Daily reminder that if you vote for a party that doesn't take climate change seriously you are whats wrong with the...

Daily reminder that if you vote for a party that doesn't take climate change seriously you are whats wrong with the world

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy
mudancasclimaticas.cptec.inpe.br/~rmclima/pdfs/destaques/sternreview_report_complete.pdf
skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argo_(oceanography)
google.pl/search?q=argo sea temperature&client=opera&hs=dVj&biw=1478&bih=868&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwi899PUrOfQAhWBlCwKHW2sDRQQ_AUIBigB
argo.ucsd.edu/global_change_analysis.html
ourworldindata.org/land-use-in-agriculture/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

daily reminder if your country can't beat emus in a war your opinion doesn't matter

I don't like how you guys call it "climate change" now.

No one denies the earth is undergoing geological and climactic changes every day.

Daily reminder that sheep make better sweaters than lovers.

who cares about the world if the government is just going to give it all to niggers and shitskins

Alright lets see you try to take out literally thousands of lanky birds who can run up to 50km/h with 1930's firearms and three men

Do you not think the earth is warming either?

there is no party in the US that takes climate change seriously

Green party

>1930's firearms

This firearm predates the emu war by over a decade.

>Global surface temperatures (where we live)
Wow, good thing they specified it's (where we live). I was starting to think it might be unscientific and inaccurate, but they did specify that it's specifically the temperatures (where we live).

Look, in 2020, in (where we live), the Global surface temperatures are 0.8!

>cherry picking
>muh 3x acceleration aftereffect
No bias there m8.

>He votes for the Greens

Haha well meme'd m8. Be sure to let all your face book friends know ;) Feels good to be intelligent ;)

KEK

kek

Good thing I voted Trump so these fucking losers who wasted their lives getting a PhD in weather can cry themselves to sleep knowing that those in power don't even care what they say.

climate change will give us a constant stream of large scale happenings
climate change is the blessing of kek

This spurdo needs some fucking counter torque.

Daily reminder that I don't give a shit what liberals think.

>he believes in crazy conspiracy theory like global warming

Come on dude.

You think Hillary Clinton cared about climate change? Funny, she didn't act like it

Yeah but there was only two of them against literally thousands of birds

Cherry picking? The spread in most of the images collates all models.

Alright don't vote green then

Anyone remember this? I'll just leave it here then...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

If they didn't get hacked they would still be pushing that bullshit on us today...

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy
literally nothing

Ignore this post

Yeah all that climategate shit has all been thoroughly debunked

>Sup Forums isn't an echo chamber

>muh scientific consensus
>thousands of papers
>6 represent it best

You don't even know who made them. Every climatologists predicted that rise of temperature.
It doesn't change the fact how many lies are spread and how models are wrong because they assume that there is no dampening effect.

Did I even mention consensus?

>Every climatologists predicted that rise of temperature
And ice melting and sea levels and sea temperatures. I wonder why that was? Did they include increasing CO2 emissions and an amplifying effect in their model?

>thoroughly debunked

Your opinion is irrelevant so you’re gonna need to post a credible link for that.

For me, the question is not whether or not we are in the middle of a warming periode.
The question is
1. is this natural occurring or is it man made.
2. What will be the consequences be and what will the cost be of avoiding these consequences.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

There you go

Are you fucking retarded? You just posted my own link back to me. I was asking dumfuck above to post a link proves the climate change email controversy was fake as he claimed.

Graph you posted is the light blue reconstruction in pic related and refers only to central Greenland

>1. is this natural occurring or is it man made.
Man made, CO2 influences climate and has done throughout the entire earths history

>2. What will be the consequences be and what will the cost be of avoiding these consequences.
Yes, up to 20% of the GDP per year
mudancasclimaticas.cptec.inpe.br/~rmclima/pdfs/destaques/sternreview_report_complete.pdf

Its been looked into by nine seperate inquiries all of which found no evidence of any wrongdoing and published reports detailing their findings and addressing the most controversial sections
skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm

i bet you haven't read one of those emails.

Oh I'm sorry did I post the wrong link? I meant to post this one
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

In that context those papers represent nothing if they don't back up popular opinion because that criticism of models is placed against models with 99% consensus.

>Sea temperatures
Argo system disagrees. It was rather flat.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argo_(oceanography)

I know nothing about sea levels but they don't need to have any correlation to warming.
Sea levels were shifting and were much lower even during warm periods.

