Prove me wrong that 97% of climate change scientists are not

>>8434188

prove me wrong that god doesn't actually exist.

>>8434188
Prove me wrong that 97% of biologists are not in fact suffering from the bandwagon effect, peer pressure and group think in order to push this evolution meme.

>>8434188
shrinking glaciers etc.

it's called evidence

>>8434188
Prove me wrong that 97% of physicists are not in fact suffering from the bandwagon effect, peer pressure and group think in order to push this gravity meme

>>8434188
Prove me wrong that 97% of physicists are not in fact suffering from the bandwagon effect, peer pressure and group think in order to push this dark energy meme.

>>8434188
Prove me wrong that 97% of ducks are not in fact suffering from the bandwagon effect, peer pressure and group think in order to push this bread meme.

>>8434188
if their job is reliant on human-caused global warming being the main cause of climate change being true then of course they will say it is true

>>8434220
But bread is bad for ducks.
Checkmate atheists

>>8434228
But there's even more money to be made lobbying against climate change than there is publishing papers supporting it.

Do we have to have this thread every day?

>>8434202
>>8434213
>>8434215
>>8434216
>>8434220

cool strawmans bro XD XD XD

>>8434238
If there was more money for the climate change scientists in lobbying against climate change, more would do it. Without a doubt some people make much more money lobbying against it than for it, but those people are almost assuredly not climate change scientists otherwise there would be a significant faction doing that.

>>8434245
If scientists cared about money, they wouldn't have become scientists.

The reason that more don't do it is because they would have to argue against what their research is telling them.

>>8434229
Walmart whales have the iq of ducks.
Praise the Lord.

>>8434216
I concede

>>8434247
>If scientists cared about money, they wouldn't have become scientists.
You can't verifiably apply this to all scientists, and also as I said their job is reliant on this being true and they don't make any more by lobbying against it, and in fact that actively hurt their job prospects by lobbying against it. There is not caring about pay and then there is needing money and a job to survive.

>>8434325
>can't verifiably apply this to all scientists

yeah 97% is enough

>>8434325
>their job is reliant on this being true
Do you really think that if climate change is miraculously proven to be false, we will no longer require scientists to monitor the climate?

I'm not sure exactly what level of retardedness I'm dealing with here, but lets assume that you accept that global warming is happening, but you don't accept that humans are influencing it. How would this change the amount of scientists we need?

Scientists spend their lives trying to PROVE EACH OTHER WRONG. The people least capable of a conspiracy are scientists.

If you think otherwise you have no experience whatsoever of science.

>>8434345
This. Presenting a new hypothesis to fellow scientists is like throwing an object into a monkey cage. The only ones not torn to shreds in a few days are the ones with a consistency of a concrete traffic block.

>>8434342
>monitor the climate?
The 3%, who else. Billions and Billions saved..

man-made climate change just happens to be the best theory we have at the moment, but it's obviously not the correct one

just imagine hundreds of years ago when everyone though the sun went around the earth, that's where we are now with climate research

>>8434540
>>8434534
You completely missed the point. Congratuations.

Also
>we should spend the minimum possible resources monitoring what the planet is doing
>especially if there is a chance we are fucking it up
>everybody that disagrees with what I think should be fired

I hope you never reproduce.

>>8434540
>obviously not the correct one
I'm sure you're more than qualified to make that judgement

bad news for warmists: >>8434010

>>8434214
Evidence that we are on the tail end of an ice age?

To those who believe in man-made global warming; not trying to attack here, just trying to get an explanation; why was there an Ice Age when humanity didn't even have the technology to pollute the world (or produce high levels of CO2).

>>8434866
Are you really this retarded? I'm going to assume you're trolling for my sanity's sake.

File: erin lel face.jpg (13KB, 306x295px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 306x295px

>>8434188
>97% of x
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
100% of people can see through your desperate bullshit.

>>8434879
>le epic insult trolling meme answer
back to r.e.ddi.t my good friend :^)

This statistic takes 2nd place for most the widely used and most improperly interpreted -- after the men/women wage gap statistic.

"97% of climate papers *stating a position on human-caused global warming* agree..."

