How does anyone still thinks climate change is a hoax?

How does anyone still thinks climate change is a hoax?

Attached: gfs_world-ced_t2_1-day.png (1100x763, 182K)

Other urls found in this thread:

google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2018-06-ancient-greenland-warmer-previously-thought.amp
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

>it's free guise
>global warming is reals
>eat bugs

You can convince people of literally anything when you turn it into a partisan political issue.

Ah yes, global warming is about left vs right.

But it's cold in the USA right now...

Attached: 1573913847762.png (916x738, 518K)

At this point, yes. when you break down people's position of whether or not climate change is real. You can almost always draw direct correlation to their political beliefs. It shouldn't be partisan issue, how many conservatives are openly addressing the issue as a reality? very few.

bruh, the earth is cooling
those are in freedom degrees

global warming is about taxing more and more without providing a solution

That's China, faggot.

No, you are literally confusing "proposed solutions" with "the issue"

It has turned very political, which is why you get such a critical response from “climate change deniers”. Hardly anyone denies that the climate is changing. What most “climate change deniers” have a problem with is the extent to which humans contribute to this change. If you do any research on the history of the earths climate you’ll quickly see how little we actually understand about the earths climate. The earth has always gone through periods of cooling and warming. Keep in mind that within the past 15,000 years the Sahara dessert has gone from lush forests to being completely submerged underwater to being an inhospitable dessert. What I don’t want to happen, is for there to be huge amounts of regulations that hurt the pockets of average Americans and small/big businesses based off almost no actual understanding of the earths climate.

It's not a question of whether or not the climate is changing, that's obvious. What's up for debate is:
a: Whether or not it's our fault (probable)
b: Whether or not the environment will fail completely (unlikely)
c: Whether or not we can do anything about it without flushing the entire global economy (unlikely)

Most people who are championing the cause of massive overhauls to slow/reverse the change are zeroed in on CO2, and therefore the energy industry, as the sole culprit. The problem is that they rigidly stick to pre-2012 estimates of jurassic CO2 levels to base their estimate of the impact per unit of CO2 (97% of scientific papers written between 1990 and 2012 agree...). This, and their inability to explain why they don't use more recent estimates makes the skeptics doubt them.
No one seems to be considering things like interstate traffic churning the wind at 90mph 24/7 which didn't exist prior to 1900. Apart from momentary things like hawks diving at prey or seed pods exploding, nothing ever went faster than 60mph until the 1900's. Then there's the sheer number of machines and electronics all over the earth, every single one of which produces waste heat (even the air conditioners). No one is going to advocate 40mph speed limits or abandoning all of our labor saving gadgets, most will simply dismiss both of these factors as negligible without any research whatsoever simply because no one else is talking about them.

The bottom line is that yes, the climate is changing and it's not going to stop. Whether it's going to continue because it's not our fault, or whether it's going to continue because modernity will not surrender, the result is the same. Aside from that, it's just a bunch of politics about who should have to pay penalties to whom for causing it.

Isn't this like saying confusing cycles that last 150 thousand years with changes happening in 30 years?

Like saying, "This change usually takes 150 thousand years, so the fact that is it happening in 30 years instead is perfectly normal".

tell me how carpet nuking a few countries is not going to save the earth

There’s no real evidence that it actually takes that long. Look into it yourself. Also look into arctic ice cores and their finding from these cores. There’s a reason why nobody talks about them. Because they give a very accurate depiction of the earths climate for every almost every single year going back 10s of thousands of years. Again, look into it yourself, but essentially what they’ve found is that the earths climate is much much more unpredictable than we originally thought. Like I said, climate science is very inconclusive atm and we have very little actual understanding of how the earths climate works.

Please link us to the research papers

Also, the dessert has gone through those changes (from forest to underwater to dessert) within 15,000 years it didn’t take 150,000 years for the Sahara to go through such drastic changes.

>This change usually takes
>usually
That's the problem. No one actually knows that. People are guessing about the distant past, with very little informaiton. Ice core samples, for example, only go back about 80,000 years. Then there's the fact that the most recent (in the geological sense) conditions aren't even the norm for the planet's history. We are currently seeing the highest levels of CO2 in human history, sure. But we also know that the last 30 million years or so (since the end of the Carboniferous Era) are likely the only time in the last few billion years that the CO2 levels were ever as *low* as they are today.

I'm just looking at some ice core data, right off the bat I see this graph.

Up to 500 thousand years ago, the highest levels of CO2 they can detect is 280, we are currently at 400.

If anything off the bat, ice core sample seems to proof the opposite of what you are claiming.

Attached: Vostok_Petit_data.svg.png (1920x1440, 233K)

Why are whites so anxious all the time?

> Ice core samples, for example, only go back about 80,000 years.

500 thousand years actually

> Then there's the fact that the most recent (in the geological sense) conditions aren't even the norm for the planet's history.

I posted a graph above with with ice core sample data, I don't see anything out of the "norm" as you claim.

>But we also know that the last 30 million years or so (since the end of the Carboniferous Era) are likely the only time in the last few billion years that the CO2 levels were ever as *low* as they are today.

Again, the data is against you, scroll up and look at the chart with data directly from the ice core samples you were claiming before.

CO2 levels have been "this low" for at the least 500 thousand years.

'the issue' is nothing more than fiction contrived to justify the 'proposed solutions'.

So if it is fiction, then you are claiming that the global average temperature ISN'T going up?

