Why is your average right-wing dumbass so insistent that human-caused climate change is a hoax when nearly every...

Why is your average right-wing dumbass so insistent that human-caused climate change is a hoax when nearly every peer-reviewed scientific study converges on it being not only fact, but fact that we need to address quickly and powerfully?

Is it a coincidence that the kinds of people most-likely to believe in religion are also most likely to believe natural gas special interests and the Republican politicians they've bought and paid for instead of the overwhelming majority of legitimate scientific studies? All while ironically calling OTHERS shills?

Are these kinds of morons the ones who will ultimately doom humanity to extinction?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=OWXoRSIxyIU
futuretimeline.net/forum/topic/17231-climate-change-scientific-paper-library/
climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/which-emits-more-carbon-dioxide-volcanoes-or-human-activities
hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2007/07_02_15.html
scientificamerican.com/article/earthtalks-volcanoes-or-humans/
snopes.com/volcano-carbon-emissions/
skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Bcё oчeнь пpocтo. Климaт мeнялcя и мeняeтcя вceгдa и Bcё вpeмя. Этo пpoиcхoдит из зa cмeщeния пoлюcoв плaнeты. To ecть в oднoм мecтe cтaнoвитcя хoлoднo, a в дpyгoм тeплo. Mы люди никaк нe влияeт нa этo, вcя иcтopия нaших выбpoca CO2 нe пpeвышaeт кoличecтвoм выхлoп вyлкaнa зa дeнь eгo paбoты. Зeлeныe пpocтo гpyппa людeй, кoтopыe нa вceoбщeй тyпocти хoтят cгpecти дeнeг. Плaнeтa нe тeплeeт, a пpoиcхoдит движeниe тёплых и хoлoдных тoчeк.

What's that, Ruskie shill? Speak Freedom, bitch.

Long story short - global warming does not exist, but climate change does. It is not a bad thing and not human made.

Says who, your Exxon handler? Yeah, I'll stick with what the scientists say.

You're making Bill Nye very proud

But a guy with a degree in гyмaнитapныe нayки is not a real scientist.

>said some SJW cuck shit worthy of him being forever hated now
>literally everything he's ever said is wrong!

Sorry, user, it doesn't follow. I know conservatards have trouble making sound arguments but you can learn; I believe in you.

yoo long; didn't russian

Humans do not produce even a fraction of CO2 that influences climate. Greens are a pack pof dumbasses who just want to scrape some money off you and me.

Пacяб зa coкpaщённый пepeвoд.

Except you're wrong.

youtube.com/watch?v=OWXoRSIxyIU

Am i to expect that a regional environment group with limited resources has enough money to pay hundreds of scientists to study climate change and come up with a real conclusion? Their conclusion being oh shit, planet is getting warmer, it must be co2!! Let's not account for the fact that a single volcano produces more co2 than all cars combined can.

Yes, we've all seen climate change, i remember it being different when i was a kid. But blaming humans without a proper study is bull. Dinosaurs saw climate change, i guess it must have been their factories.

Are you legitimately so autistic, user?

Exactly! How can scientists with no resources produce any results. They need money for real studies

Yes

And if libertards argue that their studies were properly funded then ops logic is incorrect because then there would also be enough money to bribe them, right warren buffet?

Try to learn something, my retarded friends. Or if you're just shills, pls tongue my anus.

futuretimeline.net/forum/topic/17231-climate-change-scientific-paper-library/

>when nearly every peer-reviewed scientific study converges on it being not only fact,
You've never read any of these. You are echoing talking points simply because they are loud. Have some self awareness you village idiot. You have no idea how reliant on fossil fuels we are and just how fast this ship goes down without them.

see >You are echoing talking points simply because they are loud.
>projecting this hard

Not an argument, summer friend. You can go ahead and assume I never clicked your shitty link and expected you to create a coherent thought instead of riding the dicks of others smarter than you.

People are not that bright.

Even if it was true id still buy gas and burn whatever the fuck i felt like and buy the same products cause im not going to be here forever and i just dont care. We'll wipe ourselves out eventually. Also, go back to your other gay websiteyou faggot fucker.

>"Not an argument, summer friend"
>Implying what you said before was an argument and not asinine projection
>implying you made a single argument and haven't just been slinging shit this entire time

wew lad

Read the link I gave you again, it's filled with actual science. I know that scares you since it's not filtered through some alt-right podcaster's cum-filled mouth but if you genuinely give a shit about the truth, you'll have to grin and bear it.