The vast majority of climate research is funded by organizations that want results implicating humans as serious contributors to climate change, so they can bolster their proposals for continued RnD funding. This is not exclusive to climate research, but is a factor in all fields of applied, scientific research -- which poses a lot of ethical dilemmas. For example, I worked with someone who, many years ago, began the first environmental research on the impact of leaded gasoline on lead content in soil. He recalls members of his own research group, as well as groups they worked with, resorting to all sorts of tactics to get the results they wanted for continued funding. Primarily, they took the vast majority of their soil samples from dirt near major roadways, and passed the resulting lead concentrations they found as representative of lead content in the expansive swaths of land they claimed to study.

Scientific consensus is tricky. Through logical reasoning, it's inarguable that humans add greenhouse gases into the atmosphere -- which inherently affect climate. But there is no strong, 97% consensus beyond that of the extent of impact, or even how it correlates to temperature. Anyone that tries to claim otherwise is misled (no surprise). It could be a gigantic problem, or it could be blown up as a talking point for politicians. We simply don't know how all of the variables affecting temperature, atmospheric composition, etc. interact in predicating climate.

t. environmental chemist.

>>8434792
>the tail end of an ice age
>over the past 35 years
seems legit

>>8434242
>n-no stop repeating what I said word-for-word that's a strawman

Prove me wrong that 97% of
mathematicians are not in fact suffering from the bandwagon effect, peer pressure and group think in order to push this -1/12.

File: loretta_lynch_act_cops.jpg (37KB, 315x726px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 315x726px

>>8434866
How did the Vikings manage to first melt the Greenland glaciers and then initiate the Little Ice Age?

>>8434946
Whereas, conversely, of course, those in the employ of petrochemical corporations and heavy industry generally keep coming up with obviously specious arguments to the contrary because they're the impartial ones and aren't pushing an agenda at all.

>>8434866
My guess is because of low concentrations of carbondioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. That would limit the amount of solar energy absorbed by the atmosphere that heats the Earth. This would lead to a global cooling. Whereas amassed ice, gained in the winter, would usually melt during summer, this would then not be the effect. Each year new layers of ice would accumulate.

>>8436141
With excess CO2 emission obviously.

File: scientists.png (543KB, 516x489px) Image search: [Google]

543KB, 516x489px

>>8434345
we have a winner

File: history.png (36KB, 614x235px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 614x235px

The Party always got 97% of the votes.
Isn't that funny.

>>8434866
CO2 isn't the only driver of climate change.

File: gw.png (133KB, 992x486px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 992x486px

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1

>>8434247
yeah fucking right, throw a million dollars at anyone and they'll say whatever you want

>>8436196
damn... that's actually a really good point

>>8437105
Which is exactly what happened to the 3%

>>8437117
either 3% was entirely bribed scientists or a good chunk of the 97% was bribed scientists
hm...

File: intothetrash.jpg (31KB, 352x450px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 352x450px

>>8437089
>meterologists

>>8437173
people who study the weather

File: disappoint.gif (754KB, 400x358px) Image search: [Google]

754KB, 400x358px

>>8437175
>the weather

File: Meteorologists.jpg (61KB, 1825x1024px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 1825x1024px

>>8437089
The data show that meteorologists with more expertise in climate science believe AGW is real while those with no publication experience and no expertise are more likely to believe there is insufficient evidence. Just as we would expect.

The simplest way to prove climate change is insurance companies.

https://www.aviva.com/media/thought-leadership/climate-change-value-risk-investment-and-avivas-strategic-response/

At this point you have to be braindead to believe climate change isn't happening.

>Left unchecked, climate change will continue to affect the actuarial assumptions underpinning the insurance products that our industry provides. It will also render significant proportions of the economy uninsurable

>It will also render significant proportions of the economy uninsurable

>uninsurable

Think about that a moment. One of the largest insurance companies in the world is now telling people to be prepared to live in a world that is uninsurable because climate related disasters will increase.

Fuck you deniers. Fuck you all.

>>8434866
Ice ages are normal and happen naturally, you don't understand the idea behind modern climate change here.

The idea is that mankind is accelerating the process of climate change due to our fossil fuel burning and other forms of pollution. It's simple, we're adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere at an alarming rate and this affects the climate. Doesn't take a genius to understand. The argument here isn't whether climate change exists, it's whether humans are greatly influencing it, and according to many scientific institutions around the world (NASA, JAXA, ESA, etc), we are.

