Does Sup Forums believe in climate change?
Does Sup Forums believe in climate change?
Juan Adams
Other urls found in this thread:
nasa.gov
dailycaller.com
iopscience.iop.org
youtube.com
static.skepticalscience.com
static.skepticalscience.com
i.guim.co.uk
static.skepticalscience.com
nsidc.org
en.wikipedia.org
youtube.com
youtube.com
naturalnews.com
yournewswire.com
cnsnews.com
realclearpolitics.com
activistpost.com
realclimatescience.com
breitbart.com
earthguide.ucsd.edu
researchgate.net
researchgate.net
atmos.washington.edu
nsidc.org
xkcd.com
realclimatescience.com
twitter.com
Asher Nguyen
no
Jaxon Howard
no
Leo Wright
Is global temperature not changing?
Jacob Morales
no
Easton Sanchez
Are global ice sheets not melting?
Mason Harris
Does Sup Forums believe in leftist hoax's?
ftfy
/thread
Blake Anderson
no
Aiden Rivera
Then how do you explain the recorded increase in global temperature?
What makes it a hoax?
Lucas Roberts
nasa.gov
>record ice
muh climate change
Hunter Rodriguez
are coastal cities not sinking quicker than the water is rising?
how do you think New Orleans ended up so far below sea level?
James Gomez
Logan Walker
yes.
Charles Johnson
Jews did it
Christian Martin
>australia
makes sense
Colton Bailey
fuck the south.
Lincoln Torres
"Why won't those polar bears just die already?" - Al Gore
Guys, climate change/global warming is happening, it's totally real, and to stop it you need to send me all your shekels, it's the only way.
Jaxson Rodriguez
THE CLIMATE WILL RISE AGAIN!
Jeremiah Roberts
Yes, but the conviction of liberals that it's 100% true and everybody who doesn't believe it is literally Hitler pisses me off.
It's science, there are no 100% certainties.
Especially if you use simulations.
Nolan Evans
>is the climate changing?
Yes.
>Are humans affecting the climate?
Probably at least a little bit; that would make sense.
>Should we put everything on hold and subject ourselves to a bunch of leftist regulations?
No lmao. Leftists shouldn't be in charge of the environment ever.
David Price
Yes, we've got snow fall yesterday in Tokyo. Media taught me it's the effect of global warming.
I don't want to freeze to die because of global warming.
Connor Powell
>60 year sample size on a planet billions of years old.
It's literally nothing.
Brody Lopez
>climate change
Yes. The climate always changes, it is a natural occurrence.
Ryan Torres
leftists always ignore the real environmental issues like fukushima radiation leaking into the pacific ocean for over 5 years, killing off the sea life
Henry Reyes
>Antarctic sea ice
>Global warming
wtf theres no way the world could both be warming and polar bears could still be alive
Jason Martin
>Probably at least a little bit; that would make sense.
Doesn't CO2 impact climate?
So we aren't currently warming or its not significant
Yeah as a response to things such as CO2 change
Lucas Rodriguez
This. Anyone who claims that 'the science is settled' or '95% of scientists agree' can immediately be dismissed as a gibbering halfwit.
Camden Price
Global warming saved us from the next glacial maximum.
Ayden Thomas
Landon Garcia
No I'm an atheist.
Bentley Powell
The whole discussion about global warming (not climate change) is hardly even scientific to begin with. It is almost exclusively driven by political interests, to the point where opposing views or refutations are not even possible anymore because voicing any of that would cost you your position and funding.
It's just the same shit as
>Oh no, we are reaching peak population capacity quickly!
>Oh no, the world is cooling down!
>Oh no, we are reaching extinction level population density quickly!
>Oh no, [...]
I can see how someone too young to remember the other shit could fall for it, but everyone in their late twenties should know that this is just the usual drama created by the politicians for publicity and boosted by scientists in it for the easy research funding.
In 5 years, when again fucking nothing has happened and all models turned out to be widely inaccurate, they will find something new to obsess about.
