et al. (2013) attempted to categorize 11,944 abstracts of papers (not entire papers) to their level of endorsement of AGW and found 7930 (66%) held no position on AGW. While only 65 papers (0.5%) explicitly endorsed and quantified AGW as +50% (Humans are the primary cause). Their methodology was so fatally flawed that they falsely classified skeptic papers as endorsing AGW, apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors. Cook et al.’s author self-ratings simply confirmed the worthlessness of their methodology, as they were not representative of the sample since only 4% of the authors (1189 of 29,083) rated their own papers and of these 63% disagreed with their abstract ratings.
http://climatechangedispatch.com/97-articles-refuting-the-97-consensus/

>>129035305
This ass must have had a pounding

Can you name one climate scientist?

The planet has survived meteor impacts super volcano's and fuck tonnes more. We still need to watch our carbon emissions but to pretend its going to destroy everything is just dumb.

I think humanity could benefit from a genetic bottle neck. Might raise the average intelligence from an outrageous 100. That's what we should really be worried about not raising the temp by a degree or 2

>>129034832
Who gives a shit we're not gonna stop China and everywhere else from emitting

Any climate change con artist is just trying to sell you on something to make money off your dumbass

The climate goes through periods of change all the time, excessive heat/ice ages happen all the time

Take your climate change shilling somewhere else Al Gore

>>129034832
Hey Jimmy your mom said the lasagna is done!
Come out of the basement, and do the laundry!

>People that get paid to research climate change won't deny its existence because they would lose their jobs
Wow shocker

>>129034832
>97% agree. How will we live with NO EARTH???

What are you waiting for? Save the earth already. You don't need the 3%, you've got 97%. STFU and start saving yourself.

File: IMG_6620.png (158KB, 1125x2001px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 1125x2001px

>>129034832

I care far less about the planet than you do. But I can assure you that I've far more than you have to mitigate climate change.

Pic related. What the fuck have you done faggot?

https://wattsupwiththat.com

Oh look, another idiot (OP) posing as a scientist.
97% NINETY SEVEN PERCENT of welfare queens who depend on a government paycheck or subsidies to make a living agree that climate change is man made and will destroy the earth.

How will these people live with NO SUBSIDIES???

I'm profoundly disappointed that people on a supposed board of Truth would deny the rantings of these welfare queens in favor of the fabricated lies made up by the solar power industry...

File: 1495952741334.jpg (123KB, 600x432px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 600x432px

>>129034832

>>129034832
Natural cycle occurring and if you are really worried about the planet, do not worry. It has it's own feedback mechanism for dealing with pesky organisms:"starvation, diseases and for humans only, WAR".

>>129034832
>muh 97 gorillion

>>129035970
Yes. And your use of "the exact time" undermines the timeline of this.
Our emissions strengthen the natural processes which will in turn make the shift in climate happen in a much shorter timeframe than what is normal for the natural changes in climate throughout time.

File: One_million.png (90KB, 1112x1112px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 1112x1112px

In this image is a visual representation of what 400 parts per million looks like. There are one million pixels in the picture and I randomly colored 400 of them red. Look at the image and tell me how a tiny fraction of one percent of CO2 is going to destroy us..

>>129034832
The only thing that is going to kill the earth will be the sun when it goes into red giant mode

>>129034832

>climate change deniers

I thought it was Global Warming?

>>129034832

>97% of scientists who already agree, agree

That is one weak arument if I've ever seen one. Here, have a few decent arguments instead.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXxHfb66ZgM

File: IMG_6621.png (126KB, 1500x1459px)

126KB, 1500x1459px

>>129038443

>mfw I'm colorblind

>>129038443
Hard to spot anon, there was also a point in history the earth was allot warmer, the oceans released allot more CO2 exactly because it was warmer and as a cherry on the pie, the atmosphere had 4000 parts per million. Oh btw I am against dumping industrial waste into the environment.

File: 1472494627825.png (308KB, 492x419px) Image search: [Google]

308KB, 492x419px

>>129038443

>There are one million pixels in the picture and I randomly colored 400 of them red

I love you, anon.

>>129034832
If global warming is real, why did god give us unlimited coal and oil?

Tax on breathing. But nonetheless getting me some CO2 emission stock when the become available. That shit will moon!

But statistics show that humans add a very MINUTE amount of CO2 in comparison to natural addition, believed to be under 7%
he Climate is changing, but to believe it is because of man, is preposterous.
The only reason we have any effect on climate at all, is due to the Methane emissions due to agriculture and farming, but even so, CO2, makes up less than 4% of our atmosphere, a 1% change in water vapour would equal a 100% change in CO2, showing that even then, CO2 doesn't even have that grand of an effect.


Decomposition, PLate Shift, and Volcanoes underwater are all the main sources of CO2 creation, forget what your cars make, because that could be fixed if our engines were made to combust fossil fuels better.
>>129038443
This man gave a very good graphic representation of our small effect.

And let's not forget, Ice sheets are expanding in some eastern-arctic regions, and in Alaska.

>>129035970

Buddy, if ice age wants us dead, were dead, and nothing we do here matters.

If we stray a few inches from the orbit - its ice age.

If sun has a 'dry spell' - its ice age.

We should use our progress to get off this rock and fast.

That would be good for both us and the planet.

>>129034832
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Smhn1gL6Xg
Quit falling for scams

>>129034832
>man-made

Venus and Mars are heating up equally.

>>129034832
97% of 43 scientists...wow...

>>129039347
Oh no, man is responsible for solar system climate change. Oh no what do we.

97% of scientists think OPs a faggot.

im 100% sure that shit is supposed to be some mind virus intrusion to persuade me to accept some blind authorities claims.