To answer my own questions.
1. Yes. I am of the opinion that humans are influencing the climate on earth, by emission of greenhouse gasses.
2. I do not believe that the cost of combating climate change is worth the price. The optimal temperature for mankind and life on earth, is not necessarily the temperature we have now. I believe that a general warmining of the earth would be beneficial to mankind. I base this upon the fact, that the wast majority of all land masses are positioned in a tempered climate belt (think of Russia, Siberia). A warming would mean that the amount of fertile land would increase, the energy used for warming would decrease, the amount of land where the temperature would make it livable for humans would increase.

>the inbred islander is too dumb to read his own link beforhand

I said a "credible" link... Not a website that pushes the climate change agenda, thats exactly what you would expect them to say. This is the whole problem with all this climate change nonsense, there is so little credible evidence behind it all boils down to what people want to believe and theres no shortage of teary eyed liberals and green voters who will lap up any bullshit you tell them so long as its accompanied by a photo of a baby seal or sad-looking polar bear. The climate agenda pushers should register themselves as a religion and apply for tax exempt status, there’s more truth in scientology than climate change.

Global warming is a lie.
I won't let westerners fool my country.
Coal plants are cheap and we need them.
Fuck solar and wind!

retard detected

you show a graph that corresponds to the red-end of the graph I have showed.

Do you have any actual data over a longer timeframe, like 10.000-100.000 years, that would prove that the temperature today is higher than what it have on average been in this larger timeframe.
Because my argument and the reason why I posted that graph is that; The optimal temperature of which life on earth to function within, very well can be a lot higher than it is today. That a general warming may not be a bad thing.

this image says you're wrong

History always was and always will be the history of progressives telling the conservative retards "I told you so" when it's fucking too late. What they lack in intelligence they compensate with the only skill they mastered: fucking playing dumb.

It will be the same with climate change.

Have you read this link?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

*yawn*

>In that context those papers represent nothing if they don't back up popular opinion because that criticism of models is placed against models with 99% consensus.
Yeah and the images show models from the IPCC and ensembles of models both of which have the backing of the climatology community

>Argo system disagrees. It was rather flat.
Care to link some of that data?

>I know nothing about sea levels but they don't need to have any correlation to warming.
They do though

>Sea levels were shifting and were much lower even during warm periods.
Source?

>I said a "credible" link... Not a website that pushes the climate change agenda
It lists out and links all the investigations

>Imblying it's a bad thing

The climate get's warmer it means no fucking winter and I can grow Dates. Win Win especially since all the swamp jews get drowned.

That's just the start. When we se a really abnormal change it will be already too late.

Sure, earth's climate is always changing, but when it does significantly it fucking wipes life on it.

>Do you have any actual data over a longer timeframe, like 10.000-100.000 years, that would prove that the temperature today is higher than what it have on average been in this larger timeframe.
Yeah

>The optimal temperature of which life on earth to function within, very well can be a lot higher than it is today. That a general warming may not be a bad thing.
We know its not though, many species in the past have died out in radical warming events

idk what people think this means. Yeah the temperature has been warmer before, your point?

come tell me why you're too dumb for science, i'm waiting for you

My point is that climate change is natural for the world.
It getting warmer now has zero evidence on it being man made.

So?

That's how we got humans. All the stupid animals died.

>We know its not though, many species in the past have died out in radical warming events

First of all you confusing sudden change with just optimal temperature. And you still need to reference how big in the scheme of things is 1 or 2 degrees.

Go back to /lit/ you faggot where your shitty grammar is accepted.

According to you. It's a pleasure.

>That's how we got humans. All the stupid animals died.

And that's how will get highly evolved cockroaches, All the stupid humans will die.

>First of all you confusing sudden change with just optimal temperature
Things won't stay within optimal temperature though if more CO2 is produced. Also the rate of change now is sudden, life will have little time to adapt

i'm sorry i don't speak retardo, are you trying to say you're IQ is too low to grasp simple scientific concepts?

>hurr Sup Forums average IQ is small
>durr I forget I'm also part of Sup Forums too
Fuck off, Mario.

It's easy to say zero evidence, when you ignore every fucking thing people working on this say because hurdur.jpg they just want money.

