Climate change

So where do I find essays and studies contradicting climate change/human impact on it? I really do want to see it, it's just Google doesn't help.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=mHrZu0HYeNo
mises.org/library/skeptics-case
sciencenews.org/article/changing-climate-10-years-after-inconvenient-truth
gmuchss.az1.qualtrics.com/CP/File.php?F=F_cRR9lW0HjZaiVV3
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Nowhere, because they don't exist. That's reason why climatologists agree on the existence of climate change.

Fuck off shill

>he wants to reinforce his incorrect opinion but theres no valid evidence supporting it

kek

Even if you disagree with the findings finding greener energy solutions will be beneficial for pollution related issues.

Fpbp
No U

check out wattsupwiththat...there will be further links on the site. google tries to bury any papers by climate rationalists, but there are good papers out there.

Care to show me some evidence then?

youtube.com/watch?v=mHrZu0HYeNo

what the dood on stefans channel. basically all the climate change models with the "positive feedback loop" for CO2 have been off by massive margins. more CO2 causes more plants which causes less CO2. the data itself is not wrong but your braindead if you fall for the (((pay more taxes or the world will turn into venus))) meme

>Youtube
>essays
>studies

>Anthropogenic global warming is now climate change, goyim!

>youtube
>no peer-reviewed studies

Really makes you think

>Implying it ever wasn't climate change

The concept of climate change has been known since the 1950's, it's just that global warming was the first one to enter the spotlight. The acidification of the oceans wasn't very noticeable until recently, for example.

How is global warming not global change?

climate*

If OP wants essays and studies on this subject, there are scientists interviewed in the video whose names one can use as search criteria.

follow his links you frozen pirate cuck

please tell me you're not talking about that inbred cross eyed retard that stef had on.

>he doesn't have access to actual journals
Plebs should stay out of science

here is a good starting point.

mises.org/library/skeptics-case

>You should go find that information for me so i can prove my point!

Why are climate change deniers so lazy? Is it because they're all burgers?

>Why are climate change deniers so lazy?
You don't know my position on the topic and I have better things to do than researching a topic for an anonymous poster on Sup Forums. Besides, OP only asked where to find info. I've pointed the way.

please don't tell me you think the venus analogy is real

...

>just using an internet search engine
>not using academic scholorly journal search

No wonder people deny climate change. They don't even know how to look up actual accredited scientific research. They should even be teaching you this shit in high school.

>Al Gore

Not a scientist, has published no papers, has never passed peer-review.
The existence of idiots who believe climate change is real does not discredit the actual academic research climate change is based upon.

Al Gore is an alarmist asshole trying to use shock and awe to make a quick buck. He is also trying to turn "Green Energy" into the new Big Oil and have a controling stake in that. He is doing more to help climate change deniers than he is in helping solve the problems of climate change.

Dunno man, ask americans for prosperity or some other retarded koch-backed "think-tanks"

the biggest red pill on climate change is the so called """science""" that you arent allowed to question
10 years ago when an inconvenient truth was released these are the things that were objectively true unless youre anti science and probably think dinosaur bones are a test from god: sciencenews.org/article/changing-climate-10-years-after-inconvenient-truth

The fact that the "scientific" model proposed by said studies have been wrong over and over does discredit the whole thing bros.

>have been wrong over and over

So far, most long-term projections have been accurate when compared to data. But of course, I wouldn't expect a leaf to know anything about that.

gmuchss.az1.qualtrics.com/CP/File.php?F=F_cRR9lW0HjZaiVV3

There's the actual study.

The Zimmerman (muh 97%) was fraudulent. Not only didn't they apply sorting metrics after they'd catalogued the data so they could get the % they wanted, but their claim to have sent the study to "10000 qualified individuals" is highly dubious - because those individuals would be climatologists and meterologists.

Also, the 97%, on its face, is fraudulent, because it shows three questions asked to a decreasing number of people. Meaning - if you didn't answer the first question "correctly", you didn't get to answer the next two.

The study I linked published their sorting metrics at the same time they sent out the questionnaire. They have been unable to replicate the Zimmerman results.

This study is what experts actually DO think.

>So far, most long-term projections have been accurate when compared to data.

no they havent