Ted Cruz BTFO these cucks back in 2015.
GLOBAL WARMING IS A KIKE SHAM
Nolan Morris
Other urls found in this thread:
ncdc.noaa.gov
metoffice.gov.uk
data.giss.nasa.gov
ds.data.jma.go.jp
journals.ametsoc.org
sppiblog.org
iopscience.iop.org
youtu.be
nature.com
science.sciencemag.org
science.sciencemag.org
iopscience.iop.org
sppiblog.org
youtube.com
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
pnas.org
research.fit.edu
epa.gov
cdiac.ornl.gov
skepticalscience.com
skepticalscience.com
sppiblog.org
skepticalscience.com
ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com
realclimate.org
blog.hotwhopper.com
skepticalscience.com
euanmearns.com
twitter.com
Jason Gomez
...
Christopher Stewart
...
Luke Thompson
Cruz needs to step up and take over the CPC leadership resulting in Canada being annexed
Anthony Brown
>Sup Forums is against global warming
what the fuck does this have to do with a kike sham? WHY would scientists lie about this?
you can still be a white nationalist and think the earth is rising in temperature
Logan Young
You dumb fucking idiot.
Global Warming is a globalist campaign to redisitribute wealth and initiate new and insane taxes.
These taxes will lower the standards of life in Western countries. If you look into Agenda 21, the UN has planned to move toward everyone accepting lower and lower amounts of space for their real estate and their rights to the land.
Julian Turner
>Global Warming is a globalist campaign to redisitribute wealth and initiate new and insane taxes.
what now?
Benjamin Butler
The point is that human activity has a negligible infulence on the global temperature, and there is nothing we can to stop the climate change.
Scientist lie because their models are faulty (you cant predict something as chaotic as the climate with a computer model, bullshit in-bullshit out)
The kike sham is that they want to tax carbon emissions, you know, the stuff you breath out and plants breath in.
Thats right CO2 is not a pollutant but plantfood. Plants are having a CO2 famine right now, which causes droughts.
Several people of the IPCC have admitted it isnt about enviromentalism but about wealth distribution.
The 97% has been debunked as well
Aiden Brooks
>global warming is wealth distribution
what now?
Brody Gutierrez
The measure they try to implement, like carbon taxes and stuff
Henry Green
wow I like cruz now
Ryder Ramirez
taxes are not wealth redistribution
at worst, it's an unnecessary tax.
Joshua Rodriguez
>being this new
Where do you think "Carbon Tax" goes? My country right now pays for this fucking bullshit and it doesn't go to build super shields or terraforming equipment. Its just another levy to mongrelize Western nations. If you look into Obama;s "climate change initiatives" they are sending all the money to countries like India, and this is your goddamn money, while China, the actual polluter, pays NOTHING, CHINA DOES NOT PAY FOR THE POLLUTION THEY CREATE. ONLY FOOLISH WHITE NATIONS.
99% of the people you will ever speak to about this will just say, like you have, that only a retarded person, or a hillbilly, would question the motives of the Global power elite. See also: the unelected EU lording over and destroying multiple countries and ancient cultures.
Jayden Smith
Carbon taxes are, Obama literally sends money to "developing nations" because he believes the climate that "we" are changing will drown millions. But he doesn't actually believe this, it's just the nonsense he's told to say by his banker baron handlers.
Ever heard of "climate refugees" or "famous intellectuals" who claim Syria is a victim of climate change?
Oliver Richardson
Christ, who's that retard he's arguing against? The dude doesn't seem to know the first thing on climate science.
Anyway
>RSS data set
Well isn't that it convenient that it's the only dataset to show no warming.
ncdc.noaa.gov
metoffice.gov.uk
data.giss.nasa.gov
ds.data.jma.go.jp
Perhaps it's because it has been found to be erronous. To be fair Cruz couldn't have known this at the time of the video, but he still ignored all the other datasets.
journals.ametsoc.org
>Al Gore
Al Gore isn't a scientist, he's a politician. Like Ted Cruz, he gets things wrong.
Samuel Cox
Jordan Bell
>Climate change is not a scam
>UN resolutions to regulate it on a global scale
>Nothing gets done
>Tries to make poor nations go green
Grayson Hughes
>Al Gore was wrong about the Global HyperTornadoes and the thousand foot dimensional waves
That's a pretty big set of mistakes, pal.
