Climate change

It's MUCH more believable that 97% of scientists have been "paid off" to make up global warming than it is for 3% to be paid to disagree with the facts. You're being persuaded by user, who is just out to troll people.

Other urls found in this thread:

iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378003000827
metoffice.gov.uk/climate-guide/science/uk/obs-projections-impacts
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18772435
denix.osd.mil/denix/crid/Coral_Reef_Iniative_Database/Human_Effects_files/Richmond, 1993.pdf
telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html
youtube.com/watch?v=LiZlBspV2-M
youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

"Climate change" in itself doesn't mean much. The climate change every fucking day.

The incalculable amount of variables which factor into climate are impossible for us to comprehend much less measure, disseminate and discern each influence with every other corresponding variable affected. It is closer to chaos than picking out a handful of environmental flags and stating such a blanket explanation as fact.

Even the simplest of processes become near chaotic when examined in ever increasingly smaller scale much less planetary. Improvements in data collection with disregard to localized environmental and topographic variables (changed or underreported), coupled with the sheer amount of data collected for comparison antiquates previous data in scope and methodology.

Climatology is political party, which explains the wildly unreasonable reaction to qualified dissension in peer review, refusal of data sharing and dismissal of the need for reproduction when errors and falsifications are present. If it had remained in the scientific realm, it would still be called Meteorology. That every climatologist concurs, what they were taught and are now teaching is fact, means nothing. Experimenter bias can be attributed to much more than a salary in the prestige of fronting humanity saving research in our dire final hour, receiving awards and accolades and earning a prominent place in the regulatory behemoth established to counter the contrived results before they show no fruition. It might just focus data gathering at predetermined locations of concentrated production of the conformational data required.

hold on there sport, if this climate change thing is real then how come bible never said anything about it?

The embedded politics are on display when all importance is placed on halting progress and limiting freedoms instead of countering the perceived effects through their own means of collection, disposal, or production of whatever they imagine will balance things out.

If man's influence on climate change was correctly represented as a hypothesis, it would not currently be the basis for the regulatory systems being devised, causing apoplectic opposition to the devastating economic ramifications and repression of civil liberties. Then research with the removal of politics being of foremost prominence in the exclusion of experimental bias would ensure the integrity of the studies and true consensus can be found.

That is called weather, not climate.

>pay off the scientists
>pay off the poll that polls scientist opinions

climate change is inevitable, 7 billion people belching, farting and pooping are going to affect the climate.

The us needs factories and power, if we don't build it here we will build it elsewhere and it will be worse for the environment. In many cases it will be worse for our environment (pic related).

If you want to do what is best for the environement, let the US build these factories and power plants, we will do much less damage

>climate change is real
>and humans are "making it worse"

What did they mean by this?

If climate change is real then the world is already beyond fucked and it's impossible to stop or reverse it while still trying to modernize the third world and dealing with their booming populations which demand more and more and more energy and industry.

Even if we do manage to stop all carbon emissions and even go slightly negative, it would be offset by natural disasters easily.

>world spends almost all of its effort trying to stop carbon emissions
>succeed, world carbon negative
>another fucking wildfire in alberta happens, burns for a month, releases more CO2 that Europe for the past thirty years

I think it's much more believable that whoever is in charge of polling scientists, like with the elections, are faking the results. Expand the definition of "scientist" and it's easy to find plenty of your friends to agree with you.

It's also a fact that SCIENCE IS NOT BASED ON CONSENSUS

It means absolutely jack shit what percentage of "climate change" scientists agree on anything. Unless they can actually prove something without a shadow of a doubt it is bullshit.

Feel free to write a paper to expose the truth then.
iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf

The truth of where that 97% figure comes from is hilarious.

And despite the energy industry's attempts to do this, the word still got out that they were causing global warming.

Ok, how much worse? How many scientists agree that humans are having a large scale and irreversible impact on the climate?

Of course climate change is real.
Isn't the question whether it is man made or not?

