I spent a solid hour and a half today in a thread about climate change, and it had to be one of the most frustrating experiences I've been through recently.
It is frankly disturbing that in the face extreme amounts of evidence, and the support of nearly 97% of the scientific community, /poltards/ continue to fight against it with their pseudo-intellectual arguments and batshit conspiracy theories. It's complete and total nonsense.
Stop being afraid to be wrong, there's nothing wrong with it. People learn, or everyone else suffers. Climate change denialism is breeding toxicity and distrust of scientific institutions.
everything else turned out to be a lie, why not this aswell
Jack Lewis
Alright you fucking burger, listen up. It's time to get red-pilled. Nothing you see is real. The news, politics, EVERYTHING is fake. This is all orchestrated. Just about every major event has been orchestrated by TPTB.
We have a government that has used MIND CONTROL. Look up MKUltra. This sounds scary, but we are living among evil entities.
This is pure evil we are messing with, and they control everything. However, the masses are slowly waking up. They want to achieve the New World Order.
Back to your post, my friend, believe nothing. Don't believe scientists, don't believe teachers, don't believe the president. These scientists could be paid off.
I know it's frustrating, but when you step back and realize that TPTB WANT you to feel frustrated. The archons feed off of your negative energy.
Look up the angel goddess Sophia and the archons. This will start to make more sense.
Let go, and connect with your inner infinite being. xoxo
Leo Foster
>97% of the scientific community That's not 97% of meteorologists, and they call it a mixed bag. Turning back the clock on climate change would include going back to the seventeenth century in terms of technology, so fuck off, I'm not interested. You'll get me to the table to consider polution control, but one mention of "climate change", and you can kindly fuck right off to reddit.
Charles Hernandez
It's been proven many times it was a hoax
Joseph Hill
>the support of nearly 97% of the (((scientific community,)))
Prince Charles pushes climate change so you know it's full of shit,
climate change isn't even the 40th most serious environmental catastrophe we face, it's just the favorite one to talk about because ((CARBON TAX))
James Wright
what do you want to know?
Austin Brown
>breeding toxicity and distrust of scientific institutions.
that started about the time (((they))) started funding these things
James Wood
I don't fight against climate change being a thing, what I fight against is the Orwellian and Marxist solutions leftists keep pushing.
Lucas Roberts
Kill yourself
Kevin Cruz
And what % of that 97% think humans are having a miniscule impact on climate change?
Only 3% say there is NO human effect on the climate, which is doubtful given China. But even among the 97% there are disagreements to the total human contribution to climate change.
Camden Hill
>97% meme
Already proven invalid. The whole scientific community was not polled. If you like science so much, why don't you cite your source. When you do see the source, you'll see why it's crap.
And even laymen by this point can see the models were wrong, and the world isn't under water or a desert by now.
Andrew Garcia
Its not 97% of anything.
When these figures are thrown around willy nilly it implies the sample is 100% of the scientific community but its not even close.
The way the numbers are being worked is doing more damage to the argument of climate change than the deniers could ever hope to achieve.
Luke Thomas
beat me to it
Michael Fisher
You looking forward to the EPA getting assraped?
Trump is gonna take a wrecking ball to all this ecofascist wealth transfer bullshit scheme. Fuck you, commie globalist scum. No more carbon taxing the first world to death while letting the 3rd world scum get away with anything they want.
Fuck you, treehugger.
Eli Reed
>nothing wrong with being wrong I actually do believe in climate change, but you're not exactly considering the possibility that YOU could be wrong.
Chase Jackson
Chevron Deference was already billed out by Congress recently, meaning the EPA won't have the final say in matters that aren't spelled out by Congress.
>pseudo-intellectual anyone who ironically calls anything pseudo-intellectual is a fucking idiot.
David White
You'll know true fear in death, coward.
Caleb Taylor
iktf. Not even my environmental science teachers bought into the global warming hype. Climate change is perfectly normal.
Isaiah Hill
I think the most amazing thing is that 97% of the scientific community agrees OP is a faggot.
Zachary Reyes
Climate change is absolutely real. It's been a natural occurrence for billions of years.