>>129034832
Ya David de rothchild is just a poor hippie who sailed a raft made of plastic bottles across the Pacific and is no way going to benefit from the carbon credit system his family put in place.

>>129034832
Ask me if I give a fuck.

File: 1288576330809.jpg (50KB, 533x430px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 533x430px

>climate change means the earth becomes a ball of fire and we all die

>>129034832
OP what is your answer, to all the beautiful posts here, you naughty commie climate fag.

>>129039977
Save the whales you shitlord.

https://youtu.be/zN4zvl5Kr0k

>>129034832
Fuck off climate scientologist

>>129034832
>You are killing this planet.
No, it think that more important people and less civilized nations do. Even if you'd eradicate Germany from a map, the climate change would go on as usual. We are literally unimportant in this one.

What have you all done to save the planet and no paying carbon credit tax is not good enough to make you feel morally superior.

File: leglobalwarming.jpg (397KB, 380x316px) Image search: [Google]

397KB, 380x316px

>>129034832

97% Consequential Misperceptions: Ethics of Consensus on Global Warming https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2887245

>The notion of consensus defies the fundamental principle of scientific inquiry which is not about agreement, but rather a continuous search for understanding. This paper evaluates key disparities of Cook et al (2016) and outlines why a claimed consensus is a powerful tool for driving public policy, but an inappropriate and unethical means of conducting scientific inquiry or informing the public.

>The 97% figure suggests "all" scientists have been surveyed, and indeed so the President’s tweet literally reads, when this is not the case.

>“In 2012, there were 6.2 million scientists and engineers (as defined in this report) employed in the United States” with some 4% or 248,000 working in the physical sciences.” http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43061.pdf

>Humans are highly compliant, herd mentality beings who are easily swayed by apparent majority views, especially by role-dominant experts. Asch (1951) Schacter (1951) Cialdini (2007)

>Humans are strongly averse to rejection or exclusion.Sarnoff & Zimbardo (1962) Williams (2007)

>Consequently, the claim that a statistical majority, nearly 100% of role-dominant expert individuals like scientists agree to a sweeping statement about climate change, is very effective in swaying public opinion.

File: pe.jpg (464KB, 1000x563px) Image search: [Google]

464KB, 1000x563px

>>129034832
>>129040765

>Earth scientists are some of the more skeptical in light of the vast temperature changes they have studied over the past 4 billion years.

>In the geologic record, carbon dioxide is seen as a consequence of the earth’s climate, nominally a cause, and there is no correlation between temperature and carbon dioxide levels in geologic time.

>Carbon dioxide has been at very high levels while temperatures were extremely cold and vice versa.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-mMpGBxPwI&feature=youtu.be

>>129040765
/thread

File: younger_dryas-trigger1.jpg (40KB, 476x254px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 476x254px

>>129040765
>>129040945
>>129034832

>Doran & Zimmerman (2009) is based on Zimmerman (2008). Numerous earth scientist respondents to Zimmerman (2008) explained their view by email that the sun was the main direct and indirect driver of climate change, not humans or carbon dioxide.

>Indeed, as a result of that study author Zimmerman wrote: “I think I'm actually more neutral on the issue now than I was before I started this project.”(pp. 126)

>This important expression of uncertainty by a co-author of a consensus paper and these relevant views by earth scientists (a climate science discipline) are not mentioned, falsely inflating the cause and claim of consensus in Cook et al (2016).

>Cook et al (2016) cite consensus statements by national academies of science, though most of these were made before 2009, over a decade prior to the news of the IPCC reported their 2013 AR5 (Flato et al 2013) that there had been a 15-year hiatus in warming with temperature trends of “values very close to zero” (despite a significant rise in carbon dioxide concentration in that time).

>Cook et al (2016) inaccurately describes Oreskes (2004) (an article not a peer-reviewed study) as having “100% consensus” when Oreskes actually wrote: “Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change.”

>>129034832
>REEEEEEEE! You're killing the planet, you evil NAZI!
And this is why I fucking hate liberals. Anthropogenic climate change is real, and your chimping out does the opposite of convincing people of that. You are part of the fucking problem, and given your flag, it's a safe bet that you have a huge carbon footprint, which makes you a fucking hypocrite to boot.

File: 1364791937546.jpg (69KB, 493x750px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 493x750px

>>129041118
>>129040945
>>129040765
>>129034832


>Peiser (2005) (also not peer-reviewed) re-ran Oreskes (2004) and found only 13 scientists explicitly supported a Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming scenario with some 470 expressing no position whatsoever.

>Anderegg et al (2010) was a “contributed” paper which did not undergo conventional Direct Submission peer-review. Numerous scientists publicly objected to the classification of their work by Anderegg et al (2010) and the outcome that it established of a kind of white and black list of scientists of climate science dogma. These anomalies to “consensus” are not reported.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyUDGfCNC-k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQshyqCLYHo

File: cl.jpg (125KB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 1600x900px

>>129034832
why are you posting this using a device manufactured by child slaves in asia?

>>129034832
>(((Scientists)))
saged

File: Christ_79377d_5948066.jpg (55KB, 680x451px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 680x451px

>>129034832
If God wanted the climate to stay the same he wouldn't let it change. Check mate atheists. Also, sage you fucking boipussylovin' (((science))) freak.

>>129034832
I'm going to purchase and then pour some motor oil in the Ohio river just because you posted this.

Dont be selfish and act like you care about killing the planet. You care that we are killing you and your offspring. Planets gunna be okay without your whiny ass leaching off it.

OP IS A BASIC BITCH

>>129041650

>child slaves
>implying they are not being payed

>>129034832
>How will we live with NO EARTH???

It's better that we die out.

