Ok, people, redpill me on man-made climate change

Why should we ignore the 97% of climate scientists and just go along with the uneducated American public?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=LsnW6L7VBp4
youtube.com/watch?v=0gDErDwXqhc
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Roadways#History
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

I guess factories and trucks ended the ice age!

Anyone that thinks climate change is caused solely by humans needs to eat some fucking buckshot.

The climate has been changing since day 1. If these faggot liberal scientists want me to care about the earth burning up in 100 years then their ilk are going to have to stop gaying up society enough for me to start giving a shit about its distant future.

Try getting a research grant for a skeptical climate change study. Science like everything else in life is susceptible to politics and group think.

Also climate scientists sounds like a made up term to group a whole bunch of people from different fields of study together. I'd like to know who was included and who was excluded from this poll.

youtube.com/watch?v=LsnW6L7VBp4
If it's real and man made then we can't stop it. China today alone has a larger carbon footprint than the entirety of the Earth did in the 50's. How would you stop that? Bomb their factories? Now you have nuclear winter induced global warming.
If it's real and natural then we can't stop it. The climate has changed incredibly dramatically over the course of the last 4.5 billion years of the Earth's existence to such a degree that we can't hope to control it.
If it's not real then it doesn't matter.

Either way, it doesn't matter. It's better to burn the oil thereby advance society so that we can get off the planet and not have to worry about this as an existential threat.

Back to the pile!

((((scientists))))

>Science like everything else in life is susceptible to politics and group think.
What do politicians, especially right winged ones, gain from supporting left wing liberal scientists?

Most scientists believed the earth was flat.

Debate is an important part to science. The refusal to debate is the same as admitting defeat.

This entire board centers around not believing what the mainstream says. Why start now?

Good job Muhammad, way to misrepresent.

There is a kebiir difference between stating that humans can have an effect on warming (no matter how absolutely inconsequential it is), and stating that the climate is changing & that these changes are solely caused by humans.

>Most scientists believed the earth was flat.
Prove? I don't think there were an "scientists" back in the days. They were mostly religious priests and some philosophers. Scientists use scientific principles whih people did not use in the past durign the flat earth religious indoctrination.

Left wing politicians get votes on environmentalist issues as well as fund raising dollars, I literally get asked on the street every week to sign some petition or another to stop fraking or gmos or other green fear mongering nonsense.

One of the worst things for science in decades was when al gore became the face of climate change. At that point any realistic non partisan look at the subject became impossible. Now its just a platform for liberal virtue signalling.

>Good job Muhammad, way to misrepresent.
>There is a kebiir difference between stating that humans can have an effect on warming (no matter how absolutely inconsequential it is), and stating that the climate is changing & that these changes are solely caused by humans.
If you read the description on the graphic, it talks about "man-made climate change" - and I also said so in my headline.

So how am I misrepresenting anything?

No true scientist huh?

because they are karbon kikes and they want you to pay their special tax

Last I checked, heavy industry would love cheap coal powered energy. Why would right wing politicians not go along with them and tell people the truth, i.e. there is a global conspiracy. I mean, it must be easy to prove that the conspiracy exists if you are a top politician like Trump, no?

yeah you definitely polled every american citizen

What are you rambling about? Right wing politician don't usually do along with climate change. Its honestly not an issue for them because their voters done care about it. Follow along.

Let us once and for all dispel this fiction that climate scientists agree on human-caused climate change.

...

riddle me this bruh

I see this stat for 97% of nerds think that warming is man made, but what percentage of those think that it's immediately significant to our lives? Some could agree that it's caused by us but that negative effects of it will not be hugely consequential or maybe that it won't happen for a long time.

I'd like to see those numbers bby

...

...

argument from authority

More like 0.3% actually.
Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that global warming (since 1950) had been caused by humans.

>I see this stat for 97% of nerds think that warming is man made, but what percentage of those think that it's immediately significant to our lives?

Good point. That is not the job of scientists to say, but of politicians.

Personally, I do not think man made climate change has much of a bad impact on the US or Northern Europe. It fucks up Africa, India, the Middle East, parts of Latin America and Southern Europe, maybe also Texas and Southern California and Florida.

I am personally all for just continuing as in the past and rather focusing on smog and shit, as clean air is what we want, we shouldn't care about CO2 or methane.

it's not like those people are all saying that the world climate never changes. the debate on climate change is on whether it's manmade or cyclic

>That is not the job of scientists to say
why not?

Time is not a scientific journal. Show a scientific journal from the 1970s.