R A R E

>there are no additional sources of CO2 than changed in the past 2000 years besides burning of fossile fuel
>milankovitch cycles are 100.000 years long and couldn't cause such a rapid increase in temperature
Yes, it's man made.

I'm surprised they don't get shat on more for their lack of peer review. Some of the data that was made available back in 2015 when congress allowed dissenting scientists to examine the studies is inexcusable. Not to mention they switch their narrative between global warming, and climate change. If there was any actual facts, they'd have at least nailed down non-dynamic name for it.

This. The number of apparent 'scientists' polled for the claim is something like 47...

CC is a hoax...

>their narrative between global warming, and climate change
Climate change has been used since the 60s by scientists. That the media decided to use "global warming" and then switched to "climate change" is irrelevant.

It's a lot easy to get funding for your research into the behaviour of snails if you say you are researching the effect of climate change on the behaviour of snails
It's a self-fulfilling prophecy, not necessarily untrue, but the data you get will be skewed towards the outcome you, or your sponsors, want

See

99% thought the earth was flat. Then 1 guy came along and said it was round. Its really hard to pick a side here

That doesn't explain why the results all point to global warming, unless all the data is fabricated.

Climate change is real there's no denying these facts. But the effects the change has can be debated.
Listen to Freeman Dyson (very well respected physicist that made major contributions to the field, mathematicizing feynman's ideas). He argues that the changes could actually be benificial.
We have no way of knowing because our models are too simple to simulate reality effectively.
Lots of vids on youtube where Freeman explains this.

that pic is reeking of class hate, typical of "liberals" honestly.

I go with jeff since he see the environment every day and isn't govt funded

>think you have to pay off scientist
You don't have to pay off shit, you just bully them into not going against it.

Don't believe me? See what happens when a scientist tries to say that the races just MIGHT not be equal. Even a well known and respected Nobel Prize winner will be, and has been, reduced to middle school teacher level.

Or do you think that the races or equal?
If you believe that races are unequal then you are mentally dismissing the same "97+%" of scientist that you are clinging to.
How insanely bluepilled is it of you to already be dismissing them for one thing and clinging to them on another?

Memes aside, if you really are on the side of Climate Change, please just read about James Watson, he shows us that no mater the prestige, no matter the accomplishment, you don't go against the agenda or they will ruin you.

He says that he is “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really”, and I know that this “hot potato” is going to be difficult to address. His hope is that everyone is equal, but he counters that “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true”. He says that you should not discriminate on the basis of colour, because “there are many people of colour who are very talented, but don’t promote them when they haven’t succeeded at the lower level”. He writes that “there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so”.


This comment was able to drive the FUCKING CO-DISCOVER OF DNA to go so broke he had to sell his Nobel Prize.

There will be a rise in sea levels causing massive infrastructure damage, more violent hurricane, and a lot of political troubles because of the climate refugees.

Yes but the fact that there is a consensus despite almost no repeatable results or review is very relevant.

>Cyprus
>rare
go away.

Climate change isn't entirely human caused.
There are also too many third variables to find out exactly how much we have contributed

belief is a load of horse shit

show me a money trail if you want me to make a conclusion.

35% of scientists agree that evolution is a lie.

25% of scientists agree that humans evolved first in the Caucuses and then branched down into Africa and Asia. While one of the branches of humans in Africa bred back in prior human ancestral species, and that's African blacks.

55% of scientists agree that women are significantly dumber than men, as their tasks were more settled and needed less effort of their brains to get fucked, make babies, nurse babies, and browse for plants to eat.

42% of all scientists believe that Satan is real.

60% of scientists believe voo doo, black magic, horoscopes, and other magical/occult phenomena are real.

Scientists can and often do believe crazy shit.

>no repeatable results
How do you know that? What's your source?
Do you think glaciers come back to previous levels when nobdy is watching?
>review
All serious scientific litterature is peer-reviewed. That's how science works.

we're coming off of an ice age still.

>Muh 97 percents.

Fake news.

climates have been changing before man walked the earth

People can die naturally, it doesn't mean you can't be murdered.