>>129034832
>killing this planet
Planet is mostly molten silica and iron. Now go spew that greenpeace captain planet garbage somewhere else

>>129035305
you cant block people on reddit anyway

>>129034832

I'd like to see the amount of funding given to those that study to DISPROVE climate change.

Then I'd like to compare it to the amount of funding scientists get to PROVE climate change.

I know the government has spent 2.66 BILLION a year on proving climate change since 1993. I know other expenses added on like tax credits, measure an additional 8.94 BILLION....yearly.

Sorry, I couldn't find information on how much funding Climate deniers get. I read the Kosh brothers donated 100 million once. That's all I got.

If I was a scientist? I'd study how to prove global warming. Because I like owning nice things and having money. And that is the ONLY reason I'd do it.

>>129042277
bonded labor.
uma delicia!!!!!

>>129034832
The planet has been through a lot worse and came out fine. The planet adapts, it always has and always will. What you actually mean is that we'll die because, as usual, you're thinking of only yourself.

>>129035489
>ignore all (((scientific evidence)))

I hope you aren't old enough to vote.

>>129038223
Or potentially mass drought. Either way, the earth has got his.

>>129034832
If there was proof, ONLY ONE WOULD BE NEEDED! This is all opinion, that's why they SELECTED 700 people who agreed with them to be part of the survey.

>>129035489

how is human made climate change going to "kill the planet" as OP said. If anything it will just displace a bunch of people living on the coasts. we aren't going to kill the planet, we aren't going to kill off civilization, and the planet has nearly killed all life on its own at least 6 times.

File: bait1.jpg (6KB, 179x180px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 179x180px

>>129034832

>>129034832
>You are killing this planet... Can't you see that???

I'm not the Israeli security firm who blew up the fukushima reactors out of revenge for an Iran arms deal

File: 1395026102384.jpg (431KB, 1144x2154px) Image search: [Google]

431KB, 1144x2154px

>>129042713
>>129043512
>Albert Einstein was a jew therefore his theoretical physics is hogwash even though he was right
Sorry but I'll take science, reason, and deductive logic over MUH FEELS any day.

File: muh97Percent.png (28KB, 492x457px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 492x457px

>Muh 97%

>>129035489
this

>>129034832
>>129034832
>97% NINETY SEVEN PERCENT of scientist agree
100%of people once agreed that the Sun and in fact all the heavenly bodies revolved around the earth.
>Science is not a democracy

>>129044848
>100% once agreed
Guess that's why science proved it wrong

>>129043999

Well Einstein was not a global warming scientist nor did he have massive amounts of funding available in the billions of dollars.

So I'm not sure why you'd bring it up. Maybe you're just kind of stupid. That would explain it.

>>129045293

Science does nothing but prove itself wrong. That's literally all it's ever done throughout known history. Science proves to us the things we think we know for sure, are in fact bullshit.

THAT is what it has accomplished. Oh and the new things we learned will be proven bullshit later. And THAT is science. That's because the egg heads get ego, and start wanting to promote their " genius " theories as facts. And are rabid about anyone trying to disprove them. It's highly political and it always has been. Usually the top scientists have to DIE OFF before real progress can sometimes be made. Have to get the old fuckers out of they way.

And this was BEFORE a sector of science had unimaginable riches funneled into it. It pays damn good to be a human case global warming advocate now.

>>129034832
That 97% stat was derived from 77 scientists out of a 1599 sample. Fuck off

>>129034832
>97% NINETY SEVEN PERCENT of scientist agree that climate change is man made and will destroy the earth. How will we live with NO EARTH???

that study is complete bullshit, it's an intellectual fraud:

Cooking stove use, housing associations, white males, and the 97%

http://www.joseduarte.com/blog/cooking-stove-use-housing-associations-white-males-and-the-97

http://archive.is/v8weF

File: 1496873282590.jpg (1MB, 1895x2726px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1895x2726px

>>129034832
And 95% of Dentist agree that Colgate helps fight cavities better than ______.
No one gives a fuck about your doomsday cult bullshit kid. Go cry about it at starbucks or where ever faggots hangout now.

File: 1468954128273.jpg (410KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

410KB, 800x800px

>>129046040
>still can't understand why Einstein was brought up
Thank you for proving my point.

>>129034832
go kill yourself. problem solved you stupid bitch fuck this earth and humanity. i hope we all die in an irradiated wasteland.

File: I-can-count-to-potato.jpg (35KB, 600x597px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 600x597px

>>129046379

> Albert Einstein was right. Albert Einstein was a scientist. Therefore all scientists are right.

THAT was your point. THAT was the extent of your thinking. Which also is the dumbest fucking thing I've ever heard. Congrats. You are a special kind of special.

>>129034832
You forgot to specify if these scientists actually do work on climate studies. I am a geneticist/bioinformatician and I will be the first to tell you that I don't have an opinion on the subject because it isn't my field. Any self respecting scientist will tell you the exact same thing and won't venture associating his name with a claim he doesn't understand. Oh, and you can't call socialists/psychologists/anthropologists "scientists" because they are subjective fields and anyone can make an opinion into a published work with little to no proof in those fields, so I would imagine most of your "scientists" just went away if you considered that.

>>129044848
>hurr durr people were fucking retards thousands of years ago therefore we still are
not an argument

>>129034832
I'll just leave this here. Founder of the Weather Channel says you're a retard.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T43vc4NZUUc

Your data has been compromised.

>>129034832
If it gets destroyed we'll just rebuild it. That is the human nature. Now fuck off

Sage

>>129047297
>socialists
I meant to say sociologists but it's probably the same thing so whatever.