Watch this for an easy rundown of how exactly global warming is a hoax/load of bullshit created to gather money for lobbyists:
youtube.com/watch?v=0gDErDwXqhc

Also, friendly reminder that attempts at preventing any sort of climate change whatsoever, even in the cheapest estimates, are over 100 times more expansive than just dealing with the change when it comes.

fuck climate change

>climate scientists have to act like climate change is real in order to get paid

Climate is changing and we are accelerating the process.
No more words for this phenomenon.

Because scientists are only supposed to say what is happening, they shouldn't judge whether an increase in the sea water level or hotter summers and milder winters or changes in dry and wet seasons are good or bad. Science is neutral. That is why economics isn't a science.

Ask yourself who's got money: small time hippies or oil and gas companies.

but they do say how high the seas are going to rise or how hot summer gets or how dry it gets which is effectively the what I'm asking

The current warming is occuring faster than any of those changes on that graph.

You see that spike at 55 million years ago? That's the paleocene-eocene thermal maximum. During the PETM it took 100000 years for global temperatures to rise by 5C. The Earth was so warm that sea turtles have been found in the arctic ocean. The current, anthropogenically driven warming could well cause that much warming by the end of the century. The current warming trend is 100 times faster than the warmest climate change in recorded geological history.

Low-hanging fruit you're clinging to. The Time manipulates how the public thinks and look how it's choices have changed. Try to refute this:
Good luck.

Begin by realizing there is no 97% consensus.

Ask yourself which of those is easier to hide behind

No, you dumb shit. Heavy industry would love nuclear energy, but you germans are too brainwashed to use it.

And the climate change debate is one of the most insidious political debates.

With precise enough measurement you can almost certainly show that humans in some way do influence the climate system. That's just how it is. We reshaped the ecosystem and transformed our environment.

Also there's a natural "climate change", climate being a dynamic system and our Earth fairly young and always changing.

But it's minimal. Both of them are irreversible, but tiny changes.

The insidious lies come in, when they try to sell the "science" to the masses. Because most people don't really care about the hardships of polar bear, a bit of acidity in the ocean and the changing environment.

The mass extinction of races isn't happening because of the climate change, but because of the direct contact with humanity, the expansion of cultivated, mined, fished down surface area.

Agriculture of tropical economies isn't failing because of a climate change, but because it was unsustainable in the first place.

And then you add, whisperingly ridiculous ideas like the Venus-scenario and try to present global warming as some sort of Doomsday, when it's just a mild change of the climate system.

Of course, serious scientists would never encourage something ridiculous like the Venus-scenario, but the mindless, dumb popsci is vomiting horrific lies like that down people's throats.

Global warming became a business.

Very simple, the number of peer reviewed scientific articles which say that humans are not the principal cause of climate change is 0 in the last 5 years.

Didn't you know? Green is big business these days.

Scientists are not morally superior to anyone.

The left side is stating that humans can cause global warming, which is simply a fact. Every time you eat a gyro and cut one loose to drown out the sounds of Ahmed raping your little sister, you are as matter of fact contributing to global warming. Every time you order a new buttplug for your wife's next breeding session, someone had to deliver that buttplug to your door, which required a delivery truck that also contributed to warming. Everything you do contributes to warming in some small way and the only way to stop it is to kill yourself (which would also, in some inconsequential way, contribute to warming).

The right is asking whether or not climate change is happening and is caused by humans. This implies that humans are the cause of climate change, not a completely irrelevant factor in a larger equation, which is the case. The climate changes, correct. Humans can have an effect on warming, correct. The climate has changed and those changes happened because humans, incorrect. This last statement of reality is the disconnect, and is unsurprisingly why the second graph is basically split along political lines, because people generally don't know what the fuck they're talking about and approach such an issue however they're told to in various media. The only way you're going to have a meaningful impact on the climate, as a human, is if you cover the face of the earth with cows, factories, or cow factories.

Science is not a democracy faggot

>but they do say how high the seas are going to rise or how hot summer gets or how dry it gets which is effectively the what I'm asking

Not sure what you are getting at. Some people may want warmer summers and some people may want higher sea levels and ice free Arctic summers and melting Antarctic sea ice and changes in wet and dry seasons etc.

Or in other words, there are countries benefiting from climate change such as Norway and Sweden and parts of Russia and Germany and countries which are screwed like Tuvalu and India and Saudi Arabia and Egypt and Sudan and Honduras and Mexico etc.

I bet the real cause of climate change is the nerd that created this universe and is now punishing our society by programming mass disaster on the most hedonistic societies on our planet: Florida, California, Japan, and Haiti

Once Manhattan is flooded I'll then know my thesis to be true

>climate scientist finds evidence climate change is a hoax
>gets funding cut and all his buddies' funding cut because climate change isn't important anymore
Alternatively, why would you be a climate scientist if climate change was fake? Confirmation bias, monetary incentive, and bias in the selection of careers. Also important to keep in mind that someone who finds that climate change is real would likely publish more than someone who concluded it's false and stopped researching. None of this even take into consideration "human caused" likely includes any admitting that we have even the slightest impact.