>Hur dur
>Muh appeals to authority
>Makes fun of a guy who enjoys going outside (yuck!)
>Posts ebin coat people who are probably actually scientists

We don't know this. This is my point.

>a lot of political troubles because of the climate refugees.

This is where I stopped believing in this nonsense. It went from global warming to a buzzword libs could blame for everything.

in the end same out come. death.

Where's the list with all the scientists in the world where the 97% explicity says that climate change is real?

I'm not saying it isn't, I'm just asking for the list with the 97% of them stating how things are.

If that doesn't exist, the "97% of scientists" is bullshit.

You're an idiot.

The argument isn't if climate change is real, it's if the tiny minority of actions the United states is responsible for towards climate change is enough to ruin their economy.

Since the vast majority of global warming gases are caused by natural means (animals farting etc) it's a non-issue.

But we do.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378003000827
metoffice.gov.uk/climate-guide/science/uk/obs-projections-impacts
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18772435
denix.osd.mil/denix/crid/Coral_Reef_Iniative_Database/Human_Effects_files/Richmond, 1993.pdf

Climate change being real is not what is debated. Typical bait and switch you underhanded Al Gore scum.
Before first people walked the Earth, the climate underwent huge changes and transitions.
Even better, since the dawn of civilisation and written accounts, man made climate change has occured, too. Deforestation of Greece and Dalmatia, desertification of North Africa, destruction of once fertile south Italy and Sicily etc.

It insults me when science worshippers and fans, in other words, total ignorant dogmatic imbeciles, spout nonsense about CO2 and other assorted crap, without having the even basic knowledge of solar cycles, Milanković or chemistry equillibrium.

Even if man-made climate change is real, it will result in a net positive amount of ariable farmland in regions currently permafrosted in Russia and Canada.

So we lose Jew York City and Los Angeles. No big whoop.

>thirdworld shithole is getting hotter
>drought
>people can't feed themselves
>they move to another country, fuck shit up there causing massive political unrest
>some might even try and succeed into getting into europe
I don't see how that's unrealistic

WTF is that flag?

Climate Change scientists have a pretty good reason to overstate the problem of climate change. They depend on funds to keep doing whatever research they're doing, funds that only come in if Climate Change is a problem.

Who the fuck are these 97% of scientists you keep citing? What happened to global warming/cooling? What the fuck is climate change?

ANYTHING that is paid for by liberal pseudo-science in an effort to sway your views to fit their agenda in an effort to get more govt funding is a LIE.

They will have you believe that a .03 increase in global temperatures over a thousand years is more detrimental to your well being than allowing millions of dindus to commit atrocities outside your door every single night.

Fuck those kikes.

It's confirmation bias, in-built into the way the research is conducted
If you find no correlation, your future funding is at risk

See >What happened to global warming/cooling
Besides you shouldn't get your information from the mainstream media.

of course climate change is real.

The planet gets realy hot and then realy cold in a cicle for thousands and thousands of years.

but this time is muh goy fault. bad goy.

>all science
Not this one.

telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html

What discipline of science allows researchers to conduct studies with systematically flawed methods? A small group literally flipped their peers the bird and then guzzled up all that delicious grant money to spread lies.

Climate change and human causing it has been around since the 1860s, actually. Just that the concepts didn't start going mainstream until the late 1970s.

It's funny reading the books about climate change from the 1860s. They talk about wood and coal and soot and ash changing weather patterns, making it more likely or less like that continents warm or cool, get wetter or get dryer.

The difference between 150 years ago and today is that 150 years ago, there wasn't any significant government grants in researching "man made global warming" and "man made global cooling" outside of some small outliers.

The oceanographers of 1890 were worried about the acidification of the oceans, and how the melting ice caps would destroy the ocean's balance, which in turn would destroy all the great fishing shoals (cause back then, the only thing anyone could get funded was the fish stock that the commercial fisheries used).

If you dig, you find out that very little in the warming-cooling is new. We just can take better measurements, but regurgitate the same tired theories until the climate changes which way it is going (warming to cooling, or cooling to warming) and start all over again with the same theories from just a few decades before.