Proof for carbon levels at an all high, results linked below (Credit: Vostok ice core data/J.R. Petit et al.; NOAA Mauna Loa CO2 record.)

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

>>8434345
>>8434361
Jesus you half-assed "science fans" have no idea what the ground-level situation is.

Scientists can follow the herd as easily or more so than other professions. It's how something like 90% of current sociology research is crumbling. Something similar happened ~10 years ago with fMRI, affecting some 40% of studies due to incorrect statistical assumptions.

>>8437650
How do you know sociology research is wrong? How do you know fMRI analysis is wrong? It's not because some crank wrote on his blog that it's all a big government hoax to raise taxes. It's because scientists PROVED them wrong.

>>8437678
The problem dumbass is that you don't know where things stand re: AGW. It's plausible that this scientific consensus was driven by precisely the same forces that have now destroyed the credibility of sociology. And paleoclimatology was/is a tiny, tiny field dominated by 2-3 labs. One is the Mann lab of hockey stick fame, who via email leaks we know is perfectly willing to bend results to suit his needs.

>>8437686
>It's plausible that this scientific consensus was driven by precisely the same forces that have now destroyed the credibility of sociology.
No it's not, because the evidence is right there, everything has been tested and retested, and yet the theory stands strong. The problem with sociology is no that "forces" destroyed it, it's simply that there was no critical process in place to cut the chaff. The same with fMRI analysis. No one looked at the statistics, until someone did. The exact opposite is true for climatology. There is a massive amount of incentive for, and a massive amount of, criticism. Yet the theory still stands strong. What you are really saying is that climatology is different because there is a conspiracy against the criticism itself. But there is no such thing in science.

>And paleoclimatology was/is a tiny, tiny field dominated by 2-3 labs.
What? A simple google search will give you tens of highly respected paleoclimatology departments with high impact rates.

>One is the Mann lab of hockey stick fame, who via email leaks we know is perfectly willing to bend results to suit his needs.
Bullshit. But thanks for proving my point that your true argument is conspiracy logic, not "following the herd".

>>8434188
It's funny how whenever science deniers get proven wrong and can't come up with a valid counterargument, they have nothing left but to resort to "it's a conspiracy by the evil scientists!!!". I see it all the time with climate change deniers, evolution deniers, Anti-GMO activists, and anti-vaccine parents.

>>8437580
>insurance companies

this

The problem is that people think

AGW => carbon tax is good

and this is unproven.

>>8437710
And leaving these people to live their lives as they see fit is wholely unacceptable, right?

Why not leave them be instead of saying "submit or perish" like a brutish tyrant?

>>8437784
>how dare you prove my beliefs wrong!
>muh freedom to not be criticized
>muh safe space
You have to go back >>>/pol/

>>8434188
>Prove me wrong
Easy. Consensus is irrelevant, all that matters is a preponderance of evidence, which anthropogenic climate change has.

>>8437784
Because your actions will fuck over tens of millions of people. That's why.

You lose your rights to choose when you choose to harm others.

>>8437794
Not even.

Did I trigger you

Let others live and believe as they see fit, if your evidence is substantial enough you will sway them, if not then let them be.

>>8437806
So mandatory austerity and "green police" watching your every move?

Why not fund better technology instead of trying to regulate peoples private lives?

>>8437810
Because waiting the decades it will take to create the new fantasy technology you speak of will allow a disaster.

>>8437808
>Not even.
Great comeback. >>>/pol/

>>8437829
Is there not currently technology which would offset our use of fossil fuels?

We need to start somewhere.

>>8437830
You wish to fit me into a mold in order to dismiss my arguments instead of rebutting them.

>>8437838
Are you really still whining about getting spanked? >>>/pol/

>>8437829
Like austerity and the green police aren't already causing a disaster? Like they will actually prevent global warming? UN 21 is literally herding people into cities that will just be underwater anyway, brainlets.

>>8434213
Well the theory of evolution is a bit more solid and seemingly reinforced as the years go by with observation and supporting science from many fields. The AGW theory is really just computer simulations of the earths CO2 molecules and their effect on climate which is a highly dubious undertaking to being with and seemingly biased from the get go.