If you trust Al Gore or any of his friends, you are a fucking fool.
Austin Allen
thats a nice? article? but it was written by a retard? who puts question marks after everything
Landon Mitchell
I couldn't tell, I haven't watch his movie.
I only know about the ice poles bunk and the polar bear crap that I see retards spout here all the time, as if climate scientists were basing their research on his movie.
Nolan Bell
The science behind it is legitimate though, and there is at least SOME evidence to back it up. The process of excess CO2 emissions clogging up the atmosphere, which traps heat, is pretty well detailed by the leftists and it's mostly correct. The ice caps in both the north and south poles are also melting at a rate faster than any time in recorded human history. Those are both pretty legitimate facts.
However, this "97% of scientists agree, it's not up for debate goy" shit is insane. Ted Cruz is correct in your video OP, when it comes to science, absolutely everything is up for debate. No "ifs", "ands", or "buts". Also, carbon taxes are ridiculous and insane, and probably some (((plot))). Science and clean energy will win the war against big oil and fossil fuel in due time, once solar panels and wind turbines become cheaper and easier to produce than oil (about 40-50 years from now)
t. PHD in Biochemistry
>Plants are having a CO2 famine right now, which causes droughts
Many things attribute to droughts, I am pretty confident when I say that there is not a CO2 famine.
Austin Nelson
Fucking hell man. Maybe it was just sloppy copy pasted. Just focus on the content.
Adrian Carter
>I should be able to damage other people's property and not compensate them for it.
niggers
Caleb Stewart
I appreciate the article and it gave me some insights on how carbon taxes are a scam but I'm just saying it's not going to redpill people who are more stubborn than I am
Parker Ross
>NOTHING, CHINA DOES NOT PAY FOR THE POLLUTION THEY CREATE. ONLY FOOLISH WHITE NATIONS.
China is trying to cut down their emission pretty fucking fast by investing on nuclear plant and green energy though. Why? Because they polluted themselves so much everybody can see it's a shithole and they want to stop this trend
Hudson Morales
jesus christ how much of a fucking government babby do you have to be to believe in the sham that is "man made global warming"
Ethan Brooks
>China is trying
Don't hold your breath.
They are not noble, they don't value human life, and they do not play by the "codes" of Western Nations.
Jayden Collins
>However, this "97% of scientists agree, it's not up for debate goy" shit is insane.
The 97% part is fairly legit.
iopscience.iop.org
The >not up for debate, well, not really of course.
Jeremiah James
>tampered noaa and nasa data
jesus dude, get a grip lmao
Lucas Sanders
It's call evolution of society. Get used to living in a van down by the river, pleb.
Jeremiah Richardson
Any proof of that, anime lover?
Noah Davis
No, you'll be living in a pod "apartment" which is basically a coffin with a curtain and you will be paying the same taxes as you do now.
The future is a "boot stamping on a human face forever" and all that.
Lucas Kelly
They realised too late their error of relying on coal, that doesn't mean they don't want to change that, partly because it creates unrest in the chinese population that has to live in the smog. It'll take time, of course. They invest much more than the US on green energy.
Nathaniel Baker
>The Chinese Government is working hard to lift up its citizens
Benjamin Bennett
>We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW
>32.6% endorsed AGW,
>Among abstracts expressing
a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming
so thats 97.1% of 37,6%
Aiden Sanders
>globalism and globalists
>redistribute wealth
so thats why the wealth gap betwen poor and rich countries have increased with globalism?
a fucking leaf
Nathaniel Baker
33,6%*
Dominic Green
Your reading comprehension seems on the low end.
Whether they care or not about their citizen isn't the question. What matters to them is stability, and chinese people are fed up with the pollution. So the government is trying to appease them by reducing it.
Jace Adams
The redistribution scheme is relatively new and not fully off the ground yet. It's in danger of being dismantled by Trump. But cuck countries like Canada and the states of the EU will continue to lovingly pay up.
Charles Hill
Okay, Xiang.
Don't forget to top up on gutter oil.
Nolan Morris
>of the abstract
Approximately two-thirds of abstracts did not take a position on the causes of global warming, for various reasons (e.g. the causes were simply not relevant to or a key component of their specific research paper). Thus in order to estimate the consensus on human-caused global warming, it's necessary to focus on the abstracts that actually stated a position on human-caused global warming.