>>129047536
>a TV weatherman with no scientific training of any kind
wtf I love climate skeptics now

>>129048220
He is a scientist, and the original founder of the Weather Channel, not a TV weather man, you absolute dumb mother fucker.

>>129047483
Yeah it is, actually. You just have no rebuttal. Pathetic NEET.

>>129048546
Because meteorologists are never ever wrong.
kys

>>129048546
what is his field of expertise and where can I find his scientific papers?

>>129036385
If we killed 90% of the stupidest people, the average iq would be... 100.
Because that is how the formula works.
100 is the baseline.
Just like if you killed off the richest 1%, you would still have a richest 1%, just fewer super rich.

File: Bill-Nye's-girlfriend.jpg (73KB, 920x483px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 920x483px

>>129048220

SAVE THE WORLD!

>>129034832
As soon as someone claims the 97 percent thing I know that either they are so stupid and ignorant that they fell for the propaganda, or they are deceitful inorder to push the propaganda. OP is probably the latter so the conversation ends there, no point arguing with sheep.

>>129043999
You did not at all attempt to engage with a single point either comment made. Trips wasted on a useless faggot.

The truth is, cows, pigs and other animals making more damage to the nature than humans machinery activity.

>>129034832
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTTaXqVEGkU

Consensus study is SHIT. Educate yourself fool.

>>129034832
you're delusional

File: BillNyeBeforeIdentityScience.png (513KB, 496x369px) Image search: [Google]

513KB, 496x369px

>>129034832
One way or the other the planet will be fine, the discussion is about humankind you retarded leftie

>>129047483
actually it is
your SINGLE argument is an appeal to majority / appeal to authority.
It's not even an argument. It's a manifold fallacy.

File: 7809709870987.gif (2MB, 324x244px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 324x244px

>>129034832

what are you going to do about it faggot

>>129036132
Fucking THIS you AGW asshats.
The study is a political tool that is a raging embarrassment to science in general. A pathetic and desperate attempt to salvage a crumbling narrative that is begin destroyed by real scientists doing real science.

>>129034832
We realize we're fcked when kids start spreading numbers without even questioning who made this counts, who made this polls, which scientists are you talking about? Names? Do you know one of them? I'm pretty disappointed with the american youth, pretty much everyone being brainwashed by low life degenerated unsuccessful left wingers

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=T43vc4NZUUc

>i-i-its not too late!
Listen, man. Let's get real as fuck. If (((science))) is right as of this date, it's too late. Black pill for days. We're fucked, hombre. No hope. Nothing you push will matter.

So. Either (((science))) is right and you're wasting your time caring about what people think for the sake of (((being green))) versus helping the present day United States economy.
OR it's all wrong. And someone's going to have to prove that it's not too late and this is worth it. Which no (((scientist))) has done to this date.

Also nice troll bait nigger. You got me.

>>129034832
97% NINETY SEVEN PERCENT of 50% of !0% of scientists agree that climate change is man made
Fixed it for you bud.

>>129051413

It ends up being something like .3% of climate scientists believe climate change is man made and a threat to the future.

File: 7A0431CC-FCE4-4F94-A98F-E558496EF7DB-420-00000025EEB175B1.jpg (220KB, 1400x945px) Image search: [Google]

220KB, 1400x945px

>>129034832
97% NINETY SEVEN PERCENT of Germans agree that the Nationalst Socialist Party is the way forward. How will we live wil NO GERMANS???

I am profoundly disappointed that people who only consume (((MSM))) of Truth would deny the trust about immigration policies in favor of the fabricated lies made up by the Zionists...

>>129035469
yes but not with CO2, with chemtrails

>>129049842
Planting trees for carbon credits fails to take into account that when those trees die and rot the carbon dioxide is released.
The whole tax and trade in carbon credits is a hoax.
Water vapor is twice as harmful as carbon dioxide. OH NOES! WATER IS TOXIC!
Methane is 15 times worse. TAX COW FARTS NAOW!
Perhaps we are overreacting, as Russanon stated.

>>129034832

Figuring out how to plug a few volcanos and keeping them from exploding into the atmosphere would do more to slow down global heating cycle than worrying about human behavior.

One mid size volcano puts more shit into the air than all of human behavior in last couple of years.

You can check that as well.

Also reason why skeptics think there is an agenda is because of which industries are getting the money for this and how it seems like a political way of funneling money into the third world. So that agenda, plus the fact that we can't tell if this isn't a natural part of the earth's heating and cooling cycles. We've had mini ice-ages within recorded history, and without a model telling us if this is natural or not, it looks like this is a way of lobby groups trying to go after other groups usually politically convient cover/clout.

So all these agendas cause problems and it isn't so much denying humans have an impact, it's how much, what else is going into the agenda, etc.

OP is going to need a blood transfusion due to the blood loss from his rekt rectum.

>>129052174
scientists have to veryfy a thing with the scientific method national socialism is an ideology

File: 1468952974981.jpg (11KB, 255x223px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 255x223px

>>129046516
>>129047279
says the potato poster. now count to tomato.

>>129036132
As an actual scientist -- it's difficult to get 97% of anyone to agree on anything, outside of the fundamental laws of physics and stoichiometry.

You'll even find two doctors wanting separate procedures or surgeries for the same problem.


Finding 97% consensus in something as new and viable as climate change is a red flag for political motivation and slush funding.

File: 2017-06-08 14.48.31.png (448KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

448KB, 1080x1920px

Quit spreading propaganda. Thanks.

>>129034832

Get the niggers, mudslimes and spics out of our countries faggot and then we'll talk about preserving the planet.

Until then though, we have nothing to lose.