Eli Peterson
see
the "climate scientists" have been wrong every other time, why would any rational human being believe them?
we were all supposed to be dead by now according to these (((scientists)))
>wtf theres no way the world could both be warming and polar bears could still be alive
i'm glad you admit there's no problem here then, because if the earth is just getting a little bit warmer, then who gives a fuck? the earth has been around for a long ass time, i highly doubt were in that tiny little window of time where we all die.
>b-but muh 7 billion people in the world!
fuck off
Jack Ortiz
Christian Gray
(((scientists)))
i bet you think Bill Nye is a real scientist
Adam Wright
who cares. what's gonna happen, starvation in africa? more storms in niggerville, USA? tought weather that any idiot could cope with?*
*apparently not because some of my fellow amerifats keep building flimsy trailer homes in tornado zones
i like having breathable air in cities regardless
so please keep your catless mustangs to the back country, alright?
Juan Ortiz
>the "climate scientists" have been wrong every other time, why would any rational human being believe them?
Except the cartoon that you use as your source for climate scientists being wrong doesn't even include a single scientist and actual predictions of temperature have so far been largely correct. Here are a few:
static.skepticalscience.com
static.skepticalscience.com
i.guim.co.uk
static.skepticalscience.com
nsidc.org
> i highly doubt were in that tiny little window of time where we all die.
I'm not, but my grand kids might be in a situation where the polar bears are dying off
Hes an engineer isn't he
Nathan Fisher
So what would you propose? Consider that the vast majority of sciencists have been telling you for two decades that global warming is an issue that we should take seriously. You dispure this cause not enough evidence. Would you reconsider your position in the face of a few hundred years evidence?
Juan Wilson
95% of doctors used to say smoking was healthy too
you would've been one of the suckers who believed that too because the divine doctors said so
Jack Hughes
How about you go find a couple of significant scientific bodies that directly dispute it? And don't give me that fanny about 'muh funding', if somebody had a solid case against AGW, Exxon would have paid them well for it.
Evan Lee
>Yeah as a response to things such as CO2 change
CO2 and temperature are correlated, but there has been no definite proof of a "higher CO2 -> higher temperature" causation yet.
The correlation could as well be due to a period of higher activity in the sun, heating up the oceans which means they can bind less CO2 and thus expel some into the atmosphere.
Actually, I could easily argue that the second explanation is the more likely one. Pay attention to every global warming skeptic source showing data from ice coring with accurate values for CO2 (where you can see that the CO2 curve follows the temperature curve, not the other way around) while pro global warming sources prefer to show an averaged CO2 concentration to flatten out the peaks and make it impossible to tell which curve is following which.
Hudson Perez
>the temperature rises 0.8 degrees in 50 years HOLY FUCK IT'S THE END TIMES GUYS
topkek
it'd be more believable if they said the temperature has risen 25 degrees in 50 years, then i'd actually be worried
Ian Hill
I guess its not a problem if you're really rich and can afford to pay for insanely pricey food and water
Alright but I'm not claiming its true because climate scientists say it is I was just correcting what that guy claimed
Thomas Watson
No manon it is pretty scientific on one side. The other side has spent the past two decades poking holes then claiming victory.
en.wikipedia.org
>Although Luntz later tried to distance himself from the Bush administration policy, it was his idea that administration communications reframe "global warming" as "climate change" since "climate change" was thought to sound less severe.[19] Luntz has since said that he is not responsible for what the Bush administration did after that time. Though he now believes humans have contributed to global warming, he maintains that the science was in fact incomplete, and his recommendation sound, at the time he made it.[20]
>In a 2002 memo to President George W. Bush titled "The Environment: A Cleaner, Safer, Healthier America", obtained by the Environmental Working Group, Luntz wrote: "The scientific debate is closing [against us].. but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science.... Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field."
