I don't get how it's so inconceivable to some people that climate change can be a scam

I don't get how it's so inconceivable to some people that climate change can be a scam.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=zMGZtkMS3sQ
cnsnews.com/news/article/global-warming-temperature-very-close-zero-over-15-years
youtube.com/watch?v=0qezLhypA0Y
orionsarm.com/fm_store/OrbitalRings-I.pdf
orionsarm.com/fm_store/OrbitalRings-II.pdf)
telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

It snowed in the Sahara desert yesterday. First time in ages.

>warming.

climate changes all the time the scam is thinking we can do anything about it

>cold wave in europe
>warming

What human invention melted the last dozen mass glaciations? What brought on global warming to reverse the last ice age?

That line of best fit is ass
Also
>35 fucking years
>in life's millions of years on earth
>statistically relevant AT ALL

nigger, expand it over a longer period of time and use time series analysis, use the ARIMA modeling in R and you will find your OLS line is shit faggot .....

TIME SERIES ANALYSIS FAGGOT


youtube.com/watch?v=zMGZtkMS3sQ

Let me know when theres a new Little Ice Age like there was starting in 1300 until 1800

Is it possible that the scientific community is wrong about something? Absolutely. It happened multiple times in the past. Global warming could not be happening and/or could not be caused by humans.

Is it likely that they are intentionally lying about global warming? Like in a big conspiracy involving most climatologists? With only politicians (who, being pooliticians, don't know shit about anything math related that requires more than two brain cells) speaking out against it? Pls don't be retarded and take off that tinfoil hat.

consider rewatching al gore's documentary, many of his predictions were for a 10 year span, it aired in 2006, some laughts to be had

do these graphs include the time periods where practically all land animals fucking died?

>pooliticians
>pajeet pun out of nowhere

i swear that was an honest typing error.

...

Climate change

muh 97% scientific consensus.

The Arctic ice is below any standard band.

See you in summer, with more heat days than before.

Also idiots writing about the Antarctic, you don't fucking live in the Southern hemisphere, do you?

It's called GLOBAL warming. The globe includes both emispheres.

What is different models and measurements
>Sup Forums being so illiterate they can't understand climate science

You may as well deny evolution, herd immunity or any other science. But, I wouldn't expect less from you.

ok, fine you coal industry cock sucking faggot.

...

HOLY SHIT IS 2017 THE YEAR WE ALL DIE?!?!?!?!

Now show it over 500 years

>coal industry cock sucking faggot.

Okay lets fuck our limping economy even more by forcing energy sources on people that cost twice as much but are 50% as efficient than conventional methods.

yeah, muh christian board

Your graph is proof that the climate is changing. You mean man-made climate change?

Looks like its been lower before to me.
What is your point?

no it's the year faggots using argumentum ad absurdum are called stupid faggots.

Zoom the graph out with a range of a couple thousand years and then we'll talk

Did instruments to measure the ice caps even exist 500 years ago?

Have you considered the fact that if global warming happens, the sea level rises, and the desert expands a lot of degenerates will drown and starve and die? I say let it happen, let God cleanse the world.

Aight man. I'm too ignant to understand this.

This chart is showing that:

1) There a clear reduction in total ice concentration
2)It's getting worse.
3)the gap between 2016 and 2015 is the biggest in 50 years?

Amiright?

t. Underfunded climatologist

it's really not just that the evidence is tenuous. because of course, as they're so fond of telling us, we're not scientists! who are we to question them, ever?

so that aside, the real question is, who GIVES a fuck about global warming? WORST case scenario actually only improves things for america. it's not the end of the fucking world. not by a long shot. it could be 4 times worse than the worst they say it could be, which they're always wrong about, and still, who gives a fuck.

Because the MSM told them it's real. You know, the same MSM that told them Hillary had the election in the bag.

Because just about every anthropomorphic global warming model failed to account for no increases in average yearly temperature for the last 15 years.

cnsnews.com/news/article/global-warming-temperature-very-close-zero-over-15-years

>“We're facing a puzzle,” Storch said. “Recent CO2 emissions have actually risen even more steeply than we feared.