Connor Cook
So far the only people who have been wrong have been the fucktards pushing MUH MANMADE GLOBAL WARMING
OH I MEAN "CLIMATE CHANGE"
I mean it's not like the planet's climate has been changing nonstop since before humans even existed or anything
Julian Foster
>This Thread >???????????????????????????? Why are we even still discussing climate change. The Topic is dead nearly everywhere apart from the US. Here in Krautland its been a decade since ive heard anything big about it, apart from the occasional "Muh we gotta do something". No one cares. And you know why no one cares? They renamed it a couple of times by now, because no one believes them. In case you dont know: >Cairo (Egypt) had its first snowfall in 100 years. There was snow ON THE PYRAMIDS. >Greece is literally drowning in Snow right now, which isnt that usual. >They renamed it from "GLOBAL WARMING" to "CLIMATE CHANGE" and by now there are even more terms for it. >Al Gore and several other faggots predicted that the Poles would melt and that this and that would be drowned in water and guess what? Nothing, NOTHING of that has happened.
These are Normie Sources of course, but I hope it will give you a better understanding.
Jaxson Scott
Haven't climates always changed?
Grayson Cruz
Climate change is a liberal scam. Of course scientists who are paid to research it will keep saying its true they were paid to. The earths climate changes over time normally and there is no evidence man has any impact on that.
Carson Harris
Just stfu already. Look, yeah, Sup Forumss wrong on climate change. Every human on earth dislikes' being wrong. It's not fear. You don't like being wrong anymore than the average Sup Forumsack, you just act like you're better becasue of this one issue, and I guarantee you have basically no real understanding of it yourself. I'm sure you think cap and trade will work, even though nations that didn't implement cap and trade were MORE likely to meet their Kyoto standards than those that did. I'm sure you're anti-GMO, anti-Nuclear, etc, even though without both GMO's (moddified to collect CO2 and other GHG's) and Nuclear (the most efficient both by cost and by resource input-energy output standards), there is zero chance of fixing climate change.
The deep irony of the left is that, even though they get that climate change is real and Republicans don't, the Republicans will end up doing more for climate change than the left ever could. Because the left has already hamstrung itself on this issue, and the right supports all the things that will fix it, even though they don't believe in it.
tl;dr you are a faggot that doesn't understand literally anything but has a superiority complex anyway.
Isaiah Price
>hurr durr look at all these proofs that I'm not going to post sage
Eli Rodriguez
>extreme amounts of evidence Evidence that "climate change" can be reversed?
Leo Sullivan
Holy fuck this thread is still alive. I really just wanted to leave you all with a positive message and I get this mental retardation on my footstep?
A couple of points 1) It is naturally occurring and being amplified by man-made carbon dioxide
We know this because of the ammount of Carbon-14, an isotope of carbon in the atmosphere that is decreasing thanks to the Seuss effect. 2) The 97% thing is a stretch, I only added it to drive a point home. What I should've said is that all credible scientists believe it's real. 3) The models only work when being calculated with naturally occurring oscillations AND man-made carbon, without both the models and predictions can't account for this rapid growth
Evan Wilson
>You'll get me to the table to consider polution control
Exactly, if the conversation is about specific things that are damaging to our environment and ways to mitigate that damage that's fine. "Climate change" is always presented as a deliberate attempt to avoid any of that though. They just want us to buy into their own (((solutions)))
Landon Murphy
But carbon dioxide is up there in the 1/10000th spectrum at best. And there have been times in history with WAYYY More carbon dioxide, without the temperature being significantly warmer... You have a point and at least you answer you own damn threads but still.
David Fisher
>xoxo nigga u gay
Jayden Long
>t. Reddit kys cuck
Andrew Young
1) nice attempt at "think past the sale" move.
2) here is the best explanation of why climate change is so contentious:
If you don't bother to read that you have no right to ask this type of question until you do.
Adrian Thompson
>1) It is naturally occurring Wow, so weather actually changes? The only solution is to shut down all industry in the western world, otherwise an ice cap might melt naturally at some point. Certain tiny islands might experience flooding.
Kevin Thomas
There are spikes here and there but temperature was generally consistent with increased CO2.
