Okay leftists

okay leftists

scientifically prove that climate change exists

and if it does exist why should we do anything about it

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=6VUPIX7yEOM
youtube.com/watch?v=E-x_ZiaN7Rw
nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n8/full/nclimate3004.html
letmegooglethat.com/?q=lab experiment showing the effect of greenhouse gas
youtube.com/watch?v=VNgqv4yVyDw
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

>climate change

don't let these people control language. make them stick to the term global warming because nobody denies climate change lmao

You cant prove opinions.

yeah 40 years ago it was global cooling and they had """scientific""" proof too

>and if it does exist why should we do anything about it
because the UN projects 3 billion new niggers will be born on the african continent by 2100. they cant feed themselves and constantly war with each other, combine this with chinese colonialisation of africa and all roads lead to one destination: africans flooding into europe and destroying it.

if you truly believe in global warming you must prevent these 3 billion africans from being born by ceasing all aid to the continent and refusing to let them walk into europe

africa has some of the most fertile soil in the world

they can feed themselves they just choose not to

understand that climate change is real has nothing to do with political spectrum. and if you want proof, if anything the burden of proof is on you to show how increased greenhouse gases DONT increase temperate when it's been proven in lab experiments for ages now.

and if your gut reaction is to say, "BUT THE EARTH ISNT A LAB!" then you're a retard who is missing the point. we know the earth isnt a lab, so show the mechanism with HARD SCIENTIFIC DATA that proves that theres a separate mechanism that can overcome the effect of greenhouses gases.

Hardly a leftist. Didn't realize political alignment and scientific fact went hand in hand.

Anyways, if you deny "climate change" or whatever word you'd like to label it, you're an idiot.

youtube.com/watch?v=6VUPIX7yEOM

Watch this video. Its only 4 minutes.

They never will.

wrong. the majority of papers published predicted warming, which is exactly what we're getting

youtube.com/watch?v=E-x_ZiaN7Rw

they cant, in order to grow crops you need to not have barbaric neighbours that will come and kill you rape your crocodiles and burn down your crops.

thats never going to happen in africa.

seriously though i have yet to see ANYONE come up with a counter argument to my point: anyone who believes in climate change must inescapably arrive at the conclusion that in order to save the environment, we must prevent the industialisation of africa and the explosion of its population to 4 billion.

you dont even need to mention the fact that the niggers are going to destroy europe if they are born, just mention the fact that these people need resources to cook their food (not that they truly have any). where are they going to get clean energy for their daily uses? ALL they have is wood, and once they cut down all the trees the soil is going to erode to desert.

all that fertile land you are referring to is busy blowing away in the wind because the niggers are chopping down trees left right and centre

>if anything the burden of proof is on you
no it's on you for making the claim that it's real

If global warming is real, I am going to lose a lot of ice.

this.

i'm a conservative, i hate liberals, i hate hillary, but there is a damn near concensus in the scientific community...
>inb4 ((scientific community))
fuck off, while some scientists are corporate slaves, the vast majority are principeled men who hold to the code of honorable empiricism.

also, like even if it IS a hoax, isn't it still good to be more fuel efficient and less reliant on nonrenewable resources?

thats what guns are for

>wrong
rreally convincing argument there kiddo

Is ideology the opposite of philosophy?

read the post dumbshit. it's been independently proven in lab experiments. now the burden of proof swings back to you. i bet you don't even know how greenhouse warming happens cause youre a science illiterate. do you have a basic understanding of the electromagnetic spectrum? i can't give proof to a retard

>me driving to the store has more impact on global warming than all the chinese factories that run 24/7 with no regulation
i guess we need a carbon tax on average citizens

it will be a lot easier to convince leftists to stop giving food and medical aid to africa than it will be to convince them to pick up guns and shoot niggers.

again watch NOBODY give a counter argument to my points. accepting and advocating for the prevention of global warming and white nationalism go hand in hand. you save the environment by stopping the niggers from being born and in doing so you stop them from invading your nations.

the argument is obviously within the video dumbass. i dont know how you can "argue" a basic fact. if you dont believe me go look it up for yourself. oh wait, you never will cause youre a faggot

Melting icecaps, scientific consensus, warmer global temperature averages, greater carbon PPB in the atmosphere(a big deal because the atmosphere is fragile), greater extremes, etc.