>>129034832
> 97% NINETY SEVEN PERCENT of scientist agree that climate change is man made and will destroy the earth. How will we live with NO EARTH???

incorrect anon.

the "97%" stat comes from:
a study done found 35,000 (roughly) people worldwide are in a position to academically comment on climate change. largely due to their uni degrees or current jobs.

of those 35,000 the asked 2,500 the following question.
"Does human activity have an impact on climate change?"
97% answered yes.

So:
0. g8 b8 m8

1. your mis representing what that stat really means.

2. you seem to think science has ever been about majority rule.
at the time of galileo, 97% of "scientists" doubted his sun centric universe... didn't make him incorrect did it.

3. your idea we could "destroy the earth" is cute, but unrealistic. its a somewhat soothing feeling to realise:
"Even if we wanted to, we couldn't blow the world up!"
I mean, we could kill all humans easy enough, but try killing life itself... Good luck is all i will say!

4. just because your paid by someone doesn't mean you HAVE to shill for them. objective, unfavourable reports are wrote all the time.
and why do you think "green energy" companies are not paying shills?

Truth fears no investigation.

I can't hear you over my Ferd 350 diesel. It's been warming up for an hour. I'm running it on used motor oil for maximum coal roll. It's 70℉ out but I'm running my a/c at max tilt. I'll throw some trash on my pallet pile later and have my usual bonfire.

File: Africa population.png (290KB, 866x878px) Image search: [Google]

290KB, 866x878px

>>129034832

No, "climate change" won't destroy the Earth; Sub-Saharan fertility will.

>>129057469
Wait, so you mean that the 97 stat is just people saying humans contribute? Which like practically no one on the skeptic side disagrees with? Fuck me, you chicken littles are retarded.

>>129053428
a super volcano does about 150 years of human "damage".

apparently, and not that you can get research grants to look into it.
you could paint all the roads and roofs white and it would undo all human "damage".

> Also reason why skeptics think there is an agenda is because of which industries are getting the money for this and how it seems like a political way of funneling money into the third world. So that agenda, plus the fact that we can't tell if this isn't a natural part of the earth's heating and cooling cycles. We've had mini ice-ages within recorded history, and without a model telling us if this is natural or not, it looks like this is a way of lobby groups trying to go after other groups usually politically convient cover/clout.

people comment on "coal shills" but never stop to think about green company shills.
and that ignores there are 0 government funded research papers into debunking this shit, can't even get a grant to check (((their))) studies.

the agenda isn't hard to figure out.
both the UN and the EU say:
"We need super national bodies to deal with super national problems like the environment and terrorism", they say it quite simply.
No wonder "climate change" is blown out of proportion and we have jihadist on our door step.

> it isn't so much denying humans have an impact, it's how much
you can quantify it anon.

take a 20 foot cube room.
how many matches would you have to light to raise the rooms co2 level proportionate to the effect of 10 years of human carbon emissions...
any ideas?

drum roll....!
1/5th of a match...
thats it, thats all the effect our cars have on the environment over 10 years. literally fucking nothing.

all that being said.
sustainability, sure important.
pollution, real big problem..

but even by IPCC report, if we cut world GDP by something like 15%, pretty much put us back in the middle ages, AND spent trillions... we could possibly reduce world temp by 1 degree over the next 100 years...
:(

File: climate.jpg (640KB, 1200x1134px) Image search: [Google]

640KB, 1200x1134px

>>129034832

>>129034832
I am happy to bring all you faggots down with me together. Hell is preferable to your company

>>129058383
yes.
> Which like practically no one on the skeptic side disagrees with
again yes.

if you fart you have an effect on climate change, (((they))) try to pose the whole thing even "climate change denier" implies "those idiots don't believe in weather!!"

its a jew tactic, strawman the opposition.

"scientists are smart, 97% agree with X, do you agree to X and my implied Y? if not your a fucking bigot!"
its amazing how many arguments basically come down to appeal to authority.

> chicken littles
what did he mean by this?

>>129059693
I mistook your comment for someone else's. Thought you were a "muh climate change-r
Apologies, anon-kun.
Also, chicken little is the 'sky is falling' fable

>>129059693
>its amazing how many arguments basically come down to appeal to authority.


There's a wealth of scientific literature available, but all I see are arguments against al-gore or this 97% thing, or the MSM, none of which have anything to do with the science of climate change.

File: co2.jpg (289KB, 1280x800px) Image search: [Google]

289KB, 1280x800px

>>129061153
The climate IS changing due to human emissions.

Explain why the Earth shouldn't be cooling right now? The Earth's orbit around the sun is in a phase which should be cooling it, and solar activity has been decreasing slightly for the last decade.

Additionally, explain the massive spike in CO2 ppm over the last 2 centuries if not for humans? Did it come from the oceans? Some massive amount of volcano eruptions? What?

>>129062511
> Explain why the Earth shouldn't be cooling right now
it has and is anon.

thats the point.

IF co2 was directly related to temp rise, why in last 15 years with more co2 than ever has the world been cooling???

>>129034832
What about the other 3% of scientists? Who are they? If 99% of scientists said bigfoot is real but Einstein and Tesla were included in the 1% I know who I'd believe.

>>129034832
You got 97% of all scientists on earth's opinion, or 97% of the (((100))) used for the study?

>>129062511
>The climate IS changing due to human emissions.
yes, i know, hence why I said that the vast majority of people on the skeptic side don't disagree with that point

>>129035097

Who caused the temperature of your house to change before you turned on the fan heater?

I'm waiting patiently for your answer.

>>129062064
this is possibly the best at looking at the real data.
https://youtu.be/Gh-DNNIUjKU

its possibly because there are at least 2 convocations and a few topics all wrapped up together and very hard to pick apart.
namely:
Climate change often gets wrapped up in environmentalism. Just because i think "greenhouse effect" is bullshit, doesn't mean i want to dump oil in the sea.