>“As a result, according to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years,” he added.

>“That hasn't happened,” Storch said. “In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) -- a value very close to zero.

>Storch said the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) would have to address these facts in its next climate assessment report due out late next year.

1. PV is at grid parity, it's competitive as installed by the end user.

2. I've checked the numbers and taxes and distribution costs make up more of the end price than generation costs.

Nobody is saying Climate Change is a scam.

It's Anthropogenic Climate Change that scammers would have you believe is a proven fact when the most anyone can say is that it may or may not be happening.

We do not know if CO2 causes global warming, or is a result of global warming, or if past causes of global warming both caused global warming and CO2, the two being un causally related.

Too much Civ II for you.

Nice job, you found that climate change is real.
Nobody is denying that.
However, what people are denying is that climate change is man-made. You libfags can't prove it at all beyond your pathetic "Correlation implies causation" statistics malpractice

I don't get what the scam is, I don't belive in climate change or global warming, but I do care about the environment and would rather not see it destroyed

2017 will be interesting. Arctic sea ice is in bad-bad condition. No thick ice and extent is down.
All depends on summer weather pattens how much it will be left in summer. My guess is not much and losng summer ice cover changes climate patterns and is an strong albedo feedback. So more change is expected.

Shilling does not make issues go away.

It that some sort of computerized tabletop game?

Renewable energy programs can be pretty good.

Denmark has made a multibillion dollar industry from their investment into it and can generate 140% of their electricity demands from it.

In Scotland, they have produced enough power to power more than every home in the country.

Unfortunately Westminster is fucking them by dropping support for renewables because they can't let Scotland replace their oil industry even though investors are keen in gaining Scotland's expertise on wind power.

The other day a tory minister was criticizing wind power because the grid wasn't able to support exporting the amount of energy being produced.

Because we've had ice ages and temperatures more warm than today

Also atmosphere had 5 times the co2 density than what we have today at one point, you just end up with really big trees that point.

Worst thing we can do however, is allow 3rd expand too much and kill the land by draining the water

Man is contributing to change. How much is the subject to study further.

i think we are having an effect, but not enough. We should be exploiting this planet for everything it has, else we will never escape. We are a single celled organism fighting across an ocean.

You dont understand how things like this work, there does not need to be some specific vast conspiracy for there to be vast trending towards a narative.

Its the same thing as new agencies not reporting bad things about their sponsors, they might not be intentionally doing it, but rather just subconciously avoiding it. Likewise scientists who are dependent on funding for their livelihood might just decide contrary evidence is inconclusive and things that reinforce the narrative can be released with a little less scrutiny. And those who are legitimately convinced its happening (for whatever reason)? They are going to be biased around reaffirming that, its just human nature.

Much of what a mob does is not calculated.

>36 years, most of which before extreme EPA regulations
>1 degree
>2002?

>Falling for the Overton window
>Building the Space Elevator

Pick only one

Why bother debating whether it is real when it is an objective fact that it is easy to deal with it (if it were real) - all we have to do is build a space elevator.


Is it possible to build a space elevator today?

Yes:

youtube.com/watch?v=0qezLhypA0Y

The key idea is the Orbital Ring version of the space elevator, not the geosynchronous tether concept you are familiar with.

See, for example, Paul Birch's writings:

orionsarm.com/fm_store/OrbitalRings-I.pdf

The orbital ring only requires tethers about 300 kilometers long which is technically feasible with common material like steel, but ridiculously straightforward with better and already available material like kevlar.

There are some important questions. First, how much would it cost to do something like this?

We need to send about 160 million kilograms of material into space (See Birch's boot strap estimates in part 2: orionsarm.com/fm_store/OrbitalRings-II.pdf)

We have rockets available at $2000/kg costs to LEO today in "mass production" mode, which is only about 10-20 launches per year. Compared with the couple thousand launches necessary for a space elevator, $2000 is an unreasonably high upper bound for launch costs.