You all skeptics are following Luntz's advice to the letter
Josiah Perry
well atleast here. Snow has been something of the past (2008)
Charles Edwards
youtube.com
This video explains it completely.
Zachary Morales
How bout this?
youtube.com
4 minute video, guy shows that more co2 'traps' more heat than air.
Jace Ross
>poor people
>valuable
See you in alaska.
Brayden Turner
naturalnews.com
the globalists solution to climate change is to give them money and they'll fix it and also kill off jobs via regulations to fix it
so we have to make people poor to fix the apocalypse huh... sounds totally legit
Jordan Jackson
co2 lagging temperature is a different mechanism than what we're seeing today.
Josiah Fisher
>muh poor people
fuck of with your crocodile tears.
Jackson Wilson
World climate is a bit more complex than two bottles of water, user. They aren't even sure yet if CO2 works as a greenhouse gas on a world scale like it does in greenhouses to begin with. Because it also absorbs incoming energy and then emits it into all directions again.
Isaac Morgan
Yes
Ayden Cruz
I do not claim that the CO2 levels didn't rise because of us. What I question is the claim that the temperature will rise because of it. The ice coring people love to show does not support that hypothesis at all (because, as you say, it is a completely different situation) and you cannot simply upscale your laboratory experiment and claim that its results totally apply to the world climate, too.
If you did your experiments on new drugs with cell cultures and then, after initial success, claimed that this means it will totally apply to the human body too you would get laughed at, and rightfully so.
Jack Cruz
what?
cnsnews.com
realclearpolitics.com
activistpost.com
i mean, hey, if you want taxed for breathing and farting, just go ahead and write out a check to the government right now, i won't stop you
Austin Green
As far as I'm concerned the models of feedback loops don't add up when compared with the empirical data. The amount of humanitys Co2 output is infinitesimal.
Next you'll tell me that chemtrails are aluminum and barium sprayed into the upper atmosphere, meant to reflect the suns rays in a futile attempt to stop global warming, and that absorbing those chemicals has led to the dramatic increase in autism
that would be crazy sounding
Jason Powell
>Steven Goddard
>One of Goddard's earliest writings, an article for The Register, asserted that the National Snow and Ice Data Center's (NSIDC) data underlying a chart depicting 2008 Arctic sea ice loss was incorrect and that NSIDC seemed to demonstrate "a consistent pattern of overstatement related to Arctic ice loss."[3] Ten days later, however, Goddard acknowledged that the data on which the graph was based was accurate.
>On his blog and Twitter feed, Goddard frequently injects his challenges to scientific theories about global warming with accusations that many climate scientists have been corrupted by a liberal political agenda, referring to them as “criminals pushing a scam” who are “blatantly lying"[18] and dismisses anthropogenic global warming as "the biggest fraud in history."
The guy is a fucking joke!
Angel Lee
>So, although emissions have not abated, the amount of man-made carbon remaining in the atmosphere has declined.
>“That portion that stays in the atmosphere — that’s called the airborne fraction,” said Trevor Keenan, one of the report’s authors, “has reduced by about 20% over the last 15 years.”
Brody Rivera
Yes
Josiah Russell
The earth is warming, but humanity isn't playing a role. Earth has been warming and cooling long before we were here. Just google Eemian for example which begun 130,000 years ago and ended about 115,000 years ago.
We are in the peak of a warming period. Instead of pointing fingers and blaming one another we need to begin building subterranean cities, towns and agriculture otherwise we will perish. Some people know about this including some high profile people and have begun storing seeds away in the arctic. We will endure 5,000 to 15,000 years of +8 Celsius above average and in the current state humanity will not survive this.
Do your research. Don't look at the past 200 years of temperature readings, look at thousands and millions of years ago and you'll see a pattern. Earths overall temperature has gradually been cooling but there is warming and cooling periods during this.
Adrian Reyes
Personally I don't really care, because I won't have children and the planet can die with me as far as I'm concerned.