When addressing the consensus regarding humans being responsible for the majority of recent global warming, the same argument holds true for abstracts that do not quantify the human contribution. We simply can't know their position on the issue - that doesn't mean they endorse or reject the consensus position; they simply don't provide that information, and thus must first be removed before estimating the quantified consensus.
When we perform this calculation, the consensus position that humans are the main cause of global warming is endorsed in 87% of abstracts and 96% of full papers.
Henry Ramirez
why would they want to uplift the poor countries when they can use them as cheap labour aswel as exploit their resourches. there is a reason why they kills off people like Gaddafi who could had uplifted the region
Jackson Price
Get pilled.
youtu.be
Jackson Collins
I don't see what's so hard for you to understand.
Samuel Campbell
>Decade-long soil nitrogen constraint on the CO2 fertilization of plant biomass
nature.com
>Prioritizing Climate Change Adaptation Needs for Food Security in 2030
science.sciencemag.org
>Drought-Induced Reduction in Global Terrestrial Net Primary Production from 2000 Through 2009
science.sciencemag.org
>Increased crop failure due to climate change: assessing adaptation options using models and socio-economic data for wheat in China
iopscience.iop.org
Still, ocean ph is falling appart, hurricanes will be more violents and sea level will rise.
Austin Morgan
They want to drag down the West to accept lower standards of living. This is a very long-tail plan.
Look into Agenda 21.
Jeremiah Long
>muh agenda 21
stop watching Alex Jones
Matthew Moore
I don't watch Alex Jones.
Jonathan Lopez
Not an argument.
When global governments start to say "The science is settled" and "the debate is over", when it obviously isnt, every possible alarmbell should go off. This borders on religion. Who in the past was labeled a heathen, today are called climate change deniers.
Nolan Allen
Well you should. You'd love it.
Carson Ward
>The science is settled
Science is never settled, but so far all the evidences point toward AGW. Can you convince me otherwise?
Connor Morgan
I havent seen any evidence humans are responsible for global warming
Lincoln Perry
Some frog shilling every time
Thomas Kelly
>>muh agenda 21
>stop watching Alex Jones
actually read the the UN Agenda 21.. get back to us. It is very detailed.
Jeremiah Martinez
I'm bored and only start my new job next wednesday.
That's because you have been willfully ignoring it. What claim do you challenge? That CO2 cause rising in temperature? That humans release CO2 in the atmosphere?
Jose Lewis
i don't see whats so scary about it
Charles Perry
I dont deny CO2 warms the planet, I just dont see any evidence that humans are causing a dangerous contribution to it.
And why would a warm planet with lots of CO2 be bad? It would mean healthier plants, more food and better soil. In human history it has been warmer than it is now. In these periods, humans flourished, farmed on fucking Greenland.
My biggest problem with this is the fear mongering and the draconian laws they want to implement to "save the planet". Agenda 21 or not, it is pure evil.
Ayden Evans
t. broken spirited chinaman / russian in gulag
Connor Harris
The Left using climate change to demagogue for a globalist agenda is kikery.
What's also kikery is Christniggers who deny that it is real because muh (((Bible))).
Robert Diaz
But see, because you disagree with the solutions politicians put in place doesn't mean that you HAVE to disagree with the science behind it.
Surely there are plenty of alarmist crap out there, like Al Gore, but that's not where you should get your information from.
> I just dont see any evidence that humans are causing a dangerous contribution to it.
See friend, human contributions to the total of CO2 put in the atmosphere is quite small. But it's a cycle: nature pumps up a lot of CO2 in the atmosphere, and pump it back up in the oceans and plants. Sometimes it's unstable and more is released that what can be absorbed (it happened in the past), but for the last 2000 years it's been really stable. Until we started releasing our own CO2. And this added CO2, nature can't pump it back in, so it adds up and end up heating the air and the oceans over the years.
>And why would a warm planet with lots of CO2 be bad?
Because we have probably trillions of $ of assets on the seashores that will be lost to a rising sea. Hurricanes will be more violents, even though less common.
>farmed on fucking Greenland.
Yes, but not everybody lives in Greenland. As I pointed out here , there can be a lot of bad influence on farming from the heat that overrun the positive effects of CO2.
Christian Allen
>And why would a warm planet with lots of CO2 be bad
your country would be flooded
Gavin Roberts
Stopping rising sea levels by regulating human CO2 emissions. Sure thing buddies.