Daily reminder leftist people have not bred above replacement in more than two generations and your heretical progress religion will be dead soon. Can't wait to tell my six kids about the time when the white leftists committed mass suicide because nobody took them seriously anymore.

>And that's how will get highly evolved cockroaches, All the stupid humans will die.

If you are too stupid to survive in a world with multiple seed banks, multiple tools and countless miles of agricultural terrain being recovered then might as well end yourself now.

Unless humans have a self destruct button when the earth gains 2 more degrees then I think we will be fine.

IPCC uses names but doesn't represent whole community. Many respected people made lawsuits against them to not be included in this consensus.

>Care to link some of that data?
I could find you one supporting my point but you can dig.
google.pl/search?q=argo sea temperature&client=opera&hs=dVj&biw=1478&bih=868&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwi899PUrOfQAhWBlCwKHW2sDRQQ_AUIBigB

>Source?
Sunken cities cities. It's kinda common knowledge.

>mudancasclimaticas.cptec.inpe.br/~rmclima/pdfs/destaques/sternreview_report_complete.pdf
Yea just looked at the rapport, it is 576 pages long, so I won't read it.

But I read some of the summaries and they are all based upon the negative change of climate change.
For instance, they mention that heath waves will reduce the amount of crops. But what they don't incorporate into their calculations is what I have outlined in , that the amount of land available for farming would increase with higher temperature.

This is a common pattern in these kind of rapports, they mention all the disadventages, but in no way mention the postivie changes and the benefits of those.

Another example. If this warming pattern continues, then the amount of energy that will be used to power cooling systems, such as air-condition would increase.
By the same logic then the amount of energy used to heath up houses and etc. would decrease.

So I don't think that that rapport accurately describe what the consequences will be.

>My point is that climate change is natural for the world.
Yeah it naturally varies with CO2

>It getting warmer now has zero evidence on it being man made.
If we produce CO2 then we can influence climate

>Things won't stay within optimal temperature though if more CO2 is produced.

Your evidence for it?

If the temperature increases you won't just have CO2. You will have more rainfall, more plant life and if it's man made less humans will produce it as less humans need to burn shit to stay warm.

Also it's not sudden. Temperature it's still in the parameters of the recorded extremes of past years. Not to mention we just came out of a minor ice age two centuries ago.

2 deg is current target, which we are not going to achieve because of the retarded team rocket Trumpet assembles. But anyway, with 2 deg you dry out India and seriously reduce land water bodies.

Shouldn't we want the Earth to get warmer, and should pump as much C02 into the atmosphere as possible to assist in plant growth worldwide?

I dont understand why people oppose climate change so vehemently. Im very cynical about most things and treat almost everything with skepticism, but disregarding climate change is a lose lose situation. If your wrong future generations are completely fucked, so why not do it just in case,and maybe one day if comes out it was exaggerated the worst thing people can say about you is, "oh look, they tried to save the earth."

Where will that water go then dumbass?

It won't get to space it's not light enough, it will come back down after evaporation. And as there will be more water and higher temperature the amount of rain will increase.

Because money

Climate change is a term that was dubbed by a known denier because he thought global warming was too "alarmist". He literally PCed the term.

Unless doing it actually hurts the environment and brings down future generations from not having enough productivity to survive.

Emissions regulations hurt developing nations most of all anyway.

Pascal's wager. I can use it to make you believe in fairies if I chose to.

The truth is if climate change belivers are right we can't fix shit and all it will take is for Iceland to sneeze for us to get fucked.

Good.

pfft

>only show the last century

OP, are you a religious fundamentalist? Do you think the earth is only 6,000 years old? lol, its a lot older than you're showing in YOUR models. Science, dude, keep UP!

The nations most influenced by climate change are brownskinned therefore it's good thing to speed the things up so they will fucking die.

>when
When what? They research stuff, produce zero evidence, just theories and projections.
Remind when they said that our medling with nature would result in global cooling? They all researched that and wrote papers too.
I want actual evidence for it being man made, not a documentary with DiCaprio.

Earth survived extremely high levels of CO2 before and it thrived pretty well to reach our point.
If we end up being as toxic as you want to believe, all that will happen is that we'll get thrown under the bus by nature and it will recover and flourish once again.