I think what really irritates me about global warming is the amount of dishonesty and lack of integrity surrounding it. We've had far simpler and far better researched scientific topics that have been bitterly argued over the past hundred years because that's the point of science. To be a skeptic. To not promote an agenda, but simply find truths in nature even if the bigger picture is too complex to piece together. Frankly, to see so many saying the science is settled over something so poorly understood with so little data and so impossible to verify is a huge red flag, because that's the antithesis of science. The scientific community getting wrapped up in behavior like this isn't new either. Universally loved scientists like Feynman were bitching about this kind of scientific thought in the 70s.
It's really easy to fool yourself. Especially over a topic that suggest the end of humanity. Especially over a topic that receives billions in funding yearly, will bring you attention in the scientific community, and any dissenting opinion will ostracize you from the group who've already decided the issue is settled.
Ethan Stewart
Sup Forums is so retarded
>there is a conspiracy by "scientists" to secure funding by lying about climate change and fabricating observations
totally legit
>there is a conspiracy by big oil to maintain profits by using their literally billions of dollars to discredit climate change including making people believe in the aforementioned scientist conspiracy
there's no possible way this would happen, a business would never use propaganda to gain/maintain a profit. marketing doesn't exist, advertising doesn't exist, disinfo certainly can't exist!
Jacob Moore
Why is he a joke?
Because he admitted he was wrong once?
Brandon Lee
Yes.
Isaac Kelly
> Because it also absorbs incoming energy and then emits it into all directions again.
You're missing a big part of how it works. Not much of the energy from the sun arrives here as IR (the wavelength that co2 interacts with), but a lot of the visible light that arrives here is reflected from earth as IR. It gets trapped on the way back up.
Eli Cooper
>that many unironical "no"
tfw too smart for Sup Forums
Jace Jenkins
Fair enough. That's fucking retarded.
Jackson Diaz
Nice strawman. Here's one for you:
>Climate alarmists:
>the water level has risen 10000 feet and now we're under water
>Everyone else:
>No we're not.
Adrian Nelson
>Does Sup Forums believe in climate change?
sure
it's always changing
like when you hear shit on the news
>it hasn't been this cold in 50 years
>it hasn't been this hot in 200 years
since this happened before it's a clear indication that our climate is dynamic and changes naturally.
Juan Jackson
>CO2 and temperature are correlated, but there has been no definite proof of a "higher CO2 -> higher temperature" causation ye
Yeah there's plenty
In the snowball earth whilst all other factors remained constant or were accounted for CO2 concentration increased causing the warming of the earth and eventual melting of the snowball earth
researchgate.net
Deglaciation periods preceded by orbital forcing would not have been possible in their scope if it were because of orbital forcing alone, the greenhouse effect due to CO2 and other greenhouse gases must have taken place to cause this
researchgate.net
atmos.washington.edu
>The correlation could as well be due to a period of higher activity in the sun
Pic related
Blake Martinez
>do you believe the climate is changing?
Yes, millions are about to starve due to a new mini ice age.
Jack Cox
THOSE PESKY SOLAR RADIATION CHARTS REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Robert Lee
>1953
>using deltas to represent something
>believing in icyjew
Jacob Hill
25 degree rise in average temperature would literally kill most macroscopic life on the planet
Alexander Campbell
>being lithuanian
William Price
>opened it
Jaxon Jackson
Alright then how about these models which predicted several changing quantities correctly
static.skepticalscience.com
static.skepticalscience.com
i.guim.co.uk
static.skepticalscience.com
nsidc.org
>The earth is warming, but humanity isn't playing a role. Earth has been warming and cooling long before we were here
As a response to changes in things such as atmospheric CO2 concentration
>Do your research. Don't look at the past 200 years of temperature readings, look at thousands and millions of years ago and you'll see a pattern
I'm well aware of this and this is as a result of things such as change in CO2
Alexander Miller
Never been to the Southwest US, obviously.