Even if it doesn't exist, it's still a good idea to cut down on pollution.

oooooo boy here comes the ad hominems

show me those proofs then

>scientists claim global warming is happening and it will kill us all because CO2
>same scientists prove time and time again that cows produce more CO2 than anything else
>same scientists say and do nothing about cow production and instead push buying different products

So either A) global warming isn't really happening and they're just using this to make money or B) it is happening but it's not that big of a deal or C) it is happening but we would rather eat cows than live on planet earth

Protip: it's A

he literally gave you proof, faggot.

we are depleting the ozone, the layer of our atmosphere that helps moderate temperature.

ZOMG SCIENCE ISN'T PROOF, YA REALLY GONNA BELIEVE A TALKING LABCOAT??

yes, i am. I will proudly believe the multitudes of people who dedicate their entire lives to studying climate sciences.

fuck outta here. you readily accept the majority of scientific advances, in fact, you wouldn't have ANY of the tech we have now if there wasn't something to all this science stuff.

we are standing on the shoulders of giant scientists, you can't just stop listening to them now unless ya wanna be a hypocrite.

I fucking hate the arrogance of people. I don't tell you how to do your job, which is likely some low brow blue collar shit, don't tell other professionals how to do theirs.

So I'm curious about this:

The greenhouse effect of CO2 is of course proven. It responds in the IR spectrum.
But the same is true for water vapor. That's right, water vapor is a greenhouse gas. Look it up.

So can you prove/justify the claim that 'global warming' is a "catastrophically detrimental to Earth" or similar?

the ice caps have been melting an the temperature has been going up since the end of the last ice age

he didn't give any proof he gave a statement

YOU FUCKING MORON.

THE REASON IT'S CALLED CLIMATECHANGE AND NOT, I REPEAT, NOT GLOBAL WARMING, IS BECAUSE SOME REGIONS ARE ON TRACK TO GET A LOT HOTTER, WHILE OTHERS WILL GET A LOT COLDER.

jesus
>ITT Sup Forums criticizes something they have not looked into AT ALL.

even if you dont wanna believe climate change, any righteous debator knows that they MUST KNOW the other side's arguments

It doesn't exist, it's cold as fuck this year
fuck hippies

>Even if it doesn't exist, it's still a good idea to cut down on pollution.

Do you believe that carbon dioxide is a pollution, though?

What do you make of:
Greening of the Earth and its drivers
nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n8/full/nclimate3004.html

god youre such a dumbass. an insult isnt automatically an ad hominem. if you use an insult as an argument, then its an ad hominem. i can call you a retard as much as i want and have it not be an ad hominem if i also give a real argument, which i have. so you want proof then? look at the scientific literature. Im sure youve never once attempted to do that before forming your retarded opinion though

letmegooglethat.com/?q=lab experiment showing the effect of greenhouse gas

>a board full of nerdy STEM majors
>doubting climate change because some leftists are annoying about it

Why?

doesn't mean we aren't quickening it, fuckin' mongoloid.

I really don't understand why people are against this, I guess just because most people are terrified of changing lifestyles?

Yes, but now they're melting at a greater rate then in the past few thousand years.

By that logic, you could say the world is getting cooler because 100 million years ago the northern hemisphere was a tropical climate zone.

Fuck, four billion years ago the Earth was a molten ball of rock, thousands of degrees hot.

but "do you have a basic understanding of the electromagnetic spectrum? i can't give proof to a retard" is definitely an ad hominem

ice is cold

if there's less ice the temperature goes up and the remaining ice melts faster

wow so difficult to understand

The only problem with that is the current rate of global deforestation. We're losing millions of acres of year of forests.