A cycle is 100.000 years old. Doesn't explain the sudden current rise.

>That doesn't explain why the results all point to global warming

They don't.

>unless all the data is fabricated.

It just conveniently starts at the beginning of regular weather recordings, at which point the world was crawling from the most recent cooling.

Call us again when temperature at least reaches the levels of previous climatic optimumns.

>99% thought the earth was flat. Then 1 guy came along and said it was round.
No, in the west the earth has been know to be a sphere since 200 b.c. Even in the medieval period Macrobius' manuscripts also stated the earth was a sphere. Your 99% of were uneducated peasants just parroting what they heard. Much the scientific community now, which is parroting man mad global warming. Climatologists make up a insignificant amount of the scientific community, so if any scientists are to be believed it would be them.

Fucking checkmate right here.

"Climategame" hasn't been able to produce one email exposing a supposed fraud.

So? Okay, Climate change is real. What can we do about it? Stop all the factories? Stop using cars?
It's real, but climate changes all the time, but wasting millions of dollars in "research"(which is yet to bring some real results) is stupid

>97% of scientists

Sounds like bullshit, to me.

The fossil energy industry is bribing the remaining 3%. Exactly how the tobacco industry bribed professors and editorialists to spread false research/arguments.

That's weather

Climate is yearly average conditions.

One group
That means everything is false then, thank you for making such a compellent argument

They do.

>Call us again when temperature at least reaches the levels of previous climatic optimumns.
Such as?

>100% of Soviet scientists agree that socialism is better than capitalism
>Therefore socialism is better than capitalism

>Science is about consensus

That is why up until we got proper tools majority of the science world taught Einstein was wrong.

That is why up until we got the proper tools majority of the science world taught bad smells caused plagues.

Science is about trial and error until you can repeat a phenomenon to prove your hypothesis right and prove all others wrong. NOT ABOUT HOW MANY PEOPLE AGREE ON SOMETHING

If liberals had seen any university other than gender studies college from the Inside they knew how dogmatic most "science" has become.
Doubt is one of the pillars of science, yet if you doubt the accepted dogma you can kiss your academic career goodbye.
Thats why (((97))) percent of (((scientists))) agree. Which in itself should be alarming. This is dogmatism, this is lysenkoism.

Then show me the Einstein of climate research and his papers proving that everybody is wrong.

>our evidence for global cooling climate warming change is basically an opinion poll
>what do you mean you don't accept the "how many Frenchman can't be wrong" argument when considering science?

Easily 90% of scientists dont have any authority on climate science. They arent any more educated on the matter than your average joe. I really dont think that even half of the worlds scientist have made a statement on climate change.

50% of the world's glaciers are retreating (losing ice) while 50% of the world's glaciers are advancing (gaining ice).

Using glaciers as a sign of the world warming or cooling is stupid, as each glacier has its own local climate it is responding to. During the "man made global warming" scares, what gets attention are the glaciers retreating. During the "man made global cooling" scares, what gets attention are the glaciers advancing. In both the recent cycles, the split of the glaciers advancing and retreating stayed ~50%/50%.

Weather is a difficult thing to predict, and climates even more so. All that we know for sure is that the Sun will continue to heat up of the next few billion years, and that will cause the earth to experience "long term heating". But that doesn't mean the earth won't have "significant" cooling cycles along the way. We laymen call these "significant" cooling cycles "ice ages".

ill go with Jeff

he looks like a bro, and im sure he doesnt have a political agenda pushing his views or an economic group financing him to report on (((their))) interests

sage

This isn't 90% of all scientists, but those who wrote a paper about climate change.

M8 I don't give a single flying fuck about the subject.

It's the simple fucking idea that consensus is scientific, or should have relevance on a scientific topic is beyond retarded.

>50% of the world's glaciers are retreating (losing ice) while 50% of the world's glaciers are advancing (gaining ice).
What's your source on this.