Most of the problems with non-modern temperature readings is that we have to go by proxy data and ice cores. It's hard sometimes to tell the whole story with data sets that are fragmented but you are right, these are things we're still actively searching for answers to even if most of the data fits the hypothesis, not all of it does.
>otherwise an ice cap might melt naturally at some point
I'm not sure if you're retarded or not (leaning towards massively) but a change in ~4 degrees above the mean spells doom for all crops, and then you.
Andrew White
>support of nearly 97% of the scientific community Maxwell's equations of light = 100% scientific support Newton's laws of motion = 100% scientific support Heisenberg's uncertainty principle = 100% support Bohr Atmoic structure = 100% support
OP needs more support.
Colton Foster
Not even newton had 100% support when he published the Principia
Wow. Thread died after I responded apparently. I hope I at least intrigued your dumb asses to read more about it. There are so many good sources online and in your local library about this issue.
Remember that skepticism is healthy, vehement denial in the face of evidence is just insanity. This shouldn't be a partisan issue, grow a fucking spine.
Jeremiah Stewart
yeah but liberals support it so I cant support it
Brayden Mitchell
Sounds like you didn't have enough evidence to convince someone.
Thomas Miller
My only hope is that I live long enough to see man made climate disasters with my own eyes, not just the imperceptible shit that you need to measure over decades.
Joseph Hill
>Adjust temperature data in proportion to change in a Atmospheric CO2 >Claim CO2 causes temperature change
How stupid do these people think we are?
Bentley Perez
You're on a board full of contrarian trolls.
They're gonna take your piss each and every time my young burger.
Matthew Garcia
hey fuckers stop talking about sophia; she's mine.
Bentley Garcia
Science isnt based on consensus. Its based on truth. Doent matter of 99% of people belove something, it takes only 1 person to tell them earth is round.
Adrian Richardson
climate change will happen no amount of tax-payer monies will stop climate change.
fighting climate change is a big money making scam foisted on the american people by the evil communist far left.
Jacob Gonzalez
>projecting this hard The only who is afraid of being wrong is you OP.
Landon Smith
yo so the fag is arguing semantics and is arguing like a fagy SJW cause simplfied wording was used to get an idea more easily across?
Bet that fag would complain if accurate scientific wording were used as well due to it being to hard to understand as well.
like fuck i hate misleading bullshit like that from all fucking sides and fuck you for probably believing and putting any stock in it.
The 97 percent consensus is around so called "independent" studies which is more to say shit that was not funded by shit that clearly wanted shit to say something or other for whatever the reason may be.
So 97 percent of all "independent" studies more or less do conclude the same shit. Buy if one were to include any study funded by everyone or anything yeah that number goes drastically lower since partisan fags ,from all sides of the spectrum mind you, muck shit again for whatever the reason may be the the 2 most obvious ones being money and power.
So fuck all of ya fags claiming the 97 percent shit aint real for grasping at shit to make yall selfs fucking feel better like the bunch of fags yall are.
Samuel Harris
The actual statistic is 97% of Scientific Papers on Climate assume it is true in the abstract.
That statistic is not a good argument.
Xavier Turner
Then put your money where your mouth is user. Prove that it isn't real.
Ian Turner
You are the one who is afraid to be wrong Op, that is why you get so emotional about it. Your world view is threatened. Just let it go Op. It's not your fault you are wrong, you put your faith in people who are supposed to be trustworthy. Now you know they are not trustworthy, dig a little deeper.
Levi Myers
> muh 97% why dont you link to the "study" that the "97%" stat comes from? why doesnt ANYBODY who uses that trope ever discuss the "study" it comes from?
read that "study' and examine where it was "peer reviewed" and "published, then reconsider your position .
also you are a bellend.
Connor Sanders
First, climate change deniers aren't afraid of being wrong, they're afraid of the issue being seized upon to control their lives.
Second, only about 1/3 of the population are deniers. So what? What is stopping the true believers from tackling the problem themselves? You point the finger at the other guy while you revel in first world luxury and blame the other guy.
Who are the real denialists?
Hudson Martinez
I'm not afraid to be wrong, I do it all the time. So far, however, nobody has provided evidence that rejects the theory. You could be the first!