We also need to include the cost of materials. A space elevator is about 98% steel and aluminum, 1% kevlar, and 1% other such as superconducting magnets. Most of the mass (98%) cost around $1/kg, with an average cost per kilogram of no more than about $10 per kilogram.

Summing the above up, we get about $430 billion in launch costs plus another $1-2 billion in material costs.

In other words, we can have a space elevator for less than $450 billion - significantly less than one year worth of DoD spending, one bank bailout, many times less than a variety of pointless wars, etc. This is well within our reach financially in other words.

OP explicitly said "scam". That word implies an intent behind it.

>model

Why would a graph of existing temperature records require modeling?

based mexico for suddenly having reason

> Not caring about your habitat.
How american from you.

The Antarctic is frozen because of ocean currents. The North Pole is not a land mass which makes it more sensitive to climate change.

We have 50 record hot days for every record cold, the planet is getting hotter, oceans are becoming acidified and are rising and it is all because octane turns into upto 8 CO2 molecules when burned in oxygen.
It took 300 million years to build our carbon fuel reserves, you can't dump it all out in 300 years and not expect consiquences, especially considering the atmosphere is only 60 miles thick.

I don't understand how people can deny climate change, it makes perfect sense and it's measurable.

All three graphs are by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, a division of NASA, or it's longtime director, James Hansen. Why would the same group of people continuously adjust historical temperatures downward?

Keep in mind these are the exact same people you are likely quoting when you make claims of long-term global warming since ~1880.

This, consider the following.
>We destroy our economy for the sake of muh mother nature
>Santorini Caldera goes fucking nuclear
>Dumps a ton of fucking shit into the atmosphere
>Environment is completely fucked worldwide
>Ice Age 2.0
>BUT MUH MOTHER NATURE GUYS!!!!
>IT WAS TOTALLY WORTH RUINING LIVES AND COUNTRIES FOR THIS OUTCOME!!!
>WE TOTALLY DIDN'T WASTE ANY TIME OR MONEY, EVEN THOUGH IT MADE ZERO FUCKING DIFFERENCE IN THE END

This is exactly why these green faggots can all eat shit. Shortsighted tree hugging shits cant even be around children alone, why would you trust them with something like the entire planet's environment.

There's enough money going around to fund climate change denialism, plenty of folks to benefit from it. Only there's no credible scientists who are actually publishing papers on this. Why???

I mean, i just farted. Thats effecting the climate in some small way, sure. But is it significant? Is it more significant than the species that would be alive today if man never existed would be changing the climate?

We have plenty of pressing enviornmental issues getting overlooked because you cant sell carbon credits or funnel money to your friends through their climate GMOs.

Im not convinced this is anything more than a doomsday cult picked up by western 'intellectuals' to fill the void left by their tendency to atheism.

How much material is required for a sun shade that blocks 2% of the solar intensity (enough to completely reverse any hypothetical global warming)?

Only about 20 million tonnes.

With a space elevator in hand, our cost to deliver payloads to space drops to about $1/kg.

We can construct the sunshade out of thin wire mesh of pretty much any material, aluminum for example, which costs about $1/kg.

In other words, a sunshade would only run us about $100B inclusive of material, construction, and launch costs.

A one time tax of $15 per person in the world is enough to undo global warming if you have a space elevator.

A one time tax of $100 per person is enough to build a space elevator and then build a sunshade.

And most importantly, all of this is cold, hard objective fact. Nothing to dispute. So next time global warming comes up, pick wisely between the two:

(1) circle jerk in the Overton window
(2) talk about how can solve it all for a one time fee of $100/person, rendering permanently obsolete this political wedge

The scam is the people who encourage and profit from it, not the larger body that supports it.

Because if you publish a paper questioning it you instantly lose scientific credibility.

You restructure your economy.
Science advancing has always restuctured economy. Being ultraconservative - do you drive horse carts?

That's the italian flag. I'm no dirty mexican, we moved booze and drugs with class, back in the time before "gangster" was turned into "gangsta" by jewery trying to make blacks look cool.

>1979-2014
>1979
It really makes me think.