Stefan Molineux BTFO:

youtube.com/watch?v=LiZlBspV2-M

Climate Change and Global Warming are REAL.

The idea that Climate Change is an organized conspiracy by scientists to establish a communist government is an absurd CONSPIRACY THEORY that is easily debunked if you look at the PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE.

Dig deeper, and look at the data DIRECTLY FROM THE SCIENTISTS, rather than anti-climate change bloggers who fit your narrative, and crazy liberal alarmists who exaggerate the effects of climate change for clickbait.

>Let's take these 1200 papers from 2015 on climate change from one agency
>800 make no mention of people in their papers, let's throw them out and just work with the 400 that do
>Of those 400, 150 say that there is further testing needed to see if it's humans causing the problem, better throw those out as they are inconclusive
>Now there's 250 left and 240 of them say that people are likely the cause of climate change
>Well there you have it 97% of all scientists everywhere agree that people cause climate change
Not exact numbers, but this is basically how they got that consensus.

My biology theacher once dedicated a whole class to redpill us on manmade climate change

Basicaly is a UN made hoax, i can't quite remember what exactly he said, it had something to do with planktons, solar radiaction and the gasses mixed in the layers of permafrost

We already know that education in Peru is shit tier, cholofag

Climate has been changing for as long as the planet existed

Humanity did not start this

Do we have an effect on it? Probably.

Is it as bad as these scientists say? Nope. Their models have been wrong for decades.

If it was as bad as they say, would a carbon tax or other government regulation do anything?
Nope, it would just move manufacturing and other business overseas and cripple western economies.

Is there any policy that can reverse these effects? Nope. The West isn't even the major polluter in the world, that's the Asians. Unless we completely dominated them in an all out war, which would be extremely polluting in itself, we have no way of controlling their pollution
The government can't stop climate change

if the level of carbon currently in the atmosphere does not terrify you, you are an idiot
we need to develop carbon neutral technology asap
technology takes money to research
any carbon expelled into the atmosphere needs to taxed, money must go to that technology
once the technology is implemented so people/companies stop expelling carbon, they do not pay taxes and the problem is solved

Here you go, here's a nifty little series by a scientists that debunks the myths on both ends of the spectrum:

youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP

I know about potholer, but I don't think he said anything about that.

>They do.

Stop lying. Bad liar.

>Such as?

Medieval climate optimum, 2nd millenia BC climate optimum, early Holocene.

>Climate scientists

Nah more like CLIMATE SCIENTOLOGISTS

Man made climate change is a fact. It's a matter of HOW MUCH we're influencing it.

Also, this is a discussion largely driven by profit interests and people with a stake in economy. It goes further than just "muh big oil".

Pretend for a second you're a big investor, you have dozens of investments running in the western world. You KNOW that china doesn't give a flying fuck about climate change, and you KNOW that any climate change regulation will likely weaken the economy of whatever country implements it. Those are again, straight up facts. Both sides agree on this, the only difference is that the people who think mankind has a big impact on climate change think it's worth the cost, whereas the other side think it's not worth it.

And this is the problem, it's greedy fucks who
a) Don't give a flying fuck about the future. This happens more often than you think. They don't give a rats ass to what happens to this planet even 10 years in the future and are only interested in protecting their assets
b) Closely tied to a), those people who know climate change is real, know it's ruining things and that regulation would improve it, but since it would cut into their profits, they won't do it.
c) Defeatists who argue that why should we do something about it when China and others don't give a fuck about it and will ignore all regulation.

Greed and assfuckery wins once again.

>97% of scientists are paid to say climate change is real
>Jeff makes +60.000$/year and likes to fish, he also has opinions.

/thread

That's a lie
Please provide a source for your claims

So 97% of climate change scientists that report on climate change believe in the thing they are reporting. Thats not really surprising.

No we don't. That's Freeman's whole point.

>100'000$ was deposited into his account
>sneakyjew.jpg
That's basically how it works in your shit tier corrupt country.

why wouldn't they just bribe all of it? They have the money for it

>appeal to authority
>science

Pick one