>gypsy wisdom

>We know its not though, many species in the past have died out in radical warming events
99.9% of all species that have ever existed on earth, have gone extinct.
(source intro to that Haley Berry Tv-series, with aliens and robots)

In all seriousness, there is nothing wrong with species dying out. Should we really invest 1-10% of the worlds GDP to save certain species? is that the best use of resources.

Also you say "We know its not though". It would be nice if you can explain to my "why we know this" and don't link to a +1000 pages rapport.
I would think that the optimal condition for life would be significantly warmer than it is today, I base this upon how life is positioned on the globe. Their is a greater richness in the biodiversity in areas closer to equator. It appear to me, that life in Siberia, does not thrive as much and if Siberia where to be warmer, then the area would see a rejuvenation of life.

Notice that SHARP increase
That's what we're concerned about
Its not the warming, its the accelerated warming

Because of more extreme weather when rain falls, reservoirs fill quickly to capacity in the winter, which can also result in excess water runoff that can't be stored. Because rain flows faster than melting snow, higher levels of soil moisture and groundwater recharge are less likely to occur. Areas that rely on snowmelt as their primary freshwater source could increasingly experience water shortages, like having low water supplies by summer's end.

>Spaghetty muncher that can't write in english worth a dam is triggered

Nice salt you got there.

>IPCC uses names but doesn't represent whole community
Alright then how about you find me a couple of models that were incorrect

>I could find you one supporting my point but you can dig.
This was on their website
argo.ucsd.edu/global_change_analysis.html

>Sunken cities cities. It's kinda common knowledge.
Alright well can you link?

> the amount of land available for farming would increase with higher temperature.
In which regions though?
ourworldindata.org/land-use-in-agriculture/

>By the same logic then the amount of energy used to heath up houses and etc. would decrease.
I believe that cooling systems are far more expensive to operate but if they truly didn't take heating systems into account I see your point

>Your evidence for it?
That CO2 has been historically correlated to temperature

>If the temperature increases you won't just have CO2. You will have more rainfall, more plant life and if it's man made less humans will produce it as less humans need to burn shit to stay warm.
Yeah but any of those things taken to an extreme aren't necessarily good

>Also it's not sudden. Temperature it's still in the parameters of the recorded extremes of past years
Increasing at an increasing rate. Plus we didn't have civilisations of the same scope we do today.

good thing you're trip fagging that really added a lot of oomph to your post

I recycle , separate my metal and paper waste. I do not believe in climate change and Never will.

you mad i vote libs?? #upthebolty

>more rain will result in less water

What?

What evidence would you expect? No ice on the caps? Gravity is also a theory, but you don't dispute it and jump of the balcony because it's just a theory.

If you don't want to agree with the data because you believe its wrong, would you at least agree that we need to move to cleaner energy for the sake of reducing pollution?

>preventing unnatural emissions could hurt the environment

>Because of more extreme weather when rain falls, reservoirs fill quickly to capacity in the winter, which can also result in excess water runoff that can't be stored. Because rain flows faster than melting snow, higher levels of soil moisture and groundwater recharge are less likely to occur. Areas that rely on snowmelt as their primary freshwater source could increasingly experience water shortages, like having low water supplies by summer's end.

And how are those bad things?

Few populated places rely solely on snow melt. And those places are anyway shitty. Places Kazakhstan.

And considering swamp drain is not hard and some places have suffered desertification do to deforestation it's a good thing.

>gypsy tears

literally this

The environment doesn't naturally regulate itself to be the most suitable for life all the time. More emissions should result in a warmer globe that will foster more and more bio diverse life, and leave regions more habitable.

>If we end up being as toxic as you want to believe, all that will happen is that we'll get thrown under the bus by nature and it will recover and flourish once again.
you're too dumb even for Sup Forums

>That CO2 has been historically correlated to temperature

Correlation doesn't equal causation. Since there are so many variables what is your proper evidence that it causes warming?

>Yeah but any of those things taken to an extreme aren't necessarily good

And aren't necessarily bad either. A big enough increase in temperature means the Ecuadorian climate zone increases in size and that Siberia stops being covered in perma frost.

daily reminder that you climate change fags only focus on man made climate change when climate change is a naturally occurring process and things like volcanos have more of an effect on the climate that us

I was thinking of Russia, there are some large areas over there. Some it is undoubtedly infertile, but I assume that the reason why some areas are not in use is because of perma-frost and general low temperature.

>Italian talking about tears

Sure, all for it. We don't need the UN to tell us that.

...