Humans cant control the climate, let alone predict.
sppiblog.org
Mason Wilson
Mirin those biceps. Not bad for a DYEL high school boy.
Robert Anderson
Kikes do not exist . its a white scam.
Xavier Gomez
You should watch this serie of videos. They're very informative and well researched. They also destroy Monkton's points.
youtube.com
A couple of years ago I didn't know much about climate change so I avoided the subject and derided alarmist. But I decided to read about it and I changed my mind. Really it's all simple to understand, it doesn't mean you have to agree with the solutions proposed, that's not relevant to what's happening
Camden Cooper
Holy shit. I had not heard Ted Cruz speak until now. This guy is a badass.
Why didn't you elect him USA?
Jonathan Ramirez
Carter Davis
I have already said my biggest problem is the politics behind it. Its not okay when the UN and IPCC and all that clearly have a political agenda and adjust their results to support that agenda.
Its not okay when politicians shut down the debate because if you are a holocau- I mean climate change denier you want to destroy the planet.
Its not okay when global governments want to regulate the energy use of countries.
When natural or cosmic events can influence the climate on a scale unimaginable by humans, its seems really retarded to believe humans should be controlled when our contributions to global warming or CO2 emissions pale in comparision to volcanoes or fucking asteroid impacts.
Sebastian Gutierrez
Besides
>Humans cant control the climate
Why couldn't we. We mastered the atom, engineered hundreds of species to suit our needs, destroyed forest to make our homes, polluted oceans, emptied a sea, put a man on the moon. We can do a lot. That the heat is rising doesn't mean Earth will be destroyed.
Austin Long
The IPCC doesn't produce any data. And if you think the truth is out there ignored by the IPCC, prove it. Show me the studies.
>its seems really retarded to believe humans should be controlled when our contributions to global warming or CO2 emissions pale in comparision to volcanoes or fucking asteroid impacts.
Why? I explained the mecanism here It is documented.
epa.gov
cdiac.ornl.gov
Asher Martin
Oh I dont know, maybe because there are a fuck ton of factors playing a role in the climate.
I mean, we are a rock flying around a big ass fiery gas orb cruising through the universe, we have a liquid core causing plate tectonics, ocean currents, a moon. Yeah but we can influence all this goyim! just pay carbon taxes and stop burning fossil fuels!
Jaxson Morgan
So fucking good.
That affirmative-action nigger has to keep going back over his shoulder to his white cucks for help and droning on about muh 97% even after El Rato BTFOs it.
Jacob Ortiz
And they have all be looked upon. Milankovich cycle is too long to explain the rapid changes, cosmic rays can't explain the data we're having either. Do you think scientists are too stupid to have thought of the sun?
>Yeah but we can influence all this goyim! just pay carbon taxes and stop burning fossil fuels!
Here again, that's not science. It is not relevant. Why can't you get over your feelings?
Brody Ortiz
John Richardson
>Here again, that's not science
Again, my concern is the political side of the issue. If the science isnt tempered with, which has occured, fine. But dont politicize it, it leads to bigger problems than a warmer planet.
Wyatt Wood
>But dont politicize it, it leads to bigger problems than a warmer planet.
But you politicize it. You try to say it's not happening because of human activity when science says it does
>If the science isnt tempered with, which has occured
When did scientists tempered the data?
Eli Richardson
How am I politicizing it when I say keep governments out of it? And if the science is so clear, why arent we throwing money at adapting to this changing planet?
Examples of tempering
sppiblog.org
and of course the famous hockey stick
Justin Adams
dont forget that big "averaging" algorithm they were so excited about years ago
it literally substituted favourable data where before there was none because of faulty/missing nodes
Christian Gonzalez
did you forget climategate?
3000 e-mails with proof climate scientists are falsifying data
or did you forget that at the climate summit in copenhagen they were admitting they didn't have the data to back up their claims but they should go through with the taxes anyway??
anyone who believes global warming should learn about astroturfing
Jack Baker
The hockey stick:
skepticalscience.com
The graph about the climate model is bunk.
ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com
realclimate.org
blog.hotwhopper.com
Regardind the homogenization
skepticalscience.com
You should realise that what you're posting doesn't have any peer-reviewed source.
Adrian Harris
>did you forget climategate?
>3000 e-mails with proof climate scientists are falsifying data
Kek did you actually read the emails? Literally nothing in 3000 emails about falsificating data.