HURR WATER VAPOR IS A GREENHOUSE GAS. BET YOU DIDNT KNOW THAT ONE? STUMPED YOU AGAIN, SCIENTISTS WHO STUDY IT FOR YOUR ENTIRE LIFE.

jk we knew that all along dumbass. water vapor condenses as soon as it forms; it doesnt stick around in the atmosphere like carbon does.

moron.

HURR DURR, I WENT OUTSIDE AND SAW SNOW TODAY, NO GLOBAL WARMING, I GUESS!

>a moron who doesn't realize that a "day" is inconsequential to science, we are looking at trends over many years, you fucking nitwit.

some people never develop outta there egocentric infant phase. the world is a lot, A LOT, bigger than your fucking backyard, you mongoloid.

Kek, nigger, no one here is an expert in climate change science. They're googling it, just the same as you are. You know you're only doubting this particular bit of science because it's become a political issue. You wouldn't give the slightest shit otherwise.

uh no its not, try reading my post again

We should let earth kill us all and turn back into a giant rainforest

exactly.
Sup Forums is often the voice of reason against identity politics, but they let their hatred of liberals clog up their ears to important info.

PWNED.

No reason.

Provide some good facts and its ignored.

Such is Sup Forums.

Bunch of roosters strutting around.

no sense in arguing, he's short circuiting now, grasping for anything to continue the argument.

you made a point AND THEN insulted him. he used the latter part to dismiss the former.

classic liberal tactic :)
these fucking hypocrites.

Sup Forums should champion reason and not all these christcucks.

In that case, I will point out this piece of scientific data.

From a Columbia University lecture on Earth cycles, indicating Phanerozoic carbon dioxide.

The important question, and the one that informs public policy is thus:
Can you prove human CO2 release is detrimental to Earth?

Similarly, a lot of the carbon cycle is in the boom-bust of algae and diatoms. Forests are not the only sink.

And to diffuse the rage, I have extensively read the scientific literature. Including geological and agronomic.

I hate how this is somehow partisan issue. Absolutely retarded.

what if I'm a rightist and STILL can empirically prove that it exists?

Yes, I know all about the algae blooms, but these can significantly impact the overall climate of oceans. Many different varieties of algae's produce toxic chemicals.

Falling for/being passionate about an Al Gore con, KYS scum

this, thanks finnish bro.

if it wasn't a partisan issue, I guarantee so many more conservatives would listen.

but because liberals are so annoying, conservatives dismiss it outta hand.

THIS IS A HUMAN PROBLEM, EVERY GENERATION OF HUMAN HAS HAD APOCALYPTIC FEARS, whether it be about the plague, a famine, etc.

global warming is our modern fear. it will unite us as a race, or decimate us within 200 years.

hopefully decimates the deniers.

>t. Glenn Beck

why don't you detail for us EXACTLY how this is "an Al Gore con".

whats your point? that because carbon was once high, that its okay if it goes back to that? no shit carbon was higher before the carboniferous period.... THATS WHY ITS CALLED THE CARBONIFEROUS PERIOD.

Do you not understand the concept that people spend their entire lives studying these things, and "citizen scientists" such as yourself aren't actually pointing out anything that isn't already known and accounted for? There are 3 potential outcomes in this case:

1. scientists are incompetent
2. scientists are purposefully hiding the truth
and the hidden third option that's super secret and no one's ever heard of before...
3. maybe scientists know something you don't!

of course the last option would require that you aren't a hyper genius so that can't be it. if you want to see what will happen watch this video. and do note that this is just "the short term".

youtube.com/watch?v=VNgqv4yVyDw

>or decimate us within 200 years.
proof?

