Republicans are stupid

>HAHAHAHAHHA LITERALLY BTFO BY A SINGLE MEME

How can climate deniers even rebuke?

Pro tip: you can't

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=nLuBgZ1bgoY&index=5&list=LLvnNhzVZTHHEkuAE7eTwNxQ
iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024;jsessionid=3495294B42710D1EBDCC83168DFCE8E8.c4.iopscience.cld.iop.org
climatedepot.com/2015/09/03/its-all-wrong-un-convening-lead-author-dr-richard-tol-slams-media-for-false-claims-about-alleged-97-consensus/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
archive.is/1aSI7
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

...

...

I guess the liberals really showed us by stopping the Titanic from sinking.

Except the Medieval and Roman warm periods weren't met with mass extinction rates

When will you idiots realize that this is not a "normal" shift in climate

Keep the lie alive OP so that lucrative grant money keeps rolling in.

Liberals on
>climate change
>racial differences
>sex differences
>existence of God / morality
>veganism
>abortion

Really makes you think who is really anti evidence and anti science.

hello its nod an argumend XDDDDDD

>Mars has no atmosphere
>Ours is getting too thick
Why don't we just take the greenhouse gases, and send them to Mars?

Even with ridiculous amounts of co2 pollution we'd still be 15000 years away from the next glacial period. I'd be surprised if mankind was still around to witness actual climate change.

Protip
The climate isnt a ship

Also of course it's getting warmer we're in the interglacial period of the last ice age. Ie we're still in an ice age.

This picture is pants-on-head retarded. What are they implying? Republicans somehow use the justification that winter still happens to deny climate change? Maybe American republicans care more about other issues facing their country than climate change which is a worldwide issue that nobody will ever agree on and don't waste their time and effort in office pursuing fruitless endeavors that do short term damage and no long-term good?

>stop livestock and tank that industry
>stop landfills and do what with the trash?
>stop power plants but not allowed to use nuclear power because muh terrorists and muh nuclear waste and muh let's ignore Yucca Mountain
>stop manufacturing and tank that industry
>shut down basically everything
>other countries don't give a shit and continue what they're doing

Hypothetical catastrophes averted!!! Liberals are so fucking stupid.

hurr durr let's give up all my fossil fuel convenience for a future generation that isn't me

environmentalism is the ultimate cuck mentality, I want the world to die with me

When it stops looking like one.

how you gonna transport those gasses to mars without putting out more of them than you dump leaf?

you mean when your GOP overlords finally give in

It already looks plenty like one, but hey, 97% of the scientific community can't be correct, right?

>believing consensus in the scientific community means that something is completely true
you are the reason science is dying

>science is dying

when you can't even acquire funds to do research that may end up proving something that isn't the current consensus, or even say something that isn't currently accepted without being turned into a pariah, yes, science is dying.

you are literally on par with cultists.

>97% isn't a consensus

can't make this shit up, whew lad

>hey guys everyone is going to die and the earth will turn into venus if you dont fund my research
>t. climatologist

>it's not normal guys!
>it must be us humans doing it!

The IPCC pulled together 11,944 peer-reviewed papers about climate change. Of those, 66.4% of them had NO OPINION on anthropogenic or "man-made" global warming whatsoever. That's 7,930 of them. Again, they neither support or denounce AGW (anthropogenic global warming) they simply don't acknowledge it at all.

That leaves 4,014 papers that DO have an opinion on AGW. This is where the IPCC gets tricky. They claim 97% of the remaining studies support AGW. Note that they do not claim to what degree. They simple acknowledge that man-made climate change on "some" scale that is not 0 exists and has some effect. This is no more than acknowledging that standing outside and spraying aerosol cans at the sky all day is probably bad for the environment.

What matters is, of those "97%" how much did they say it actually affects the environment. And here's where everyone was misled. Only 64 papers suggest that AGW is the leading cause of climate change. That is 1.5% of the papers that even discuss AGW, and 0.5% of all global warming research.