I'm not afraid to look like a bitch on an anonymous image board (a failing one at that), but I am concerned with how this boards rhetoric is complete poison for rational thinking.
Matthew Jackson
two thirds of the population aren't senators. people are building their idealogies on the distrust of science and the complete denial of it.
>What is stopping the true believers from tackling the problem themselves?
We need actual infrastructure, grants, research, wind solar and hydro electric energy and deforestation laws if we're going to survive this shit.
Luis Jones
It would be better for your peace of mind for you to figure out why you are wrong Op. You are no scientist, you are depending on what others tell you. All sorts of supposed authorities lie all the time. Remember Santa Claus? Why don't you read about the Club of Rome and Agenda 21 and the Earth Charter and the Ark of Hope. Then you will see exactly what the purpose of the climate alarmism agenda is.
Gavin Hall
>You are no scientist, you are depending on what others tell you Wrong. I'm making connections between the evidence that is provided, and what people are saying. You don't have to be a scientist to understand the relation between sets of data.
Ayden Rodriguez
What you are doing Op is buying into the propaganda. You haven't made any connections or studied any data sets, if you had you would know what a fraud this alarmism is. Everything you hear in the mass media is propaganda Op. Some of it might be propaganda you believe in, but it is still propaganda and if you believe any of it you are allowing others to control your thoughts. Even hard core environmentalists are starting to distance themselves from the climate change alarmists because they see their movement for a clean earth has been co-opted by bankers and globalists.
Christopher Clark
Too bad there's no cure for retardation. You conspiracy theorists are always spineless worms anyways. Do you really eat up all that globalist banker shit? Why don't you roll over so the conspiritards can stamp the other side of your face.
Levi Martinez
so, you need other people's money...
and yet you insist that "climate change" is real, and not a giant scam designed to get more money.
if it were not about money, then MONEY would not be the second thing you talk about after making your cassandra doomsday proclamations.
it's classic political scamming.
first establish how awful things will be if nothing is done, then set yourself up as the solution (for a modest expenditure of tax $$$) then scream Think Of The Children!!! and accuse anyone who suggests you might be wrong of being a homophobic racist bigoted cis white male.
it worked for barry seotoro, and almost worked for hilldawg and bernie, but the game is over.
if you want to have a "conversation" about global warming, fuck off.
if you want a debate, stop shouting down the other side and filibustering.
Jack Lee
You are too stupid to argue with.
Ryder Gray
and there we go.
when your strawman argument, appeal to authority and bandwagon fallacies fail, it's time for smug petulant ad hominem attack
classic schmoesby.
Henry Williams
It's not a conspiracy theory Op. Have you ever heard of the Rio Summit, the Kyoto Protocol, the Paris Accords, the IPCC? Those were all meetings of bankers and politicians and bureaucrats with a few token scientists sprinkled in to make it look good. Those meetings were concerned with controlling the earth's resources and redistributing the world's wealth. That is why all the US industry was moved to China, why NAFTA came into being, why so many nations are adopting open borders. It's a nearly global movement with gibs for undeveloped nations that buy into it.
Jayden Ramirez
>t. NOAA (((scientist))) whos about to get fired by Trump
Cooper Brooks
Ahh I knew this would come up. If you're of the opinion that everything scientists do is a bullshit cash grab, then you're going to feel that way about literally everything they do because they're going to be consistent in the application of their ethics.
In the end politicians stand to gain everything. IF it was proven to be a lie, the republicans get their vindication, PLUS all this infrastructure, and jobs. If it's the opposite the human race gets to extend their pathetic lives by maybe a few more thousand years.
Like I said, stop making this a fucking partisan issue.
Elijah Martinez
My favorite part of the global warming conspiracy theory is that scientists cannot get funded if they go against the grain and publish papers that go against climate change theory. Like the fossil feul industry doesnt have literal trillions
Levi Lee
>extreme amounts of (((evidence))) >97% of the (((scientific community)))
I agree. Why won't the goyim lap up our facts?
Colton Davis
I don't understand why you're upset. You know this place is full of dittoheads and racist manchildren, why are you surprised they're a bunch of global warming deniers?