This. Just because it's inconvenient for the corporate world doesn't make it a Chinese hoax. And we actually know that pollution is bad.

global warming doesn't matter

Great chances it is. There are some big issues at hand:
>Melting of icecaps and warming of ocean ( thermal expansion ) leads to sea rise, which can threaten coasral areas
>Warming disrupt current ecosystems, and necessarily cannot adapt quickly enough, potentially resulting in extinctions. Great Barrier Reef is example of this, as it is undergoing worst bleaching so far due to warming - and lot is dependent on those reefs
>Higher frequency of heat-waves and droughs, which can cause crop losses
>Positive feedback loops, ex. albedo and permafrost thawing

There are some positives, like longer growing seasons and greening, but generally, it is rather unwise to gamble entering a global climate different from which most of life evolved and depended on.

Isn't most global warming caused by cow farts?

no

>and "citizen scientists" such as yourself
That IS an ad hominem argument.

>3. maybe scientists know something you don't!
Now here's a problem, because that isn't how science works.
Lysenkoism and 'group think' are very real effects. Thomas Young's electromagnetic theory of light was rejected by a consensus of physicists in favor of corpuscular light.

Personally, I'm very aware of the concepts of 'popper falsifiability', 'the null hypothesis', and 'appeals to legitimacy'.
Academic misconduct happens. People don't want to be wrong about theories, especially if it's all they're paid to research.

The fact is, science can only function on overcoming any and all doubt with demonstrable evidence.
Pretenses to precaution against 'doomsday' are not science.
So do YOU know the supposed reasons why increased CO2 are bad? After all, you are the one promoting action on it here.

No arguments to this. As usual.

>extrapolated from numbers that are the result of humanitarian aid
Just stop sending money to Africa and the issue solves itself.

Where is this?

cows dont produce co2 you moron. they fart methane. if you want an "argument" try getting your facts straight. if you want to insist your facts are correct, please link the peer reviewed research that shows it

My guess is Alberta.

no its caused by frozen cow farts in russia

Malthusian population trap.

china

you stupid mofo, I don't know exactly when it will happen. but if it continues unchecked, environments that are now inhabited, will be uninhabitable. cherry picking dissent, ignoring the main points, like a true ignoramus.

no, it's not an ad hominem because it's not replacing an argument.

the "problem" is that, in fact, you are the one who doesn't know how science works. if you want to make claims that contradict the vast majority of respected research journals, you have to give hard data yourself, which you have not. what little "hard data" youve given doesnt actually support any overarching hypothesis. Yes, we know there was more carbon before the carboniferous period. so what? fully explain how the scientists are wrong providing evidence, HARD evidence, and a lot of it. dont be like the liberals who use feelings in place of evidence. yes, when new theories are proposed they are frequently rejected, but only INITIALLY. we also rejected the stellar spectroscopy initally when it was correct even though it revolutionized astronomy. Climate change science has been around so long that no other theory can explain the evidence.

phoenix is uninhabitable and it's a huge city

yes, actually. idk about "most" but I think it's more than cars? idk exactly.

but then again, the amount of cows we got is directly related to the humans that rely on beef.
>i.e. burgerland

I wouldn't have so much of an issue with it if people who think Anthropogenic Climate Change is true handled the subject with some sensibility.

For example, giving tax cuts to companies that reduce their emmission instead of increasing tax for companies that don't.

Climate change? Like reduced rainfall in already dry areas and desertification and similar areas?
Shrinking ice caps, receding permafrost, glaciers disappearing.
Coral reefs dying.
All the while natural disasters are occurring more often and are more powerful (mainly tornados and hurricanes)
All that combined with increasingly accelerated loss of species?

Why should we do anything? Because we fucking live here. God you're a fucking idiot.

>2. scientists are purposefully hiding the truth

There ya go. There's a shitload if money to be made (ie Government contracts) with this scam.

It's always money, it's always greed.

I provided you some points here:
It doesn't account all like potential conflicts due to migration/resource-fighting, but there is very good confidence that effects will negatively affect humanity's survival.