>>8435956
The antarctic is growing. If there wasn't so much pressure to regulate and control hydrocarbon energy and by extension life in the oil age climate science along with historical geology would point to a cooling planet and that was the original theory btw. I suspect turfed because there is no way to make money on that. Remember AGW is a trillion dollar industry now, in fact it is impossible to put a price tag on hydro carbon control as fossil fuels are critical to modern life now. With resource depletion on the horizon it is only natural for the ruling class monkeys to make a power grab. AGW "scientist" is probably nice work if you can get it but I equate them to new age priest, not real scientists.

>>8437835
meanwhile people are getting fucked.

>>8434188
this is like saying that since most scientists believe dinasaurs existed theyre just suffering from groupthink and peer pressure.
Scientists observe data and make observations based on that data, thats how they came to the conclusion that global warming exists, plain and simple. Do you honestly think theyre basing it off of inconclusive evidence?
Once you realize global warming has turned into a political issue you'll realize what a patsy you're being. The only people who disregard global warming are conspiracy theorists and hard right leaning politicians(and the rednecks that support them).

>>8437835
Wow, that is the primal ignorance right there!
Technology is not equal to an energy source. "Technology" gobbles energy sources on a scale hard to fathom.

Why are the young people today so ignorant of energy? Be it the transfer of elections or the chemical reactions involving hydrocarbon. Is this dumbing down how they become easy prey for the "social scientific" climate meme? They think giving their rightful share of fossil fuel to politicians and bureaucrats to distribute as they see fit will benefit them and save earth and mankind? Wew, spooky future, very very dark! Like one day soon, lights out!

>>8437040
and then they stopped smoking

>>8434188 (checked)
Well, I'm into politics and I can assure you that the climate change was "invented" in the Kyoto Protocol so the U.N and their globalist friends could put big penalty fines to gain some money to assure their global hegemony.
That's right, if you exceed the CO2 limits they are not gonna help you to reduce it, they will just ask you for some millions of $.
Also, it's common sense that volcanos emmit much more CO2 that any human activity. Also if there is some biologyfag here, you should know that plants "breath" CO2 and exhale it as oxygen. So, when there is lot of CO2 in the air, plants just grow bigger over the years, just like happened during the Jurassic period. During the Jurrassic period there were lots of CO2, much much more than nowadays, but the reality is that there were giant jungles everywhere full of live, even bigger animals than nowadays.
Don't believe the "Global Warming is cause by the humans and it's going to destroy the world D: "
The reality is that Global Warming is real, but is not caused by humans and it's not dangerous, there were ice ages and periods of time full of CO2 and overheating, but life adapts because these climates changes are something natural that happens in a gradual manner,

>>8438097
Also I must add than although global warming is exaggerated, thing like water contamination and local smog it's really dangerous to the local ecosystem. Hell, even things like plastic on the oceans or industrial waste in rivers/coast is something serious at a global scale.

>>8438099
>global warming
>contamination
That's the usual confusion of issues to sell the big AGW lie.

File: intothetrash.png (93KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 480x360px

>>8438097
>I'm into politics
opinion therefore discarded

>>8438097
>it's common sense that volcanos emmit much more CO2
http://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming-intermediate.htm

>>8437615
>greenhouse gases
lol this meme

Explain this deniers.

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/modern_isotopes.html

>>8438157

Bullshit, dude. Iceland eruption in 2010 stopped all air-traffic for 6 days.

This "septicalscience" site is trash, makes me think of "xtians4sharia" one.

File: 1431411122971.jpg (62KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 500x500px

>>8438267
>I disagree with the data, so I'll just ignore it.

I love you guys.

File: Atmospheric_Transmission.png (75KB, 850x857px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 850x857px

>>8438187
So which do you deny, basic chemistry or basic physics?

>>8438280

Nope.

You have been caught too many times ("you" as global farming apologists) manipulating data.

Thus some sanity-check is required before listening to you.

>>8438306
>forced to call on 'muh conspiracy' to continue to debate

I notice you still haven't answered this.
>>8438206

It is incontrovertible proof that climate change is man made but let me guess, CSIRO, SCRIPPS, NOAA, and the Japanese Meteorological Organization and World Meterological Agency are all in on it too?

You are truly delusional.

>>8438326

> I notice you still haven't answered this.