>Those meetings were concerned with controlling the earth's resources and redistributing the world's wealth. So suddenly the establishment hates oilmen and arabs? Because for a long, long time they were the establishment.
Well, the best part of conspiracy theories is that a lack of evidence is itself evidence of a coverup. Why try to understand the different factions of the elite when you can ramble on about (((bankers))) (((et al.)))
Brody Powell
>people don't believe what I tell them on the internet >it's so frustrating f you whiny little baby backed bitch
Bentley Hall
>Sophia and the archons
No, how about you read Maps of Meaning by Jordan b Peterson and you'll understand why humans are bound by their behavior and constructs. We can break the conditioning if we educate ourselves. It's about playing the game.
Noah Hill
>toxicity
Trashed.
Jordan Green
So we should all just become flaming communists, Op? So we can say once and for all the "science is settled" through politics? You are the most naive of rubes, Op. Tell me, which particular study first convinced you that agw was a real possibility? Are you sure you weren't forcefed this stuff in your federally funded public school and had it constantly reinforced by the same media companies who were saying Trump had less than a ten percent chance of winning the election? You bought into a lie Op, free yourself from it and you will be amazed at what a difference it makes to your whole life.
Carter Brooks
The establishment doesn't hate oilmen and arabs, Op. Oilmen and arabs have been funding the establishment to the tune of billions of dollars. The establishment has had the upper hand because of globalist minded politicians like both Bushes, Clinton and Obama, but now, hopefully, the tide is about to turn. At the very least NASA won't be spending our tax dollars to shill commie climate memes, and most likely the US, which provides HALF the funding for the IPCC will cut the IPCC off completely too.
the CRU had a little thing called Climategate, which proved they were "sweetening" the data to "hide the decline", and their hockeystick graph was proved to be bullshit.
then they had Climategate 2: e-mail boogaloo, which proved they were petty grasping twats who tried to stifle any research that might throw doubt on their conclusions the most glaring example: a study on dendrochronology (tree rings) proved the CRU's methods were simply wrong.
one of the CRU "scientists" was on the peer review board, and said "ohh shit, her math is correct, our evidence is useless" and then started emailing the rest of the CRU hacks to find a way to stop publication, which is a despicable violation of peer review standards, and is plainly unscientific, and the head of the CRU decided to malign the journal that was gonna publish it, by claiming they were "infiltrated by the baddies" (direct quote, they really are like children)
meanwhile the IPCC has been backpedalling hard on all their AGW/Climate Change claims and now the entire issue is pure political wrangling and money grubbing.
facts are facts.
Connor Perez
I'm not afraid to be wrong. I wish I was wrong for once. Every single day I am right about how fucked society is. >Know that msm will continue to mislead people into blaming whites for all tragedies >Know almost everyone around is a at some level of blue pill >Know politicians will keep letting rapists into their counties for "diversity" >Know that people are being shunned by society for pointing out facts user, I don't want to be right all the time.
Cooper Garcia
It wasn't really a study as much as the basic argument >we've been putting large amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere >CO2 interferes with reflected IR radiation returning to space >more IR near the earth's surface means higher temperatures I'm curious what part of this you think is wrong.
Uh, so you're saying the oil industry is partially behind the global warming """hoax""", or...?
Lincoln Brooks
Here's my problem with the whole climate change thing.
It's happening. Zero question that the earth is warming.
Here's where the questions lie: 1.) is mankind causing the warming? 2.) Irrespective to 1.), is there anything we can actually do about it? 3.) If yes to 2.), will it actually work in practice?
So far I haven't seen those answered satisfactorily.
John Watson
he didnt read it the first time you posted it, why would you expect him to do so now?
Jose Thompson
>If it's the opposite the human race gets to extend their pathetic lives by maybe a few more thousand years Wrong. If it's the opposite governments literally get to tax the air we breathe
Importing millions of 3rd-world niggers won't help improve the environment in white nations.
The irony of most "green parties" is that their leftist social policies.undermine the "green" part itself.
Ryder Barnes
great image, Saved
James Reyes
See It's downright amazing to see the mental gymnastics you mongoloids go through to "counter" this issue. On par with SJW's in fact. They may be envious.