Looking at CO2 charts are misleading. Nobody denies that we have higher CO2 levels. But how drastically has the earths climate changed because of these higher CO2 levels. You’ll find that it’s not much relative to much more drastic changes we’ve had in earths history. Also, charts that go by periods of Hundreds of thousands of years give you a very vague understanding of the earths climate history. If you want to do any real valuable study you have to go off of intervals of 10-20 thousand years. This is a chart of the climate changes we’ve had within the last 15,000 years.

Attached: 56D5E47B-9D25-4322-9395-2EA37B1DFFD6.gif (530x221, 16K)

The global warming imposed by the IPCC will impose taxes on CO2, it will not change the climate change! ... but many people will try to take advantage of the situation to enrich themselves by focusing on the fear of "climate change", in France the taxes imposed on fuels caused the movement of "yellow vests", if you refuel with us, the price of the fuel strip with the taxes and the rate of change is 7, 27 US dollars ...

The real issue, and what I urge you to question, is why the majority of the charts and articles go off of intervals of 100s of thousands of years? You have to assume that they are being intentionally misleading. No thorough science is conducted with such vague intervals of time

That's an Opinion Piece.

Opinion pieces do not go through any kind of editorial review, so the author can literally write anything they want.

If you are actually around more intelligent American “conservatives,” they are starting to say climate change is happening but no real correlation to our activities
>”left” or “right” no one gives a shit, it’s politics, it’s pandering, it goes nowhere

No, it's because you are getting your science off popular places.

If you want precise data you need to go to scientific places, such as peer reviewed journals.

I mean, it's like you are going to Disneyland and complaining that there are too many kids. If you go to pop places you'll get pop data.

The climate of the planet has always evolved, warm periods followed by glacial periods, so if today the human being contributes to pollute the planet, an extraordinary opportunity arises for the most savvy profiteers ... the science and the communications technology can be used to manipulate people and governments and make people believe that not only is man causing climate change, but that by sacrificing our economies and spending money we will be able to change the climate ..... in reality the climate will evolve as it has always done over millions of years, we will have just allowed crooks and thieves to enrich themselves beyond all hope

Are you able to back that up with actual numbers?

like can you show, actual number, that proof that the current climate change is a natural effect?

Or is it just narratives?

Lol have you seen how biased and political the peer reviewed system is? There are 2 men who tested this by intentionally making bogus scientific findings that support a common narrative. What ended up happening was there papers were peer review and accepted. It doesn’t take a 8 year degree to look at charts and make basic conclusions as “ we don’t understand the earths climate”. I agree however we should be focused on precise data, which is why I say, “look at charts that go by intervals of 10-20 thousand years. If you have a basic understanding of graphs and how they apply to the real world. You don’t need a degree to make conclusions.

they are afraid that it's already too late

Pay us more tax money to stop the natural cycles of the earth

Just watch Bull Nye stutter when asked how much of it is man made

Yes! Pay 60% of your business income to taxes to help convince China to stop being the largest polluter

Look at this chart make your own conclusions. Do your own research. Don’t trust the common narrative. They’re lying to you when they tell you you need a 10 year degree to analyze these documents.

>cise data, which is why I say, “look at charts that go by intervals of 10-20 thousand years. If you have a basic understanding of graphs and how they apply to the real world. You don’t need a degree to make conclusions.

You understand that there is such thing as "quality of the journal" right?

Any idiot can make a peer review journal.

But only a handful are actually respected and accredited publications.

You saying "peer review is biased and political" is like me saying "magazines are biased and political". Completely meaningless.

I'm looking at it, only conclusion I see is that temperature over Greenland had been stable for 12 thousand years...

Duuuhhh, I DoN'T AgReE WiTh ThE SoLuTiOn So ThE PrObLeM IsN'T ReAl

No evidence it's natural.

Plenty of evidence it's man made.

There are plenty of respected and accredited publications that have been completely debunked by new science. Just because something is accredited, respected and published doesn’t make it correct. If there are enough people who believe in something and enough power behind a statement than you can get anybody to believe it. The only thing I’m urging is for people to make there own conclusions based off of more valuable thorough study. When it comes to climate change, people need to stop analyzing it from intervals of 100s of thousands of years and look at more accurate intervals of 10s of thousands of years. If you do this you’ll see how sporadic the earths climate actually is.

google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2018-06-ancient-greenland-warmer-previously-thought.amp
You’re very wrong. There is new science on this issue.

its cold rn,
ultimate evidence that climate change is fake

Unfortunately, we lack the data at the present time to definitively conclude that carbon emissions are a cause for concern. We'll probably have that data within the next century.
To be clear, I think it is unwise to not take action because there exists the possibility of a major problem. In fact, I would be all for cutting oil, coal, and other fossil fuels completely out of our society and moving on to other sustainable and less environmentally impactful types of energy, such as nuclear, solar, or wind. Unfortunately, not everybody thinks that way. However, there are low effort ways of reducing carbon emissions that don't hurt the individual or businesses, and short of having absolutely indisputable evidence that we are causing a disaster, I believe that is what we should focus on.

Attached: 1572670445599.jpg (1024x576, 96K)

ooh look that red thing is bad, and it comes from africa, so niggers caused global warming!!

Attached: 3eaa9fdac95dcc5f3d6f15a1c2e5ac2d34505fcb1712c8d56dd51ea5bbdbf072.jpg (960x960, 104K)

Straw man.

The average person is an absolute idiot with the scientific understanding of a forth grader with a D average. Frankly I’m starting to question the viability democratic institutions because of this. You shouldn’t be allowed to lie to people on such massive scales. Climate science denial should be a punishable offense and not protected speech. They should’ve forced to comply, rights be damned.

ur mom was a hoax
a joke
and then
maria rosa lilia lira claims to be the ariana grande en espangol rosalia
it is not
it is a fugg hole