Also the fact of, by even posing an alternative opinion on the data, you are thrown into a whole convocation about how something even like climate change is susceptible to things like "media bias", "narrative spinning" etc...
Unless someone has already dealt with "the media are LYING", then they won't realise it discussing climate change.

>>129054675
>scientist
>usa
pick one

>>129034832
Read the 3 percent that proves the other 97 they are wrong instead

File: trends.gif (16KB, 500x354px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 500x354px

>>129062783
Why are you fixated on such a short period? Climate models themselves all function on a range that's atleast 20 years in length (at minimum)

Anyways, that's not even true. Earth surface temps has warmed .14 degree celsius from 1997.

Denialists also conveniently forget that the oceans absorb 90% of the warming, and not even 3% impacts surface temperatures. And guess what? The oceans are warming, significantly.

>>129063650
Let's assume for a second these 3 percent is right and it is a giant hoax to make people finally reduce emissions and take a closer look at their environment..what would it change?

>>129063484
I'm not going to watch a 53 minute video, just summarize his arguments.

>climate change often gets wrapped up in environmentalism. Just because i think "greenhouse effect" is bullshit, doesn't mean i want to dump oil in the sea.

The media does this, not the scientists. If you have an issue with the scientific literature, then post it and we can have a good discussion.

For example, why do you think this?
>Just because i think "greenhouse effect" is bullshit

>>129034832
Only Amerinogs believe climate change is a hoax. This is a shadow of their being in an unnatural climate. They no longer no what white weather is like and so think that warming is normal.

>>129064717
They are just a failed state full of mongs who love to tell themselves whatever they see fit.

>>129063987

Do you think that warming right after the end of an ice age can only be caused by humans?

If the answer is no, you're a DENIER welcome to the club

>>129034832
Hey Op you wanna save the world...... OPT out of life and save the oxygen for those that actually have intelligence

>>129034832
Science isn't based on consensus you blockhead. These "muh 97% of scientists" people are so fucking annoying. Show me a list of every scientist in the world and their position on GLObAL WARmING and maybe then you can parrot this argument, but I know your answer will be "97% of those polled" but "muh 97% of all scientists. "

File: 547548788.jpg (20KB, 306x306px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 306x306px

>>129034832
>muh alarmist "the world will end if we dont give more money to china and india RIGHT NOW!"
i don't even have words to describe how tired i am of hearing people like you open their mouths when they know absolutely nothing about anything

It's the pinnacle of hubris to think that the climate change we're causing will 'destroy the earth'. We'll fuck our own habitats up and cause our own extinction, sure, but the earth will recover in a geological period of time and be no worse for wear

>>129064717
>Only Amerinogs believe climate change is a hoax.
Hmmm...I'm not American, nor do I believe in CC...it's simply a method of transfering money from rich countries to poor countries...a Ponzi scheme...

>>129034832
i believe in it but you should cut your balls off for using the "muh consensus" argument because you're too stupid to make a scientific argument on your own

>>129034832
>You are killing this planet
By using the internet instead of planting foliage you are killing this planet. You are no different than us it seems.

Also, tell me more about the natural cycle of the Earth, and how we aren't in a period of extended warmth that is followed by an ice-age, in which many scientists agree is the case?

I'm profoundly disappointing in our mutual ability to repeat what others have told us.

>>129034832
>Fuck you. You are killing this planet.
news flash faggot. planets fucked anyways. get your head out of your ass. you cant stop it. you can only lessen its effects to some degree. and the united states is already the world leader in that regard.

File: 1350202585904.jpg (230KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 1000x1000px

>>129066686

>i believe in it

>>129034832
>muh appeal to authority fallacy

File: meme.jpg (259KB, 518x555px) Image search: [Google]

259KB, 518x555px

>>129034832
KEK HAS SPOKEN

>>129064077
>>129065177

>>129064077

Who ever said anything about a hoax?

Once upon a time a sandnigger pedophile decided to say God has spoken to him, 1400 years later some moron decided to cut your daughter's throat on a bridge. You think he was in on the "hoax"?

>>129034832
Actually, climate models overstate feedback cycles. Whilst the earth is warming (as it has, along with cooling, many times before), the rate at which it is warming is vastly overstated.

https://mises.org/library/skeptics-case


Also Stephan :D - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gDErDwXqhc

File: GlobalWarmingSince1900.jpg (81KB, 854x480px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 854x480px

No one has to 'believe' in climate change. Either you understand the facts or you don't. Belief is not a factor.

File: yea.jpg (192KB, 903x809px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 903x809px

>>129069049

Agreed 100%.

>>129067733
>>muh appeal to authority fallacy
>Muh fallacy fallacy

File: models.gif (859KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

859KB, 500x281px

>>129065746

Examine and understand why the Earth has natural warming periods and cooling periods, and then once you've understood that and those variables, explain why we're not cooling RIGHT NOW, as we should be.

Solar activity is DECREASING, earth's current tilt & orbital phase should have been cooling it, but it's still warming.

The earth doesn't magically warm and cool on its own.

>>129069040
stephan is a fucking coward who doesn't dare to have an actual climate scientist on his show, even though many have extended the offer.

pic related on "a skeptics case"
the figure they use is totally misleading

>>129070175

>How can we ever recover from these record temperatures

File: Screen Shot 2017-06-08 at 21.32.22.png (632KB, 2306x1247px) Image search: [Google]

632KB, 2306x1247px

>>129064459

claim: world is getting hotter
arguments against:
> usa was hotter in the 30's, its getting cooler on average.
> of the 27,000 temp sensors world wide, over 10k are in the usa, and less than 20 are in the south pole, hardly global temp.