Wyatt Roberts
Nope. Just the situations where the organization that pays their salary has a strong interest in the "objective" results of their "research." For example, federal government stands to make enormous amounts of money off $$Carbon $$Taxes. The EPA will get an enormous boost in funding and purview etc.
Do you think that tobacco company scientists were objective when their research showed that tobacco smoking was safe?
William Johnson
How does faking global warming futher the Jewish agenda?
Jaxon White
Well Op, I have studied it. Each of those points you make is true, but the heat retention effect of co2 is far less than the climate shills are promoting, and the amplification effect has so far been exactly nil.
Yes, the oil industry is partly behind the global warming hoax, in that they are already getting billions of dollars a year in subsidies you aren't even aware of for playing along. Why do you think they put ethanol in the gasoline? They get a fifty cent per gallon tax break to do it. Why do you think they have built carbon retention systems into the new refineries, trucks, ships and boats that transport their products? They get a subsidy for each ton of co2 they sequester plus they get to sell their sequestered carbon on the carbon market. They have been making bank on this since the early nineties, and passing infrastructure costs off to consumers.
Jeremiah Gomez
Also to more elaborate, by current models we understand that we can slow it down and hopefully avoid a runaway greenhouse effect but the fact that it's on a natural cycle means we may not be able to stop entirely. There are many models that prove we can remove up to 100ppm of carbon annually, and that may just be enough to save us from a runnaway.
Daniel Gray
There is so much politics and money around the theme, that the "conspiracy theory" can't be applied, especially "batshit" one.
Models are mainly done by NASA and a few other organizations, which, can easily trick them to show more catastrophic version than there is. The climate does change, that's a fact, other than that I wouldn't be too confident m80 especially if you're not a climatologist yourself.
Jordan Long
>except the facts say it IS all about money. >the CRU had a little thing called Climategate, which proved they were "sweetening" the data to "hide the decline", and their hockeystick graph was proved to be bullshit. >then they had Climategate 2: e-mail boogaloo, which proved they were petty grasping twats who tried to stifle any research that might throw doubt on their conclusions >the most glaring example: >a study on dendrochronology (tree rings) proved the CRU's methods were simply wrong. >one of the CRU "scientists" was on the peer review board, and said "ohh shit, her math is correct, our evidence is useless" and then started emailing the rest of the CRU hacks to find a way to stop publication, which is a despicable violation of peer review standards, and is plainly unscientific, and the head of the CRU decided to malign the journal that was gonna publish it, by claiming they were "infiltrated by the baddies" (direct quote, they really are like children) >meanwhile the IPCC has been backpedalling hard on all their AGW/Climate Change claims and now the entire issue is pure political wrangling and money grubbing. >facts are facts.
/thread
Kevin Evans
>runaway greenhouse effect You mean the thing the IPCC says has "literally no chance of occurring on Earth"?
>For instance, a “runaway greenhouse effect”—analogous to Venus-- appears to have virtually no chance of being induced by anthropogenic activities.
If you want me to take you seriously, don't spout bullshit buzzwords at me that even the IPCC doesn't put credibility in
Joshua Ortiz
*trick them = trick models
Landon Russell
How did tyhis country maintain an atmosphere during periods of the Earth's history where ppm carbon was exponentially higher
How do climate scientists gauge when runaway climate change occurs and how are we even close to that level?
Ian King
>1.) is mankind causing the warming? Yes, with CO2 >2.) Irrespective to 1.), is there anything we can actually do about it? Yes, stop pissing out CO2 like the Irish piss beer >3.) If yes to 2.), will it actually work in practice? Yeah, worst-case we need to resort to nuclear, but we probably won't.
I'm not OP, and while you're right that the conventional global warming theory posits an amplification, I'd like to see an analysis suggesting it's been nil.
And while I'm sure big oil has managed to get its share of pork, it doesn't change the fact that global warming theory calls for the end of their business, and they've been funding propaganda like that's the case, because it is.
Jayden Watson
well, son, you are talking to a refinery chemist who has been following this since 1987. I have a really good grasp on the subject. I even helped design some of the carbon trapping systems used on chemical barges, and got big bonuses for doing it because the government was throwing money around like candy to get us to hop on board.