Shilling should have removed from science, I agree. Shills have hijacked the issue and leftist fucks tainted it to channel profits.

But climate change is real.

COuld we solve CA drought by putting mirrors in orbit to heat the ocean just off the coast?

>You restructure your economy.
If green energy sources are so scientifically advanced then why are they ALL so fucking inefficient? Because you say so? No.
If they were so "advanced" then they should easily out compete burning fucking dinosaurs for energy.

Of course you won't post the temperature curve in Antartica because a warmer ice has a lower viscosity and thus speards more easily over the sea.

>Monthly-scaled and punctal events taken out of context are relevant in a decade/century trend.

Stop being retards pl0x.

Glad to see not everybody is a complete retard on this board.

Geez, I get we have the left and shit but do we seriously need to ignore facts like they do when we find it inconvenient ? Also, why the fuck should climate change be a lefty issue when now climate change could be a good reason to criticize non-whites since they are now te main cause of it.

>I don't get how it's so inconceivable to some people that climate change can be a scam.

>For a century, the scientists of the world have conspired in the shadows to deceive the public about global warming in order to bring about...something
>Fortunately, a few brave souls financed by the fossil fuel industry managed to pierce the veil of lies

Does this sound like something a rational person can take seriously?

but if something is in your interest you will do it yourself, you don't need an horde of liberal bureaucrats to force you to do it and pay them to tell you to

Because this field is still developing.

Make science great again and remove shilling trom it, otherwise we get some version of our "islamic science"

Deserts shrink when there's warming idiot. It's even starting to happen now. It's part of why CO2 correlates with but lags temperature

>to bring about... something
what are research grants?

reasearch grants are totally worth more than oil industry money

We will destroy the economy by investing in oil industry assets that are all over valued because we can't use them without destroying the planet.

Coal is dead because of natural gas, China is spending 60 billion in 4 years on renewables and solar and wind are the fastest growing energy sources in the us. In 4 years solar employment has doubled to 200,000 people, and it has nowhere to go but up.

Fossil fuels are Africa tier, read a fucking book and come up with something better, red states are shit holes for a reason: wells dry up and billionaires can go we're ever they want, trashing your natural resources and leaving you with the clean up bill from the popped bubble.

There is economic interest conflict. Many of our problems come from retarded disconnected (((economic))) model(s).

no, but he was implying there is no reason for scientists to make up shit, when actually there is a yuge problem with fake data on academia

I have yet to see anyone post proof that HUMANS are responsible for climate change.

Call yourself the retard, retard.

That sounds like your problem then, deliver a product that can compete or gtfo.

>China is spending 60 billion in 4 years
That is pathetic, is that supposed to mean something?
>Fossil fuels are Africa tier
Oh yea? Then why can't your hippies shit compete?

Hah, you'd think that people who can pull of a scam like that would aim a little higher than you average scientist's salary.

That is one approach, but perhaps not the best.

By building a space elevator, you immediately give mankind access to many orders of magnitude higher energy throughput than we currently possess. Solar power becomes immediately profitable and not just profitable but viable as base power.

One issue solar power has today is that it is intermittent. By placing your generating capacity in space, you can get constant, predictable, reliable power generation.

Among the many consequences of such a shift in the developmental potential of mankind is that we can operate essentially unlimited desalination plants. California can retain its desirable sunny weather, while also having as much water as anyone could possibly want.

Essentially every problem facing humanity is of this sort - easy solvable by the building of a space elevator and deployment of already existing technology.

I don't understand why people are so up in arms about it, anyway; the market will come up with some way to stop it or its effects at some point. People are trying so hard to prevent climate change, that they are actually shooting themselves (and their country, by way of regulations) in the foot. Sad!

k, but in this case shilling would be a lot more profitable for the other side. as i said before, the scientific consensus might be WRONG on something, but believing in a conspiracy for GW is tinfoil hat level of stupidity.