>fuck you, I got mine
>you talk like a fag and your shit's retarded

Yup, conservatard confirmed.

Which wing the correct wing?

I am pretty sure the ocean levels are rising because of all the liberal tears

Ummm. That link proves my point?
I'm not denying climate change. I'm denying man driven climate change. Note most links conclude "holy chit, climate is changing! We should do something about it", but almost none "holy chit, man is causing it!"

Anyone with a brain should relise global warming is our own doing. All that shit that ends up in the air doesn't get there naturally, and the only ones on the planet smart enough to make the shit that produces it are humans. So.. I don't even see how they have any sort of a arguement against it. That said, I give it 20 years before the planet is beyond fucked that you need to go outside in a hasmat suit in any 1st world country. Its already pretty bad as it is and its only going to get exponentally worse, as were not doing anywhere near enough to stem it.

Yup, 20 years, you should anhero so you don't have to go through it, makes life better for you and me both

>the US burns through 19 million 50 Gallon barrels of oil each day
>All of humanity moving gigatons of carbon from the fossil record to the atmosphere does nothing to affect the equalibrium
Is that your carefully considered opinion?

Not even 1% of co2 produced by volcanos and natural fenomena. Stop trolling man

>The stories and information posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood.
>Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact.

>the US could generate as much energy as is contained within the oil that they burn daily with about 16,000 solar panels

>natural fenomena
>Stop trolling

Do you have a source to back that up?

Not worth sharing knowledge with someone who can't google

Don't bother, I'll just post a link that says you're full of shit

climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/which-emits-more-carbon-dioxide-volcanoes-or-human-activities

>Greenhouse gasses increase the temperature of the planet
>We're releasing a ton of greenhouse gasses
>The temperature of the planet is increasing faster than it ever has
What about these three points is so hard to understand?

I legitimately cannot find a source that says volcanos produce more CO2 than humans. Every link says the opposite

Did anyone even watch the video posted earlier? It talks about exactly that.

Link?

Volcanos and natural fenomena idiot, not just volcanos

climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/which-emits-more-carbon-dioxide-volcanoes-or-human-activities

hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2007/07_02_15.html

scientificamerican.com/article/earthtalks-volcanoes-or-humans/

snopes.com/volcano-carbon-emissions/

skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm

What do you have to contribute to the conversation?

Ok, what other natural phenomenon should we add to the pot?

Dude, let me ask you, does co2 magically dissapear? Because volcanos have been here since 4 billion years ago. Multiply all those years by the yearly average volcano emissions from your link.

Now take average human emissions and multiply it by 100 years (im being generous here), which one is greater?

Oh, but if co2 magically dissapears, then why are you worried? And if it doesnt, then thats where that 1% comes from

Your mom farts

>Dude, let me ask you, does co2 magically dissapear
No, only the carbon cycle removes carbon from the atmosphere, but it's a very slow cycle

>Now take average human emissions and multiply it by 100 years (im being generous here), which one is greater?
The human emissions

>And if it doesnt, then thats where that 1% comes from
Where are you getting 1% from?

You seem to be extraordinarily misinformed. Did you drop out of highschool or something?

Liberitard authored articles.
It's not the yearly production of co2 that creates a green house effect, it's the total co2 in the air. That total amount didn't just happen in the industrial revolution.

2nd, 90% of green house gases are water vapor, not co2. Maybe we should regulate water vapor, right? Heck, in fact, i forbid you to start sweating right now, you are killing us!

>muh fake sources!

I bet you think the Earth's flat too. God damn dumbass.

show proof of claims

So you are saying 35 metric tons times 100 is greater than 2 metric tons times 4 billion?

Check your math

Use google man. You want to discredit me try hard

k. google says you're wrong.
bam. i win. you lose.

now back up your claims or you're full of shit

Water vapor holds heat better than CO2 but each molecule only stays in the air for about 7 days and the water content of the air is equilibrium-driven. Literally a non-issue

A CO2 molecule stays in the atmosphere for on average 10,000 years. All of the carbon in fossil fuels was pulled out of the air around the Jurassic period. So if we burn all the fossil fuels then the CO2 levels will approximately match the Jurassic.