NOAA data is incorrect/fudged/fixed to prove their pre existing hypothesis, co2 direct link to temp increase.

Scientists and Media have both shilled this story for 60 years, they have never been right about their predictions.
in the 50-60's we were heading for a mini ice age.
in the 70's when this didn't happen it turned to global warming.
in the 90's when this didn't happen they changed it to climate change so they didn't have to explain why the world was cooling.


the sea level rising is the most constant, stable metric in the whole of nature.
for the last 5000 years it's been rising about 2cm every decade.
a foot every 100 years...
literally nothing.
> "why are people so worried about it then??"
because people still haven't learnt the lesson of atlantis:
if you build your civilisation next to the sea, eventually it will fall in.

only reason people worry about the sea level is because they KEEP building next to the sea and river beds...

File: meehle_2004.jpg (22KB, 500x271px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 500x271px

>>129070857
blue is what should be happening.
black is what is happening.
red is what climate models hindcast and forecast.

Hey guys,

i believe climate change is influenced by humans.

Thats why i dont seperate thrash drive as much as possible. And do other stuff to damage the enviroment.

I do that because i believe the time of my people is over. And soone some sandnigger or someone else will take over after our fall.

I dont want that. So i hope for the collapse.

Regards.

>>129034832
>one volcano
>Paris was about shit countries leaching money off of the USA. Why should we pay for everyone?

>>129034832
Let's work to fix climate change together, the first thing we can do is shoot all the Leftists and globalists who are forcing us to import millions of people from the developing/third world into our nations. They have massive birthrates, and when they come here they retain those birthrates but amp up their usage of resources, so hugely inflating the problem. We will also be ending all aid to these nations and allowing their populations to fight for their own survival or die. If you don't agree with this, then you're another fraudulent enviro-cultist like 99% of the others.

File: sunspots.jpg (222KB, 928x776px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 928x776px

>>129070676

I think you are trying to mention milankov cycles? Not sure why you don't straight up say what you mean. We "shouldn't be" anything and there are plenty of reasons why the Earth could be warming and cooling like the way the oceans work and so on. Anyway, solar activity decreasing doesn't necessarily mean temperatures on Earth decreasing, for example when Sun's activity decreases the magnetic field of the sun around the solar system decreases as well allowing for cosmic rays to penetrate deeper which might also have an effect on temperatures. I have only a shallow understanding of this. Certainly the sun has an impact on the climate, as do the oceans, the clouds and so on. As I understand it there are certain factors which change the rate of cloud formation which also contribute to a decrease in global temperatures.

My point is that you're asking me to point to one thing that explains global temperatures being on the rise since the LIA terminated and I'm saying there is not enough data to assume that CO2 is the sole responsible for this, specially when you take into consideration that CO2 and temperature don't even correlate properly in order to make that assumption. Also, maybe it is actually cooling, these things have a delay, the oceans play a big role as heat is moved around and so on.

Saying that Milakonv cycles don't completely explain warming (not even sure if that's right) doesn't mean you can just say that then it must be CO2 when you're working with such a complex system.

File: 1489930957902.jpg (35KB, 480x423px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 480x423px

>>129057469
nice source faggot.

>>129071879
> usa was hotter in the 30's, its getting cooler on average.

USA is 2% of the globe, and so doesn't change the global trends, it's also not getting cooler on average. It's been warming .185 C per decade.

>NOAA data is incorrect/fudged/fixed to prove their pre existing hypothesis, co2 direct link to temp increase.

No. pic related
As you can see, the greatest adjustments occurred before 1950, and only to fix inaccurate reporting due to outdated instruments.

>in the 50-60's we were heading for a mini ice age.

Wrong again, only 10% of papers predicted cooling. The major paper that predicted an ice-age was predicting the effects of CFCs if emissions were tripled or quadrupled or something (and this would have happened had the world not agreed to reducing CFCs)

>in the 70's when this didn't happen it turned to global warming.
in the 90's when this didn't happen they changed it to climate change so they didn't have to explain why the world was cooling.

It's still global warming. The world is only cooling in a few aspects/regions.

>>129034832
brainwashed, manipulated, right from the start.
fuck of, go learn about how CO2 couples IR to kinetic energy, look at relaxation times vs mean path length, find the big fat mistake, see that CO2 is a net cooling gas. cry

File: 2000 (1).jpg (70KB, 620x451px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 620x451px

>>129074626
forgot pic

>>129034832
Fuck you Tyrone.
On a hot day I just turn on my aircon even while I go to the beach so my house is chilly when I walk in the door but the thought of you dying of heat exhaustion and impotently raging that internet Nazis fucked your life up makes me happy.

>>129034832

Dont worry. Whites and Asians will colonize other planets before the SHTF. In 200 years Earth will be like Fallout only with angry niggers instead of super mutants.

>>129071983

I'm going to guess that the problem with this computer model (not a prediction) is that it assumes high sensitivity to CO2, which is yet to be proven. Just a guess.

>>129062511
>>129062783
>>129064717
>>129069040


co2 : net cooling.
co2 2nd bending state relaxation times are measured using shock IR excitation, and represent relaxation from saturation to rest. 10us.
This is unrepresentative of CO2 in atmosphere, where relaxation is not shock excitation to rest but rather slightly above thermal equilibrium to thermal equilibrium. time? picoseconds.

IR<->CO2<->kinetic coupling asymmetry swaps, net cooling in diurnal cycle (more heating day, even more cooling night).

Q.E.D.

https://gyazo.com/d5943c0607764ac8d9b85dff39fbdf2f

>>129034832
WAHHH WAHHH WAHHHH WAHHHH WWAHHHHH WAHHHH WAHHHH

WAHHH WAHHHH.