Personally I believe in climate change, that humans impact it but the evidence is inconclusive as to how much, and it's not important enough to stop using petroleum and switch to other sources. I would love to get rid of coal/natural gas and replace it with nuclear energy though. Growing meat in a lab (yes it's possible now and actually cheaper) would probably reduce emissions more than ending fossil fuel use would. CO2 is a less powerful greenhouse gas than methane and even water vapor

what I'm getting at is that they can calculate all those changes in dollar amounts like they already do all the time and give a very clear comparison of what is good and bad.

The only solution to man made global worming would be killing large amounts of the population get started op or shut up

>source: my ass

>Also there's a natural "climate change", c
So? Who denies that there are natural cycles and changes?

>Heavy industry would love nuclear energy,
What? Heavy industry just likes cheap energy. Coal is the cheapest right now, not nuclear.

>And then you add, whisperingly ridiculous ideas like the Venus-scenario
Can you point out where I would push Venus-scenarios? I cannot find any such post. As far as I understand, global warming tops out at 5-8 C increase in global average temps even with a 10 times CO2 increase and 20 times methane increase.

>A politically motivated science
>Where funding is determined by how your research fits the narrative

Just because they say it's right doesn't mean it is.

So what makes that 97% more valid than that 3%?

"muh consensus"?

Very scientific.

Fact is climatology is a very new, very flawed science and like any other science there are people willing to exploit it to make money.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Roadways#History

...

to be fair there bruh that's not zero

and also that says "significant" not "principal".

A 5% change can be significant

I believe human caused greenhouse gasses are warming the earth, but not to the extent global warming proponents claim. Also, there's no a damn thing we can do about it. The global population is growing at a completely unsustainable rate. Without the collective intelligence to act, depleting resources will solve this problem on its own. I'm more concerned of a mass human extinction and migration when 3rd world countries have to pay 20$ for a gallon of gas.

Fuck Tuvalu then.

Russia will massively profit from the climate change, Canada too.

Norway probably not, depending on how the Gulf current will be altered.

And?

Why do you act like the ecosystem has ever experienced massive changes like spreading of monoculture farming, massive genetic elevation and alteration of select few species, extermination and suppress of millions of wild species and their ecosystems?

The Earth is being reshaped by humans. We can't live in the world like we don't. Either way our existence, our agriculture, our industry WILL have an effect, mindless repression based on one factor out of many is way more dangerous than even complete ignorance.

The biggest "sponge" for CO2 on the planet are the oceans, they store huge amounts of CO2, magnitudes more than is in the atmosphere. How much CO2 can be solved in the ocean depends on temperature, where higher temperature reduces the amount of CO2 in the ocean, which has to be released into the atmosphere as a result.

What we can not confirm is this: Do we increase the CO2 to such a degree that it gets warmer and as a result, the ocean gets warmer and releases even more CO2, OR, is the ocean getting warmer for a yet not discovered reason, and as a result, the released CO2 produces an additional greenhouse effect.

The reason is unknown because similar happenings could be "observed" in the past thousands to millions of years. Even the "NASA climate change proof webpage" states that fast spikes in increased temperatures happened withing only a few decades and these spikes were still higher than our current temperatures.

>guise it's totally ok if our climate becomes the way it was 500 million years ago, it will not affect us like at all
allrighty then

so you're not reproducing? thank god

Source? Sounds like you're making shit up to suit your biases.

Yes, but this tax applies to large buisinesses. Corporations are not people and corporate welfare shouldn't exist.

Florida will be underwater by 2100, global warming will melt the ice caps enough to rise sea levels that high, not that anyone gives a shit about the second worst state

The general you.

Look at how everyone treats global warming like the literal doomsday. Like it will cause the collapse of civilization or even "destroy Earth", the biosphere.

And I wouldn't consider coal at all, simply because coal causes a hell more environmental problems than just "global warming". To compete with nuclear power, you have to completely unregulate coal, something you can't do with nuclear or you will cause a very tangible and immediate disaster and have a shit ton of cheap coal, in case like the USA, you have to subsidize fossil fuels.

With cheap coal you don't pay for the externalias of smog, acidic rain, generally the massive pollution of air.

Which is way worse then simply the co2 impact of the coal plant. "Clean coal" isn't cheaper than nuclear at all.