Nope, not me. I'm not the only one pointing out your bullshit.

>>8434188
You want us to prove that 97 % of climate change scientists are suffering from the bandwagon effect, peer pressure and group think?

That's impossible to do, even if it were true.

Other big environmental problem winch is real unlike global warming is space junk. Space junk is going to be a very big problem pretty soon, because day by day more satellites are launched, but when the satellite stop working/is not needed it become space junk orbiting the Earth at incredibility high speed. This space junk can slow the spatial exploration, and if we do nothing there is going to be too much space junk orbiting around earth that we are not going to be able to launch more satellites or spaceships because they are going to get destroyed by this space junk. Although countries are working on high power lasers to destroy this junk, but these lasers have second intentions that governments don't say and it's communication war (lasers can't shut down or even destroy enemies satellites), they are also creating missiles with orbital range or satellites armed with nukes or ballistic missiles, so if they work on it they can solve space junk problems, but no, the UN prefer to focus in global warming to get some good money for penalty fees.
>>8438136
Well, I'm part of the Ministry of Agriculture of some European country, I'm telling you that because I know what I'm talking about.

>>8434188
Regardless of whether or not climate change/global warming exists, why shouldn't measures be taken to reduce pollution? Pollution has immediate tangible effects beyond making it hotter/colder/whatever.

>>8438371
>Other big environmental problem winch is real
Which is real*
>This space junk can slow the spatial exploration
space exploration*
Sorry for the typos I'm working right now and gotta type fast. We are making the inform of the year 2016, so we are pretty busy in the Ministry of Agriculture. We need to inform about quality of food, economic spendings, ecosystem... We do more things that just talk about veggies, so if somebody wants to know more about ecosystem you can ask, but I will answer tomorrow

>>8438373
>why shouldn't measures be taken to reduce pollution?

why shouldn't measures be taken to reduce pollution?

What makes you think we're not. We've just about killed our economy trying to mitigate it already.

>>8438288
It doesn't effect temperature distribution within the atmosphere nor the outgoing radiation from the earth.

>>8434188
Litteraly the only reason climate change is a debate is because of the Koch brothers chokehold on the right

>>8438384
>It doesn't effect temperature distribution
It makes the average temperature higher.

>nor the outgoing radiation from the earth.
It lessens the outgoing radiation by absorbing infrared heat radiating from the earth and re-emitting some of it back towards the earth.

>>8438371
>Well, I'm part of the Ministry of Agriculture of some European country, I'm telling you that because I know what I'm talking about.
But you don't.

>>8434188
>Prove me wrong that 97% of climate change scientists are not in fact suffering from the bandwagon effect, peer pressure and group think in order to push this global warming meme.

Prove me wrong that 97% of rightwing fundie faggots are not in fact suffering from the bandwagon effect, peer pressure and group think in order to push this science denial meme.

>>8437969
But they aren't getting fucked that fast, don't worry yourself at least, it's getting done

>>8434188
No credible (don't try to spin the meaning of that word, you know what I mean) scientist will deny climate change outright. Even the scientists that fall under the label of "climate change deniers" are not actually denying climate change, because climate change is a very real and clearly observable happening. However, the idea that pollution from human technology and/or industry is responsible for the degradation in our atmosphere, or any of the numerous negative effects attributed to it, is completely false. You'll notice that the arguments against dirty emissions have shifted over the years from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change"; this is because, upon further research, it became clear that the sensors tasked with recording and providing evidence for the global warming phenomena were prone to too many confounding variables. For instance: Many of them were deliberately placed near highly-populated cities, under the assumption that large cities = more cars = more emissions = solid evidence. However, they didn't take into account factors like asphalt's tendency to retain heat, subtle spikes in temp due to mass bio-thermal radiation, etc. Once these factors were taken into consideration, the "evidence" for the global warming argument was clearly attributable to these other variables. With that argument debunked; they turned to something larger in scale, with a smaller probability of evaluative determination: Climate. Now don't get me wrong, I'm all for more efficient means of energy. I believe that fission, and eventually, fusion, reactors are the future (at least until we can determine whether zero-point energy is possible/feasible) are the future. But attempting to achieve this goal by using illogical arguments due to ignorance; or worse, malevolence, is wrong.