Brayden Watson
>posts graph with no source or reference
Ian Martin
>common core
Nathaniel Bennett
Aaron Robinson
Even other climate change deniers/skeptics say he's a joke.
>Noted global warming skeptic Judith Curry characterized Goddard's analysis of NASA's data as "bogus."
Actually, reading his blog a little bit, it seems his heart is in the right place. Although people here think climate change = government control, this guy seems to be all for government spending and regulation:
>Sane energy policy requires low cost, abundant, reliable energy. It also requires that we stop wasting our reserves of hydrocarbon based fuels.
>Government should undertake a massive influx of spending on mass transit, and start promoting working remotely and other technologies which reduce traffic and improve health and quality of life. We could probably reduce fuel usage by 50% and improve quality of life at the same time. I do almost all of my local transport by bicycle and mass transit, and it is fabulous.
>realclimatescience.com
He also lives in Boulder, CO.
>rides bicycle
>wants to get rid of cars and hydrocarbons
>smokes weed
>Sup Forums hero
Sebastian Cruz
SPEAK ENGLISH, DOC
WE AIN'T SCIENTISTS!
Samuel Nelson
>nsidc.org
Nature magazine must be wrong about the famous warming "pause" since 2000.
Juan Johnson
And the heat content of the sea has increased
Christian Morales
>Noted global warming skeptic Judith Curry characterized Goddard's analysis of NASA's data as "bogus."
So he's a joke because somebody said so, and because he rides a bicycle.
Got it.
I don't understand how that's a refutation.
Christian Roberts
The 'pause' is just a sketchy way of interpreting data. The 00s were hotter than the 90s. The 10s are well on course to being hotter than the 00s.
Brandon Roberts
> global temperature
> measured 1000+ yearis in the past
> global
> muh nasa
Liam Nelson
I believe in climate change when climate scientists stop using shit Y axes for EVERY FUCKING GRAPH
Brayden Wood
Whats wrong with it?
Jaxon Perez
>Does Sup Forums believe in climate change?
I think the question is either way do i care? and the answer is no, this dildos species deserves to get btfo.
Colton Cruz
nonsense over specificity which makes them unrelated-able to other seemingly similar data, but must overcome the opaque conversions and hope that it doesn't obfuscate the correlation.
Landon Collins
Yes. The real question is: how do we organise a political platform which is environmental at it's core without the social justice baggage that usually accompanies such a position. If we could achieve this it would be even more earth shattering and popular than Brexit and Trump combined.
Everyone cares for the environment/nature/Creation/their backyard in some intuitive way. No one wants their air to be like Chinese smog or their neighborhood to be a hot concrete ghetto. No one wants to be packed like sardines like Indians are. But no one likes the Greens either.
A conservative policy setting is wholly commensurate with strong environmentalism.
>immigration/refugee restrictions
>low population
>strong pollution restrictions/reductions
>nationalism
>renewable energy with decentralized power grid
>green urban/suburban spaces for the health, wellbeing, and enjoyment of citizens
>land conservation/national parks for biodiversity and human enjoyment
>clean air and water guarantees
>urban planning that is humane and ecological
>low waste, smart consumption
>monetizing the environment and investing in green technologies/jobs
>kill all of africa, india, china, middle east (jk)(not jk)
This is more than just global warming. Tkhis is about the society/world you want yourself and your children to live in.
Zachary Gray
these better?
Connor Jackson
Every day, huh?
Mason Reyes
Yes
Climate change is real and it's (mostly) being caused by humans, but kikes are still using it as a ploy to expand their grasp on industry and society at large
Kayden Perez
Nothing is static.
Charles Perry
I beleive an international agreement, with a fund behind it is the best way. Agree to cap co2 at 450ppm or below. Work towards it globally. Monies would be used to clean up power generation first. Having a solid target and a plan for getting there seems the best bet to me.
Luke Green
Yes, I just dont agree with the reasons given for it.
It's not industrialization that caused it, it's the fact that the population of earth is 5 times what it was 90 years ago