>idjits still talking about wether man-made global warming is real
>nobody cares about breathing toxic air on a daily basis because MUH FREEDOM

>2100
bruh....

that's it? you gotta be fuckin kidding me

by 2100 we'll probably be cyborgs and shit flying to pluto

you really think they won't have the energy thing figured out by then?

christ didn't lockheed just say recently they're 10 years away from a usable fusion reactor?

If that 2100 number is accurate I officially do not give a single solitary fuck about climate change

>And I wouldn't consider coal at all, simply because coal causes a hell more environmental problems than just "global warming".
BS, ever heard of clean coal? It is relatively easy to filter out the smog particles from coal power exhaust and just release the CO2 with modern tech.

AS to the "destroy Earth" thing, scientists do not say that, some Facebook liberal girls say that. Scientists say we would have ice free poles and warmer, partially wetter, climate. It is not a doomsday scenario at all, it is just a costly scenario to adapt and certain countries, especially in Africa and Souther Asia, will be fucked up.

>we should colonize the mars that has way lower gravity and no atmosphere atm XD
>couple of degrees change in the temperature over a century will destroy us all XD
sure, whatever

It's not like it will be ever stopped or even reversed. It WILL happen. Only popsci shits and reckless "scientists" will make a shit ton of money during the process.

I work in Germany and people told me your media spam this shit all the time, apparently it's replacement topic for refugees.

CHECKED

And it's relatively cheap to have nuclear power. Coal is the "only option" in countries like China and India.

And if thorium reactors will spread and the technology cost will be spread, shared and thus pressed down, nuclear power will become safer and cheaper.

>scientists do not say that, some Facebook liberal girls say that.

I explicitly said this:
>The insidious lies come in, when they try to sell the "science" to the masses.
>Of course, serious scientists would never encourage something ridiculous like the Venus-scenario, but the mindless, dumb popsci is vomiting horrific lies like that down people's throats.

This is the message sold to the masses. Since global warming is less threatening than the extinction of the bees, they have to amplify the message for the average joe to care about it.

Because Science is not a fucking democracy.

Also you can't say 97% of all climate scientists, for the simple reason that there is no list of all climate scientists existing, therefore there can't be 97%.

At some point almost all "scientists" agreed that the earth was in the middle of the solar system with the sun ciricling around it. Two people spoke out against it.

That's cuz, with the knowledge and tools we had at the time, it was the correct assumption. We wouldn't know for sure the universe was heliocentric until like the 1800s

>100 years in the future

That's cuz, with the knowledge and tools we had at the time, it was the correct assumption. We wouldn't know for sure the climate change wasn't manmade and influenced by breathing and farting until like the 2050s.

the redpill is that even if it is real, taxing carbon won't do shit to stop it. industry will just move to china or india where they don't give a fuck about your carbon tax, and all you'll have accomplished is ruining your own economy and growing theirs. global warming as a political movement is just a marxist scheme to destroy first world countries.

The next redpill ist that IF it was manmade then it started at some point shortly after the industrial revolution began. That would mean that the extremely small portion of greenhouse gasses produced in the 19th century was enough to mess up the climate system. If that was the case then we would be far, far beyond the point of no return and nothing, not even destroying all cars, factories and killing all humans and with that reducing all human emission to zero could stop it.

Do you have any idea how much dosh is in climate change?
t. Scientist who can retire at 35

If climate change were real the solutions would be population control and nuclear power. Yet instead the politicians keep talking about a carbon tax. That tells me it is really just a money grab.

>thorium reactors
The main reason thorium reactors are not built is they do not work economics wise. Too many moving pieces for too little output.

Are these the same scientists that say that race and gender are social constructs?

>Say Climate Change is Happening and Human Caused
Of course everyone's going to say that, because even people classified as "climate deniers" aren't disputing that.
The dispute is over how much effect humans have. By more conservative estimates, we could burn all the fossil fuels we have and it still wouldn't fuck up the environment, thus making the climate a bit of a moot point.

>scientists say an increase in CO2 is causing global warming, I mean, climate change which will lead to the destruction of the planet.
>scientists say cows produce more CO2 than anything else in the planet.
>scientists push the sale of new products to help combat the growing CO2 content of our atmosphere

So I conclude that either
A) climate change is nonsense and they're using it to make money
B) it is real but not that big of a deal
or
C) it's real but scientists are literally choosing to eat beef rather than live on the earth anymore

> Saying don't know is the same as being stupid

I'm just going to disregard their entire argument when they're being that fucking retarded.
If I am not certain because I have not sat down and evaluated the argument from both sides, then I'm being smart, not dumb. Expecting people to just accept what other people say because of an appeal to authority is pretty fucking problematic.

There's a test-reactor running right now that's profitable. If everything goes according to plan it'll be commercially available in 2018.

>There's a test-reactor running right now that's profitable.
Source... for the profitable that is.