All of that CO2 did appear during the industrial revolution, because that's when the use of fossil fuels became widespread.

>lrn2basicenvironmentalscience

Are you insinuating that Volcanos don't participate in the carbon cycle?

Show me your math. Show me that by accounting for the carbon cycle we have produced more of the co2 we currently breath than volcanos have. Ill bet you my life you cant

Using your own figures
>35 metric tons X 100 > (2 metric tons X 4 billion) - (2 metric tons X 4 billion)
>3500 metric tons > 0 metric tons

You should learn about the carbon cycle

Are you literally retarded?

>>We're too reliant on fossil fuels to come up with an alternative for fossil fuels

I can't stop smoking crack. You have no idea how fast I'll go down without it.

Are you? Let me simplify the problem for you.

Where did the carbon in fossil fuels come from? What process returns that carbon to the fossil record?

Where does the carbon in volcanoes come from? What process returns that carbon to the Earth?

The answer to the first question is that right-wingers tend to be poorly-educated religiotards.

To the second, no, not a coincidence. That same lack of education renders the conservatard incapable of understanding the power of the scientific method and the peer-review process.

To the third question, yes.

"In 2008, the global total of CO2 released from the soil reached roughly 98 billion tonnes, about 10 times more carbon than humans are now putting into the atmosphere each year by burning fossil fuel"

Fuck your sources

It's called the carbon cycle and has been mentioned multiple times in this thread.

ITT: autismally challenged Americlaps cucked into defending the rape of their childrens homeland and future in keeping with the interests of rich lobby groups funded by Ahmed-golds

I'm so sorry you ended up in the part of the world where schools are so shit that you can graduate without having an understanding of basic critical thinking, while at the same time having such a concentration of wealth that corporate interests can afford to jizz their desinformation all over the society that they dominate. Americans defending the destructive interests of financial institutions are like the heavyweight cucks of the world

I'm the one mentioning it, dipshit.

lrn2readingcomprehension

And the carbon cycle put all that CO2 right back in the ground so it could do it again next year.

What else do you have?

Ohhhhh
So now your saying everything we burned came from co2?

So all co2 we produce will also be eventally recycled back. So whats your worry? With your logic we should start cooling down in about 20 years, when we hit peak oil, right?

If you were smart enough to cancel volcano emissions to zero then you should have also cancelled human emmisions to zero

AGW is bullshit

kill yourselves libtards

So every year all our emissions are recycled? Why all the worry then?

Fucking republicunts and their "alternative facts."
They believe whatever their party tells them.
Science, schmience.

You're retarded. The carbon in the fossil record is the summation of that carbon that could not escape into the atmosphere as plants decayed during the Jurassic period. The conditions required don't exist over as much of the world as they did in the Jurassic, so the rate of accumulation will be slower. Besides that, what took the Jurassic period thousands of years to pull out of the atmosphere, we're pumping it back out in just centuries.

What part of this is too complicated for you?

hey retards. world is in constant cycle of freezing and heating. the scale of this cycles is huge in comparison to human lifespan. first civilization started popping up when earth STARTED getting warmer NOT when earth completely warmed up. we know as a fact that there were people living in doggerland and that during as recent as roman times northern europe was much colder then now. We are still living during this warming up period and all the ice will melt in time and after that earth will start freezing again and the cycle continues. its normal.

How often does that cycle move all of the carbon from the fossil record to the atmosphere?

That soil emissions are still 10 times greater.

Soil+volcanoes+otherco2sources considered puts our emission percentage at about 1%, yearly.

What liberitards are sayong is that a 1% increase in co2 is dooming us.

Not even accounting that water is still the largest green house gas by large

No, what everyone with half a brain is saying is that all of these carbon sources are in equalibrium, except for the carbon that has been buried miles under the Earth for millennia.

All the CO2 that volcanoes release is returned to the Earth through processes in the ocean at the same rate

All the CO2 that the soil emits as part of decay is pulled back into the soil by plants at the same rate

All of the CO2 released from the fossil record is returned to the fossil record how? At what rate?

One of these things is not like the other...

See

Ooooooohhhhh so now ypu quote something that says co2 stays in the air for 10 thousand of years.

I ask you again, where did most of the co2 currently present in our athmosphere come from?