>>8439870
I don't think the human race will ever relive the bonanza that was efficient fossil fuels, if theory holds up we have used about half of the oil and gas, the easy stuff so future extraction will certainly be less efficient as in fracking and tar sands getting maybe 3 or 4 barrels out for every one in compared the 10 to 1 or even 100 to 1 with self pumping light sweet crude.

The climate meme is an energy grab plain and simple. Like any religion it's just a matter of getting hold of the children and scaring the shit out of them with doom mongering end of days prophecies until they repent and cough up their tithe, in this case a carbon tax. On the face of it we know carbon is life, a life tax cutting right to the chase really.

I think we are entering a new age dark age. Mass surveillance, spying and torture with police states forming up, holy oil wars and empires crumbling...may we all live in interesting times - a Chinese curse.

>>8439870
>>8439948
>You'll notice that the arguments against dirty emissions have shifted over the years from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change"
>However, they didn't take into account factors like asphalt's tendency to retain heat
>Once these factors were taken into consideration, the "evidence" for the global warming argument was clearly attributable to these other variables.
>Like any religion it's just a matter of getting hold of the children and scaring the shit out of them with doom mongering end of days prophecies until they repent and cough up their tithe, in this case a carbon tax. On the face of it we know carbon is life, a life tax cutting right to the chase really.
This is complete bullshit. It's not even new bullshit, you're reciting bullshit that went stale years ago.

Fuck off.

File: CC_denial-machine.jpg (118KB, 640x880px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 640x880px

>>8438410
>Koch brothers

It's bigger than that

>>8434242
Holy fuck this isn't even bait is it

File: carbontax.png (62KB, 480x540px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 480x540px

>>8439948
this

>>8438371
>I know what I'm talking about
No. You do not know WTF you are talking about.

>>8440260
>muh employer hazta pay teh carbontax
gtfo corporate bootlicker

>>8440034

>Koch brothers

>It's bigger than that

Giant lizard nazis in the hollow earth and other side of moon ! Yeah !

Climate change is really real and fucking scary but the attitude of "stop it at all costs" is scary as well. What if it takes, well, your life? Humans are the cause of it.

>>8440369

try reading it

>>8434242
Not what a strawman fallacy is...

>>8440405
We are not even stopping it, let alone stopping it at all costs.

>>8440405
Totalitarian carbon pilfering government - corporate arrangements are far scarier than the climate doom prophecies. For one thing these fascist elements are moving ahead far more quickly than the climate.

The climate meme is being used to to push several questionable agendas already like climate refugees - be prepared to take millions if not billions of equatorial apes fleeing their homelands with the real agenda to replace the middle class with fresh slaves. "Green" energy along with privatization of grids, inefficient and already driving up rates in the west. A global taxation scheme, completely voluntary and yet you have no choice when the decision to pay is agreed to by your corporate and political overlords. And I guess the worst aspect of it all is the climate prophecy being passed off as science, it is not science, it is a massive propaganda bombardments backed up by nothing except garbage in garbage out computer simulations made by the new age climate priests. Meanwhile, the climate is fairly stable...so what is the real danger here?

>>8440739

This. We're fucked, climate-scare is just another dildo-du-jour.

>>8440739
So hold on, should I be scared of climate change, or scared of the people who say I should be scared of climate change?

This is SO scary guys.

>>8441571
Try reading, it's really helpful.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

>>8441574
But I only get my info from 4chan, so it's free of all skeptical/jewish/normie/sjw/feminist slant. What should I really believe, who has the real information?

>>8441579
Try reading, it's really helpful.

Ok guys seriously, this is just physics, chemistry, and math.

Absorption spectrum of CO2
>>8438288
C-13 in the atmosphere is going down, showing that burning fossil fuels is responsible for increased CO2 in the atmosphere
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/modern_isotopes.html

And we're done. Seriously. How is this even a debate? It's just goddamned fucking physics, chemistry, and math. Do you guys honestly disagree with physics, chemistry, and math?

I've shown proof that man made global warming is real. Now, if you disagree with anything I posted either

1. Post proof that it's wrong
2. Shut up, and accept man made climate change as fact.

I will wait for proof. If you don't give me proof I expect an apology for wasting my time trying to educate your dumb ass and a statement from you saying 'I accept man made climate change as fact'