THIS ENTIRE BOARD BTFO https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDK1a CqqZkQ

For every scientist you find who disagrees with the science of climate change I can find a thousand who agree with it.

http://www.ucsusa.org

Single scientists will have pet theories. Single scientists may have personal agendas or be lured by greed. This is why it's more important to find groups of scientists working together so that the opinions of contrarians will be filtered out.

And by the way you will find no examples of any single body of scientists on Earth who support your claim that climate change is a myth. None.

That should tell you something about the science behind it.

>>8878045
AGW is the science of moving goal posts and confirmation bias with a mix of "the ends justify the means".

>>8878063
This is a science board. Prove it

>>8878064
I don't think you can prove this is a science board.
Here, Nye is a "scientist".

>>8878067
so when asked why AGW is bs your answer is
>because bill nye

>>8878092
Someone asked to prove this is a science board.
I can't. AGW suffers from more than two decades of failed alarmist predictions. That's a credibility gap that is not my doing.

>>8878104
>AGW suffers from more than two decades of failed alarmist predictions
Again, prove it.

File: neg_thinker.jpg (72KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 640x480px

>>8878045
One of the first rules of scientific ethics: consensus is not evidence. Contrarians are important to move the field forward. It means more people are asking questions and testing hypotheses, getting us closer to a more fundamental truth that explains the phenomena cited by ALL competing sides, not just the one that you agree with.

However, issues arise in people drawing conclusions before they make observations. Having contrary or agreeing hypotheses is one thing, but touting these hypotheses as fact without an empirical test or case study is intellectually dishonest, especially if well-documented studies have given contrary conclusions.

The correct answer to a contrarian is not "Shut up." The correct answer is "Prove it."

File: climate-change-warnings-over-the-years.jpg (95KB, 800x531px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 800x531px

Here's a comical but accurate version

>>8878014
IT'S FLAT

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3964051/

Remember folks, even if AGW is a meme, GW is measurable. Permafrost is observably melting and should be stopped unless you want to exacerbate methane release and breathe life into dormant, potentially pathogenic microbes.

We're very lucky that this virus only targets amoebae.

>>8878338
>hi I was born yesterday
all these were made before 2010. Some in the 1990s. And they just a fraction:


"Harsh winters likely will be more seldom and precipitation in the wintertime will be heavier everywhere. However, due to the milder temperatures, it’ll fall more often as rain than as snow."

"Winters with strong frost and lots of snow like we had 20 years ago will cease to exist at our latitudes."

"Within a few years winter snowfall will become a very rare and exciting event. … Children just aren’t going to know what snow is."

“Unfortunately, it’s just getting too hot for the Scottish ski industry.”

“In ten year’s time, most of the low-lying atolls surrounding Tuvalu’s nine islands in the South Pacific Ocean will be submerged under water as global warming rises sea levels.”

“Most of the great environmental struggles will be either won or lost in the 1990s and by the next century it will be too late.”

“New York will probably be like Florida 15 years from now.”

Not that it's my job to make the horse drink. But I'll at least point out the direction of water for the ones just learning how to internet.

>>8878014
You can't wave the title "scientist" around like that. Just because a scientist says so, it doesn't mean it has to be true. This should be obvious when you consider the fact that there are disagreeing scientists. I haven't even watched the video yet, but I can tell just from the title that this is either biased as fuck or shameless click bait, if not both.

>Crowder
Crowder is an idiot that gets repeatedly shown to not know how to fact check and hosts fake news constantly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrNmq4ouWww

Retards who put their political belief above science and facts should be shot.

>>8878566
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeOZSMrwnYw

>>8878411
>Oh look a few random people said this or that so that disproves actual scientific facts

>My opinion will beat out any scientific fact
Come on /pol/, why not ever post evidence?

>>8878014
Crowder is a known bullshitter and will post fake news. Stop giving him attention OP.

I love how its always the brainlet retards who treat scientists as some clergy or something.

>>8878588
Instead the smart people look at the evidence instead of thinking science is some huge conspiracy against them.

>>8878450
Oh wow what percentage of actual scientists are supporting these claims?

>>8878411
Accurate. the climate change is hoax to import future refugees.
Get used to the term "climate refugee", because you will hear it often in the upcoming decade.

>>8878450
This, once one guy said something wrong about dinosaurs so I don't believe in evolution.

>>8878014
In the post factual science age, we can disagree with everything for the sake of being contrarian.
Our ability to deal with the consequences of climate change is inversely proportional to the evidence of man-made climate change.

Better safe than sorry, Drumfpets

>>8878653
>>8878600
>Asks for proof of two decades of alarmist predictions. Gets it. Sticks finger in ear. "nah nah nah nah".
goal post moving.

>>8878683
I am not that anon, I just called you retarded.

>>8878411
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmECHrOcFlc&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP&t=2s&index=11

Except scientists didn't say that the earth was cooling.

>>8878014
Welcome back