What does that mean? 98.5% of all peer-reviewed scientific studies suggest man-made global warming is NOT a major factor in climate change.

But muh skeptical scientists! Muh conspiracy blog! Muh communist hate!

>isn't the current concensus
At least read before you meme arrow

youtube.com/watch?v=nLuBgZ1bgoY&index=5&list=LLvnNhzVZTHHEkuAE7eTwNxQ

See: The "consensus" was a misleading lie that's debunked by literally five minutes of reading into how they got that number.

>"97% of 34% of scientists agree it exists in some small measure, and of that 34%, 1.5% believe it's a relevant factor at all!"
>>So only 1.5% of scientists believe in man-made global warming being a danger?
>"I prefer the way I said it with 97% better."

>If climate change was real, the ice burg would have melted before the Titanic hit it.
Checkmate Atheists

That got me more than it should have.
Well played.

Most of the world did come to an agreement though, that's kind of the point

The republican congress is the biggest and most important hold out

source

Good job of ignoring all the other posts you fucking faggot.

Notice how you conflate a non-zero comment with all the comments being trivial.

We pump more CO2 into the air each year than the sum total of volcanoes by a wide margin. Of course we affect our own environment. Why do you think the ocean is acidifying? Why do you suppose we keep passing new CO2 concentration thresholds every year or so? Why do you think record high temperatures keep breaking each year?

That's what makes the comic funny. We're sinking like in the picture but you're busy telling us that we're a hundred feet off the water.

oh, please enlighten me, what is the current consensus then?

100% not existing (brought to you by Exxon Mobil)

cunt did they not even teach you how the scientific method works in high school?

a 97% consensus doesn't mean shit. you can't actually prove anything if you're working with the scientific method. you can only gradually strip back the amount of scenarios you can come up with where a model doesn't work.

for example:

let's say i propose that zebras, giraffes, horses, donkeys, cows, etc are all just different subspecies of a particular larger family of animals. i can make a set of criteria for this family, i can imagine up particular ways in which i can test if my proposal is true, but all of my tests aren't designed to prove that i'm right, they're to prove that i'm wrong.

if i'm right in 100 ways, that just means i've found 100 ways in which my prediction doesn't break down. if i find a single way in which i'm wrong, a way in which my prediction DOES break down, i can use that to make a better model and learn more about the world.

by discouraging all discussion of alternate theories regarding climate change, you are deliberately preventing science from doing it's work. so fucking what if your current theory has worked out in all of the tests you've given it? if you kick out all people who actually try to disprove it and make other models of course that's going to be the outcome.

Consensus does not matter in science.
Science only concerns experimentation, observation, data, and facts.

There is no evidence for AGW. There IS massive evidence for climate change, because climate change is a natural phenomenon that is absolutely impossible to stop. In fact, if the climate ever does stop changing, life on earth will die.

Also, warming periods are historically followed by greater quality of life.
Cooling periods are historically followed by famines, disease, and extinction.

wow are you so stupid you have to breathe manually?

Climate change deniers are a special kind of retarded

I have to give it to you, it takes some balls to be this willfully ignorant

Republicans would say "Iceberg I fucking knew it! Berg!!"

He agreed with you it was the current concensus. His point was if you somehow independently funded your research that proved the consensus was wrong you'd be a pariah.

Your farts are made up of 7% methane. That's a non-zero affect on global warming. Do you think we should start regulating flatulence too? When 98.5% of scientsts suggest it's a non-issue, it seems pretty safe to assume that they're right.

I mean, that was your side's reasoning when the narrative was flipped that way, wasn't it? If 97% say it exists, it must exist.

>Climate change deniers are a special kind of retarded
Show me some of these "deniers" of climate change please.

Actually cow farts are often cited as a contributing factor. However the main factors as it has been since earth's existence is volcanic and solar.

Scientific consensus is an oxymoron. Science is all about hard facts and hard proof, or at least repeatable experimentation.
When you say shit like 97% of scientists believe, you need to stop right there and take a look at what you're saying. Belief is the cornerstone of religion. Belief does not belong in science.
If you're too stupid to notice the difference then sorry, but i can't help retards.