Fuck off Shill , lets say its true, we all die.
Say it is fake.... AMERICA FIRST

Either Way it is a win

File: 6ed.gif (760KB, 283x230px) Image search: [Google]

760KB, 283x230px

>>129034832
Whoa OP is a faggot

>>129077692

This is fascinating. What about different levels of the atmosphere?

File: Mike-Pence-Chip-Somodevilla-Staff-Getty.jpg (72KB, 594x396px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 594x396px

>>129034832
we need to adapt you shill, it cant be reversed

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

>>129034832
>97% NINETY SEVEN PERCENT of scientist agree that climate change is man made and will destroy the earth.

Wrong

>>129074704
>1880 till 200x
How old is earth again?
Stop with the half truths and post the whole chart LIAR

>>129046379
>>129054440
derailing threads with context denial and the absolute avoidance of answering a posters analysis should be a permanent ban. You add nothing to this discussion and just spew your garbage. I sincerely hope you get shot and die in front of your useless family.

File: hide posts.png (2KB, 79x64px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 79x64px

>>12908115 0
ignore them?

>>129073878
Yes, but all of these variables are ENTIRELY contingent upon milankovitch cycles and the sun.

> Anyway, solar activity decreasing doesn't necessarily mean temperatures on Earth decreasing, for example when Sun's activity decreases the magnetic field of the sun around the solar system decreases as well allowing for cosmic rays to penetrate deeper which might also have an effect on temperatures

Not to the extent that it can properly compensate the decrease in solar activity,

>Certainly the sun has an impact on the climate, as do the oceans, the clouds and so on. As I understand it there are certain factors which change the rate of cloud formation which also contribute to a decrease in global temperatures.

So there's a few things here:
1. Clouds have both negative and positive feedback loops which can either warm or cool the planet, so clouds aren't likely a significant factor in consistent warming trends
2. We know its not the oceans because then they should be COOLING, rather than warming. It's impossible for anything that's warming, to release some of that heat and then continue to warm further.

>CO2 and temperature don't even correlate properly in order to make that assumption.

90% of glacial-interglacial warming happened after atmosphereic CO2 was released.

>>129047297
>>129047829
doubt you are much good of a scientist then
I'm a biologist and anyone with an education above undergrad (which I doubt you have) knows these are aspects of anthropology that are absolutely not subjective and empirical in nature.

My guess is you just have a 4 year BSc and call yourself a scientist (protip: you arent).

>>129034832
>Anonamis

>>129034832
Zach Samford is a fucking nigger loving faggot.

>>129081572
>trying to convince somebody by appeal to own authority
>on an anonymous south vietnamese trap board
just go back to where ever you came from and grow your (((account)))

>>129070676
Hmmm I wonder how many climate chance scidiots vote liberal to keep their funding. Ohh yeah humans are so smart that we can predict the future. You tried to predict Hillry into office and that failed. Quit trying to predict the end of the world.

File: token_2.png (82KB, 256x256px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 256x256px

>>129034832
>I hope climate change is real and we enter an ice age. Because you know who will survive an ice age? Civilized people with heating and greenhouse technology. You know who wont? Niggers in Africa and the middle east.

>>129034832
>How will we live with NO EARTH???
You won't.
and that's the plan.
kek

Is there any reason to save this planet with this demographic change?

Wont all these muslims and immigrants prefer the warmer climate in Europe?

File: IQ.png (341KB, 618x853px) Image search: [Google]

341KB, 618x853px

>>129084377

It's tragically amusing when leftists claim to be protecting the future while simultaneously promoting their own extinction.

File: 1482680834561.png (700KB, 595x845px) Image search: [Google]

700KB, 595x845px

>>129034832
>You are killing this planet

impossible. not to be a retard leftist like you, but youd need a literal Death Star to kill a planet. ignore that planets arent alive in the first place. maybe you mean kill all life on the planet? also impossible. you all suffer from hubris: to think man is mighty enough to end all life on Earth.

get over yourself.

>>129081455

>Not to the extent that it can properly compensate the decrease in solar activity,

>1. Clouds have both negative and positive feedback loops which can either warm or cool the planet, so clouds aren't likely a significant factor in consistent warming trends

Maybe. I wouldn't just discard those factors in what is a very complex system though.

>2. We know its not the oceans because then they should be COOLING, rather than warming. It's impossible for anything that's warming, to release some of that heat and then continue to warm further.

Well the problem with that statement is that we can't measure the oceans past a certain depth, there are only measurements up to 1900m when the average depth of the oceans is almost double that so.. We don't know for sure how temperatures work deep down, maybe it is cooling overall. Between 0-700m is warming much more than from 700m to 1900m from what I've seen, so the trend might continue the deeper you go.

>90% of glacial-interglacial warming happened after atmosphereic CO2 was released.

I can't seem to find anything right now but I remember reading that the argument is that the exact opposite happened, and CO2 was released right after those warming periods as a consequence of the warming.

File: download.jpg (10KB, 281x179px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 281x179px

>>129082956
Right? dont all the niggerz say us why people are like neaderthals? we cave kingz beeoch

>>129037562
yeah you got a subsidy (that we all paid for) for a technology that would never pay back its cost and is probably the most inefficient method of power generation. Also where do you think the minerals to make a solar panel comes from? Oh right, strip mines.

>>129034832
Pretty sure that not believing in something is not the main cause for something. Direct your anger at the fossil fuel industry instead.

>>129034832

>tfw not sure if OP is trolling with that debunked shit or not because retarded greens actually still use that argument unironically.

>>129034832
Who give a fuck about the planet when white people are being bread out. Have fun living in the stone age again when every first world country turns into Brazil, faggot.

When paid for those studies retard