>muh invisible hand

Again, you use (((economic))) to explain everything, This is excelmonkey tier.

if global warming was a scam, it would not be perpetrated by the average scientist, but by the leading scientists, which do not have an average salary
the average scientist falls in line because questioning published articles is high treason

of course it is more profitable to shill on the other side, but there is only a number of shilling jobs to be filled, and some will be forced to shill for the least paying offers

Go hug a tree hippie.
You think oil, coal and NG got where it is by subsidies and grants?
No, it was private investor fueled innovation, The American people owe you NOTHING.
Go pay for your own crackpipe technology and maybe we'll buy it off of you if you can prove it isn't complete bullshit.

"some" being, like, 99% of climatologists?

We're definitely forcing a little bit of warming, CO2 is a greenhouse gas and we've gone from 250 to 400 ppm in the last 100 years. That said, CO2 doesn't warm nearly as much as they want you to believe nor is the climate as sensitive as they claim. Solar activity will always be the primary driver of climate

Invisible hand works bad in nature conservation. You will run into problems when there is already a lot of damage done and then start spending your resources to deal with damage.

If you listen to other scientists too besides economists you get better results.

>the average scientist falls in line because questioning published articles is high treason

You do realize that if that were the case, there would be no progress in any field of science whatsoever?

Even if it was, literally everything that comes from trying to reverse it is positive for society.

Obama's green energy subsidies were one of the few things he did that I agree with. Hopefully those businesses have found enough of a market to continue growing even though the subsidies themselves will likely end.

I am not treehugger,
I am right wing.
But you not listening to scientists is nigger muslim tier retarded approach.
Muh civilization.

>But climate change is real.

No one but the kikes lying about what others have said have ever claimed it isn't.

The data doesn't support that it's manmade.
None of the CO2 projections have ever correlated with anything when viewed on a timeline larger than the last fifty fucking years. In the 70s these lying kikes were projecting a damn ice age. Now it's a warming phase. Now it's neither so they picked a nebulous no-name that covers both directions because they're making this shit up.

We have millions of years of records that support the temperature of the planet shifts dramatically. The kikes argue that their numbers over the last few years (using methods that have changed multiple times) is somehow statistically relevant.

How accurate were thermometers in the 1880s btw? The kikes argue that they must control all the world's manufacturing because of a1.5°F variance vs the years where they still burned whale oil for light?

It's fucking bullshit, and it isn't "science."

yes, that's how a democracy works, private money to deny global warming is scarce/more valuable, paying the ones who came up with the best shit for debunking GW, public money instead, being 'free', as in, it's not your fucking money, you just buy more and more scientists to agree with your stance, there you have a 99% majority (totaly hypothetical scenario, so not what's happening, but for the sake of argument) :^)

hehe
but that's the case, at least in molecular biology, some experiment contradicts something published? scrap it!

except thats a number obama pulled out of his ass based on a study of studies that wasnt even surveying everything about climatology but only looking at papers which already started under the assumption man made global warming was real, and were just trying to quantify it. Of those that set out to do that, 3% of them actually found out "whoops we were wrong about the whole thing" and so thats where the 97% came from, which has steadily increased to 98 and then 99% in his NON FACT CHECKED bullshit speaches and the left just parrots it all and echo chambers it into 'truth'. Its fake news.

>It's cooling
>Wait! it's warming!
>Wait no..
>Fuck it, it's changing!
Make up your mind faggots.

>We're definitely forcing a little bit of warming
All I'm asking for is unquestionable, undeniable proof. Are WE doing it, and DOES IT MATTER.. Is that so terrible?
Apparently so because the nightmare pushing shills act like I just told all the niggers to go back to Africa.

I'll listen to whoever I want faggot. I'm not obligated to listen to your (((Scientists))).

Would you like to know why its called climate change and not global warming now?

telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html

its probably the largest propaganda project ever conceived


idk, people are already caring less, how much was MUH CARBON an issue in the us election?

Checked. I'm not saying the market will conserve nature, just that (as soon as it is profitable), it will find some way to reverse some (or all) of the effects of climate change.

that's why i used the word "like". it's some number close to 100%, i didn't give a shit about the precise figure. and made i t clear i didn't by writing like some dumb valley girl talks.