Nobody here denies climate change, what people deny is anthropogenic climate change.

Seems you're just a bunch of bluster. 97% consensus means that there is an overwhelming likelihood of the theory being sound. It also means that 'alternate theories' have already been pursued and the one which fits the facts the best is the one we're currently talking about.

In other words you don't know shit about science and think it's a popularity contest when it's really about how best you can explain the facts, rather than deny them which is what you are doing now.

Its true, the viking crossed the atlantic, that means there was no ice before but now there is.

Can you post a source? Genuinely interested

On the IPCC being debunked? It's all over the internet, just google it.

But if you're one of those sorts that spergs out without SOME source being cited, here:

iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024;jsessionid=3495294B42710D1EBDCC83168DFCE8E8.c4.iopscience.cld.iop.org

>fits the facts
THAT ONLY APPLIES WHEN YOU DO NOT KICK ANYONE ATTEMPTING TO DISPROVE YOUR THEORY OUT TO THE CURB YOU FUCKHEAD

THE EXACT SAME LOGIC YOU'RE USING NOW COULD BE USED TO SAY THAT TRANSGENDER PEOPLE AREN'T MENTALLY ILL AND ARE COMPLETELY NATURAL

>literally thinking that pumping millions of tons of gasses into an atmosphere will not change the refractive properties of that atmosphere

W E W L A D
E
W
L
A
D

We exceed the output of all of earth's volcanoes each year.

The sun does not presently affect our high temperature. That cycle ended decades ago.

Just some facts you are ignoring.

So wrong, science is and always will be a fight for funding.

You have obviously never even looked into the 97% consensus study or you would know how flawed it is.

You are an ignorant faggot.

that trans ship has sailed m8 let's hope it hits an iceberg

>literally thinks plant life won't adapt to capture the CO2 and make the shit a moot point
Yeah, it's not like life on earth is famous for adapting to change. Or anything. After all, evolution is a lie, right?

>this is how retarded the average Sup Forumstard is

Neither is this current warm period.

We pretty much no effect on climate change, as a matter of fact, the effect of the gases isn't linear, the amount they affect decreases with high concentration.

See pic.

>Climate change deniers
most retarded meme in history

meant for

ITT: A bunch of stupid asses who only read blogs funded by fossil fuel companies tell us about science.

You're coalcucks. The lot of you. You would let the polluters out there rape our environment while you watch from your cucksheds and jack your dicks with a pocket pussy made from coal.

Note that that is the link to the actual study where they claim a 97% consensus but admit in the very beginning that it's only 97% of 34% of scientists.

They also acknowledge they included an "all or nothing" metric. If a scientist acknowledges the existence of man-made global warming affects - NO MATTER HOW SMALL OR TRIVIAL ON A GLOBAL SCALE - but just acknowledges it, they count.

From there other scientists went through and discovered of the "97%" only 64 individual reports suggests that it was a major contributor at all. All other reports acknowledging manmade global warming said it was miniscule or a nonfactor to climate change.

climatedepot.com/2015/09/03/its-all-wrong-un-convening-lead-author-dr-richard-tol-slams-media-for-false-claims-about-alleged-97-consensus/

>he thinks photosynthesis follows a linear curve and that evolution takes place over a couple of decades

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
Oh look, turns out you are full of shit.

...

Volcanoes affect climate and have been for millions of years. We put out more CO2 each yeah than all the earth's volcanoes do, by a very large margin.

That is a fact.

>democrats on climate change
>believes an image they saw on the internet instead of just looking out the fucking window themselves

Global warming believers are the creationists of the political left.

Co2 does not affect climate, it affects plant growth rates.

>thinking plants can magically evolve in a few years

this is what I'm talking about

Plant life adapts over tens of thousands of years, not ten years, or a hundred years.

Here:

and

See the percentage of CO2 put by humans on the atmosphere at the top of the pic.

