Climate Change

well it's pretty fucking observable changes now if you ask me. It has been fairly obvious for 10-15 years at least but not it's becoming stark reality you just can't deny. Like last winter, here on long island we had a week that was almost 60 degrees everyday. in the middle of fucking February. other stuff like that i notice but i don't keep a log of it all.

>>19029683
>but not
sorry i meant "but now", also to actually address your main question, it's because people don't want to believe the reality. It would mean they must change their ways very significantly and that tends to be hard for people to accept.

Climate change is obviously occurring. Calling those skeptical of the liberal interpretation "climate change deniers" is a strawman. The real debate is exactly how much we can change it and how much we are willing to sacrifice to do so. Extinction events are a normal part of the history of the earth. It isn't "falling apart" by any stretch of the imagination.

Your picture is the reason why.

A statistically significant number of humans who express concern for the environment metaphorically wear patchouli. Ergo, people who feel they have been wronged somehow by those who wear colorful clothing styles, who have long hair, and who don't drink alcohol vigorously, will proceed assume that whatever statement the humans they dislike bring up, the inverse of that statement must be true.

This is called "dogmatic thinking," and the purpose of it is not to ascertain the climate trends of the Earth's oceans, but rather to know which clothing, hair style, and drug choices are in fashion, per any given social climate. I am not making this up. Turn on your fucking Television, and consider what I have just told you, if you doubt my claims about dogmatic thinking.

They believe the inverse of all those statements, because it's how they remember what fashions are "good" and "bad," relative to their freinds' collective opinions of each other.

Yes. The intelligence range for humans varies dramatically. But what do I know? All my clothes are black.

File: Vote for nobody.jpg (42KB, 529x397px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 529x397px

>>19029676
Rich people and corporations do not care about destroying the environment because if the world goes to shit, they have enough money to move and/or protect themselves (and their families) against the climate (at least for a while). The others climate change deniers are retarded, believing the lies the rich spread to gain some legitimacy for their recklessness or believing in archaic shit like religion or the afterlife.

>What I want to know is why do people (and I know who I'm asking) not feel the evidence is substantial for these claims?

Contrarianism. Al Gore and those awful nigger loving liberals are worried about global warming and want to do something about it.

Therefore it is the position of conservatives to deny it's a real threat and do everything they can to stop them.

Sort of like when Bill Clinton went after Osama bin Laden and all the Repbulicans claimed it was a hoax and bin Laden was never a real threat.

Climate change is unavoidable and it has never been the same for any significant amount of time. We are ruining the world in hundreds of ways but this is virtually the only thing that is deemed important. It is a great excuse for implementing new taxes and laws. There has been a nearly infinite number of meetings about it, most attendees arrive by private jet or first class seats. The hypocrisy of people flying all over the world in private jets to save the world from co2 makes my head hurt. The same people implement extra taxes on air travel because it is really inefficient. Those people also want to have everything made in where labor is cheap and then shipped half way across the globe. They want people to ride buses and not own cars while they act like that. They do not believe the problem is worth sacrificing their own lavish lifestyle for, it is obviously not a problem.

>>19029676
>climate change
That is an ambiguous weasel phrase. Just say "global warming."

>>19030110
But this time around isn't the same. One example is the rate at which our planet has warmed this cycle is unprecedented. In millions of years the Earth has never warmed as quickly as it is now.

Unavoidable over thousands of year? Yes.

Humans fucking shit up beyond recognition in a short amount of time? Also yes.

Everybody is a hypocrite.

>>19031682
http://www.dailywire.com/news/2071/most-comprehensive-assault-global-warming-ever-mike-van-biezen

Read it, properly.

>>19029676
Because experience has taught me that when something is completely full of:

-Hysteria/panic
-Massive social pressure
-Threat of professional ostracization for disagreeing with the mainstream

It is between about 80 and 100% pure condensed bullshit.

If it somehow manages to be only 80% bullshit, it is still WAY less worthy of concern than is generally thought.

The more people scream that it's happening, the less I think that it actually is. People who are screaming are panicked. The words of the panicked aren't worth the air that carries their sound.

>>19029753
>They believe the inverse of all those statements, because it's how they remember what fashions are "good" and "bad," relative to their freinds' collective opinions of each other.

This is because the true rulers of humanity are memetic super-parasites who form this giant meta-organism like thing that acts as if it is a strategic agent because it is comprised of the mutual reproductive interests of the super-parasites, such as having a populace with a weak memetic immune system. However this whole system got fucked up because the internet is causing exponential cultural change and the super-parasites cannot adapt fast enough or hold back change enough to maintain control over the system. The alt-right and Trump is the nuclear option of a massive system that is in the process of dying. It is by no coincidence that the integrity of the internet is being attacked in the U.S. and U.K.

The meme wars are real but we aren't the fighters, we're the battleground.

>>19033064
Interesting; this is the second time someone has sent me a daily mail article about this. In both cases both articles give a lot of "data" and claim to have experts backing them up, but never actually cite a paper, or link to a reference, or go any bit beyond circular reporting.

I'm just saying, it sounds like sheep, calling each other sheep.

File: 1495186550866.jpg (19KB, 280x280px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 280x280px

>>19029809
>le liberal boogeyman

>>19029676
There is no real peer review in climate "science"

most people who spout global warming myths dont know the difference between a t test and a chi square text (the addition of statistics), but almost all of them will google it and pretend they did anyway

>>19033064
>>19033823
I studied ecology in college, senpai. Article makes good points but anybody can cherry pick a few graphs (just like climate change people) or two and say what he's saying.
Not to mention the lack of providing his own or any other papers as source material in the article. As far as I'm concerned the entire article is a lie until I can cross reference each of his claims with a non shill source.

He also neglects to really go into the implications of water vapor, nor even mention methane in the article.
Any ecologist worth their salt already knows and willingly admits that CO2 isn't the real problem.
I'll look up some of the author's work and claims come back.

>>19033896
LOL are you fucking kidding me right now? No peer review? Gtfo. It's literally what I do.

You're right about "most people". But don't lump them in with scientists.

>>19033916
>LOL are you fucking kidding me right now? No peer review? Gtfo. It's literally what I do.


please explain your peer review and statistical recreation process.

>>19033916
i thought you did the peer review, yes?

whyd you go quiet?

Making a big fuss over everyone remembering to a good boy and recycle all their garbage seems like fighting a losing battle when we all know China doesn't give a shit. Also, if current trends continue and the Western world continues to spiral into chaos, there won't be anything worth saving within a century. If Europe is to become Islamic, let them deal with climate change. I have no stake in the survival of that future.

>>19033862
>missing the point this hard

>>19034682
Hogwash bullshit never has any points