>increasing tax for companies
or like alberta who just directly taxes the citizens for it now

BUT WHY ARE THERE SO MANY COWS?
>protip:people like beef, thus it is still a manmade problem.

if A) is the answer...WHO THE FUCK IS MAKING MONEY OFF OF GLOBAL WARMING? THE BEEF INDUSTRY IS BIGGER THAN EVER.

and guess what? a lot of the reason people are going vegan IS because they'd rather save the climate than eat beef.

>No arguments to this. As usual.
What a fucking annoying tone. There is no argument, because you aren't offering any points worth disputing, you're clearly already lost at sea.

>not a point

Why don't conservatives want to conserve the environment?

>uninhabitable
>huge city there

Pick one faggot.

no no, see they want to conserve their current lifestyle :)

checks out...

an ad hominem doesn't have to replace an argument it just has to be a rebuttal or you dismissing his argument

>scientifically prove

>scientifically
>Prove
SAGE

except theres as much evidence that shows that it's real as there is that blacks are mentally retarded. youd first have to explain away all the evidence before you could come to such a conclusion

what nihilism is this?
what's your point?
science isn't about proof?

oh god....we have a 6000 year earther here, don't we....

>Do all the work for me, and I'll still just argue with you about it.

Do it yourself faggot. Stop posting and Sup Forums and go read about. Or do you start cold sweats when you leave your safespace echochamber?

>scientifically prove that climate change exists
That's cool and already known, call me when they prove that humans take part in it,

Are you seriously implying that vast, vast majority of scientist, worldwide, fabricated a lie and systemically falsified massive amounts of data for decades, paid by -who-?
Rather than fossil-fuel industry spreading misinformation to avoid having to size down?

>scientists see something happening
>don't understand it completely or it's consequences
>claim doomsday to get more funding
hmmmmm

Trends like calling it global cooling 40 years ago and saying an ice age was coming? Every 10 years their models don't come true. That's not science.

GOOD GOY NEVER QUESTION A SCIENTIST, THEY KNOW SECRET THINGS THAT YOU COULDN'T EVER UNDERSTAND

>fully explain how the scientists are wrong providing evidence, HARD evidence, and a lot of it
Again, this is not how science works. For a scientist to dictate public policy, he or she must demonstrate a non-theoretical public benefit.

Thus to call into doubt the theory of catastrophic global warming, I need only point out that the IPCC models informing public policy have not been accurate, and overestimated the amount of warming.
I may secondly call into doubt the recommendations by indicating a lack of economic growth factors in decarbonization, relative to an as yet unrealized "social cost of carbon".

Do not forget that scientists are human, and do not underestimate political or personal biases.
Oliver Heaviside was not an academic, yet despite discovering first the methods of long range wired telecommunications with 'hard evidence', pretense kept him in obscurity.

THIS

nobody knows is climate change is manmade or if it is something like a greater cosmic cycle or activity cycle of the sun.

so since we dont know:
regenerative energies are superior to oil/coal simply because they are regenrative.for example you dont need to take a shit load of fuel with you to fly to mars if you could power the spoacecraft with electricity from solar cells.

we should new develop the regenrative energies while still not pushing them with exaggerated subventions.

just go the way of the middle if you're not sure.

>the its not global warming meme
Give it up

>Every 10 years their models don't come true.

it's a much longer model than 10 years, mongoloid.

>Science isn't about prove
exactly. It's a form of argumented narrative that is based on the argumented opinions of ancient Niggers based on paradigms not in the slightest way provable. Science is at most able to account for the probability of a phenomena to happen in abstract rooms so far from reality, one shouldn't take it more serious then art, astrology or pulling opinions right out the ass.

you seem really slow so let me spell it out for you. the definition of a logical fallacy is an erroneous argument. if you told me blacks are just as smart as whites and I said "then explain africa, ya dumbass". my argument there is clearly that because africa is such a shithole and is full of blacks, then blacks must not be very smart, which is valid. because I also tacked on the fact that you are a dumbass has no bearing on the validity of my argument, you stupid fucking science illiterate low IQ dumbass

climate change is happening on other planets too

if you stop and think about that for a minute it'll really activate your almonds