And as said on the rest of the pic, CO2 has a minimal effect on climate change as can be show by the fact it lags temperature on the picture and here

>he thinks plants don't react to enhanced CO2 by increasing photosynthesis
Oh you poor soul.

Here's a general rule of thumb for biology. Increased "food" in an ecosystem increases the rate of growth among life in a system.
This is why increased food often leads to population booms among plants and animals, which left unchecked in the case of animals can later lead to famines if food availability drops.
Plants generally don't suffer this problem as badly because of the way they make food via photosynthesis.

Your little horse family example really petered away there didn't it?
Climate scientists have tested all sorts of hypotheses. Only one that is supported by ALL THE EVIDENCE is human generated carbon emissions.

Fair enough.
Just so you know I think we should reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and cease pollution in our rivers, oceans and green spaces for a better quality of life but not because suddenly we'll be Venus. I just don't buy it.

>evolution only takes a few years
>american education

fucking retard. The problem is that we're not pacing ourselves with atmospheric pollution, and we're cutting down more trees than ever so there's even less plant life to suck the CO2 out of the atmosphere

Burgers are really, really fucking stupid

People get kicked out when their research violates ethics, i.e. They use shoddy methodology or have massive conflicts of interest from the fossil fuel industry.

We are past the stage of shooting blindly into the dark to explain earth's warming. Many theories once existed, but presently only anthropogenic climate change fits all the facts.

...

>have species of plant
>individual plants in this group have a certain amount of genetic variation
>selector comes along and kills all plants that can not do X
>only the plants who can do X survive
>entire species has "evolved" to do something overnight

i know it's not strictly evolution but i'm pretty sure this is what he actually meant

although it sounds pretty far fetched it could technically happen, i don't see it happening though but its important to note

>all the evidence
well go on then, start linking.

and btw please prove, if you can, that all hypothesis' are being tested equally and there's no bias involved.

>attempting to say that a system has no bias in it because of a generally accepted rule
oh user...

>Co2 does not affect climate

you can't seriously be this stupid

Plant life adapts to take in more CO2 as more CO2 becomes available. The result is generally more greenery, faster growth, more flowering and seed production, etc.
As long as plants have sun and water to use, they can take in as much CO2 as they can get.

Not to worry. A rapid rise in methane emissions will take over in its place.

archive.is/1aSI7

1 post by this shill d

>Co2 does not affect climate
Are you actually suggesting there is no such thing as the greenhouse effect?

Funding doesn't matter if your methodology is shit or your research doesn't fit facts.

Fuck off coalcuck.

Anthropogenic global warming is a psuedoscientific mythology promoted for political and financial reasons. It is the greatest scientific fraud in history and a complete disgrace. It will take decades for climatology to restore its credibility.

not to worry, methane is so valuable it makes a mars base possible

You still don't seem to understand. The 'greenhouse effect' is an incorrect hypothesis.

According to some random layman on the Internet.

> weren't met with mass extinction rates

and we know this because the Romans kept extensive taxonomic records on species that lived on continents they've never been to

Wew lad, we have a fucktard who doesn't know the difference between publishing research in accordance with a body of evidence, and shitposting in an echo chamber.

The point is no matter how much you persuade people one thing isn't affecting the climate someone will continue to find new sources to back up their 'data'.

Any proof this will happen or is it unproven conjecture?

According to the scientific evidence.

Methane absorbs evem less than CO2.

Not even remotely. Show us that evidence, and you had better not post some stupid graph with zero sources.

No. The scientific evidence is quite clearly in favor of anthropogenic climate change. The scientific debate on whether or not humans are affecting the climate was settled years ago. The only debate left is the one in politics. For some reason, certain (mostly American) conservatives feel like accepting climate change would be heretical or something. It's quite ridiculous.

Their climate change data always exists in computer simulations but never exists in the real world, unless they make it up out of thin air, which they've been doing with increasingly regularity.

No. The scientific fraud is quite clearly in favor of anthropogenic climate change.