You have to account for 10k years of soil and volcano emissions because they haven't gone through the cycle yet

>ExxonMobil
topkek, I did my internship there, and I work(ed) there. Global warming is real, but the motto is really who gives a shit since the more drastic effects will not be felt within our life time.

Inb4 muh children.
>anti-natalism

Inb4 God's green Earth.
>there is no God

If you support movements that spend money on a non-immediate problem your being cucked.

I think we got our 1% here boy

Most of the CO2 in our atmosphere came from the active carbon cycle. The CO2 we're concerned about came from the fossil record and is not a part of the active carbon cycle

>proud to be a part of the problem
At least you admit there is a problem

If greenhouse gasses stop the suns rays from exiting the atmosphere, how do they not stop it from entering in the first place?

These the same people that believe the earth is 6000 years old and that a guy built a boat to house a pair of each animal during a giant flood, without any scientific proof. They are the gullible idiots.

No, why would i be concerned about a 1% increase? Co2 is not even the greatest green house effect contributor so its contribution to temperature change would be less than 1%.

The remaining changes are part of normal cooling and heating cycles on Earth until you prove that 1% increase in co2 caused more harm, which you haven't

>diffraction angle
Look into optics and light. Interesting stuff

Can't even explain why..
Lol that went downhill real quick for you, didn't it.. Actually slow, but whatever

Where are you getting 1% from?

Here, answer these immensely simple questions:

>where did the carbon in the fossil record come from?
>when did it get there?
>what was the atmospheric CO2 level just before that time?
>what will the atmospheric CO2 level be if we return all that carbon to the atmosphere?

Answer those and I'll use your numbers to calculate the greenhouse effect of that CO2

>Can't even explain why..
Carbon cycle
a
r
b
o
n

c
y
c
l
e

You have Google, don't you?

why the fuck are you people even trying to teach a slav subhuman climate science? just ignore them and let the whole race drink themselves off the planet

There is no problem, problems are things that are maladaptive to our lives, but guess what, global warming is not.

Again children do not matter.

>hurr, if it isn't my problem, it isn't anyone's problem

It doesn't even matter, really. Nature is a constant (change typically happens VERY slowly, and when change is abrupt terrible things typically happen to ecosystems) source of emission, and the world is in balance as things were. Adding however much greenhouse gases to that system can destabilize it. There is a number, our upper limit, that shouldn't be breached. In doing so, we're changing the world faster than it can adjust. We can adjust too, but it will probably not be enjoyable for us. Death, famine, plague, and war...you know what I'm sayin'.

>I have literally no reading comprehension
The person I was responding to is claiming that human CO2 emissions are 1% of natural CO2 emissions.

Scientific consensus has been wrong before, and the data being used in climate change is pretty complicated (lots of steps in scientific inference are needed to make the necessary connections, making the final results dependent on every step). As a physicist, I don't fully support the science that's been done there (they fit complex data with THOUSANDS of free parameters--usually not useful for understanding science). Only recently has it been shown that even conservatively (if there were many incorrect assumptions by scientists) that there is still a major problem with climate change. But again, that's quite recent (past decade or so).

So I completely understand how someone can be skeptical. You have to remember that scientists, like all humans, are fallible.

Materials typically absorb things of specific energies only (often used to note that the light that's reflected will be an object's color).

In this case, greenhouse gases absorb heat from the earth that is transmitted as a very low frequency light wave. The sun's light, on the other hand, comes as a whole spectrum (with a lot of visible and UV light) which can freely pass through the greenhouse gases uninhibited.

I never said that...and it doesn't matter. Between agriculture and and industrialization, our species is having a destabilizing affect on our planet. I'm not making any judgments about that, but the observation still holds true. Deforestation, rising ocean levels, ocean acidity, and pollution are things humans do. You can't tell me they have no affect on the overall the stability of ecosystems locally and worldwide.

>>You can't tell me they have no affect on the overall the stability of ecosystems locally and worldwide.

They have no affect on the overall the stability of ecosystems locally and worldwide.

Guess I can. faggot

>Scientific consensus has been wrong before

Never something with this much evidence or agreed upon by this much of the scientific community.

Stop questioning the Right's logic. It's like trying to reason with a child. You can't do it. Its a group who overwhelmingly makes decisions based on their "gut," not facts. Even our fucking president has bragged about making his decisions bases on instinct, not reason. Why do you think they loathe the Left with such vitriole? They'll never be capable of similar higher-order thinking.