>How am I politicizing it when I say keep governments out of it? And if the science is so clear, why arent we throwing money at adapting to this changing planet?
What do you mean? Do you propose to keep government out of it, yet throw money at it?
Guess what, money doesn't come from thin air, you have to take it somewhere. That's why they taxed carbon emission to fund energies that would limit our CO2 output.
Besides you say that "if the science if so clear" as if there aren't millions of people like you completely uneducated about the subject refusing to admit the evidence you're presented with because it conflicts with your feelings about how humans can't influence their environment.
Nathaniel Foster
Ryder Carter
>Do you propose to keep government out of it, yet throw money at it?
No I mean that if the governments want to do something about why dont they come up with human friendly instead of imposing draconian freedom inhibiting laws that wont stop the warming
>money doesn't come from thin air
Jesus christ money literally does come from thin air now a days.
These governments arent on our good side you know, maybe on yours, but then you are just one of those evil psychopaths.
Josiah Rogers
Well why don't you come up with something if you accept the evidence that carbon emissions are responsible and could cause a whole lot of troubles?
My solution is to develop nuclear energy way more than it is today, but that doesn't mean that we should fund alternative technology as a complement.
>Jesus christ money literally does come from thin air now a days.
>These governments arent on our good side you know, maybe on yours, but then you are just one of those evil psychopaths.
Governments are incompetents, not evil. And your ignorance of the subjects you talk about does you a great disservice. How is anyone supposed to take you seriously on climate change and how to act if you don't know the first thing about it?
Austin Nguyen
>that we should
Shouldn't
Jackson Ortiz
>Literally nothing in 3000 emails about falsificating data
You are lying
Austin Bennett
Ok then, show me.
Ryder Flores
Declassified material showed the US military was manipulating weather back in Vietnam in order to wash out enemy shipments and such.
Anything you see in public is decades behind the true cutting edge.
John Fisher
I like Ted Cruz more and more everyday.
Based Sorin TEd
Ryan Turner
Well yes thank you, humans can modify their environnement indeed
Colton Gonzalez
>Governments are incompetents, not evil.
sure thing. you clearly have put a lot of thought in that.
Is wheather the same as climate now?
And if we are capable of changing the climate why dont they just do it instead of sucking us dry with idiotic carbon taxes and wealth distribution? Oh right because they want to cull the population and control the prosperity by controlling the energy usage.
David Wood
It's a joke user, of course it's not the same.
>sucking us dry
Don't get overdramatic please.
I'm getting tired of saying it, why don't you explain your plan to cut back CO2 emissions without offending too many people?
Dominic Phillips
I never said they could easily do it. Just that whatever you are being told is a solution to any massive prblem is likely decades behind actual solutions which might be in development by X or Y groups. Which leads to even more questions, since there's such huge layers of nonsense pumped into the public that the only thing you can count on is publicly available and "obvious" information is thoroughly tainted and genuinely useless. It;s all propagated on the whims of International business class and through the lens of their political agents.
Jose Bailey
Dont fuck with us smelly goy
Julian Lee
I dont see a reason to cut back CO2 emissions.
This obsession with control is ridiculous. The only reason we are having this discussion is because governments pushed it for their agenda for more control.
Stop trying to control people.
Stop trying to control nature.
Stop trying to control cosmos.
Like I said before, there are so many things that can truly fuck up this planet in ways you cant imagine. Against which you cant offer any protection today. So dont pretend you are trying to save the planet and protect everyone when you clearly cant.
Ryder Garcia
rafael is a rat, he could have been running for the right reasons but instead he was jew-backed just like the rest of them
maybe even trump is a jewish implant
there are no non-jews in politics, how else would they win?
James Gomez
Then don't pretend you want politics out of science, when that's all you can talk about.
If you have a deathwish that's fine, Netherland unfortunatly is going to have trouble with its sea level in our lifetime. While other people try their best to come up with solutions, you'll probably die standing while the water rises complaining about "Oh the humanity, what can we do anyway?"
Just kill yourself already man if you want to be that passive.
>Stop trying to control nature.
We already do that, everyday. That's what humans do for survival and comfort.
Nathaniel Adams
stfu Jew
Austin Fisher
>muh drowned land
We'll see about that when it happens.
Can you tell me how AGW stands besides natural global warming?
What is the significance?
Levi Carter
>Literally nothing in 3000 emails about falsificating data.
liar