Reminder that some people are stupid enough to ignore the scientific consensus on climate change because they were cold...

Reminder that some people are stupid enough to ignore the scientific consensus on climate change because they were cold last December.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=SSrjAXK5pGw
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation
youtube.com/watch?v=Zgk8UdV7GQ0
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469(1984)041<3380:TLQGAT>2.0.CO;2
youtube.com/watch?v=9_WHQkPrhjg
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

wow I guess I'm voting for Hillary now...

You know it used to be consensus by the majority of scientists that the universe was geocentric, every learned mind had thought that everything revolved around the earth. That is the people going on about climate change following what "popular" consensus says and shutting down all who question it. Just like the Catholics of oldentimes.

>all the scientists have big noses

>6 Million scientists agree....

...

some are stupid enough to ignore the fact that muslim immigration leads to terrorism problems

SCIENCE WAS WRONG ONE TIME
SO LET'S DISREGARD ALL SCIENCE FOREVER AM I RIGHT GUYS

>6,000,000 scientists
>they're all featherweights
>defeated by one man
>somehow the man that defeated 6 million scientists is the dumb one
He's a winner, they are losers.

kek

Wouldn't the scales falling in favor of him indicate the value of his opinion? Like with Gold?

But that was when people were ignorant. Scientists are enlightened and smart today.

If you have to "believe" science, you aren't doing it correctly.

...

Man is unworthy of speech about the scale of God for only God and His Law, and Grace, can judge the world. Abide in The Lord.

The only scale, acceptable to see is the one in whom God knows. For God owns, Judgement.

"Majority of scientists" refers to the 3% of scientists that actually bothered to respond to a survey that asked if climate change was man made or not.

Keep falling for Al Gores conjob faggot. Pay your window tax

Ever notice how (((they))) try to conflate "climate change" and "man-made climate change" into a single issue?

Tell it to China Cana Cuck. I don't see any slitty eyes in your smarmy cartoon

...

Gravity is such a massive fucking jewish lie.

Or you know, maybe he's right? And facts outweigh opinion?

People haven't changed, people are still ignorant as fug, and driven by various motivations, weather they be selfish or egotistical, unless you think scientists are immune from such things, like some kind of priestly class above the human condition?

stop trying to convince me its real and fix it then faggot

I tend to believe the opposite of what the Jews are telling me.

I voted for Trump but I think he has to accept the climate change.

>"""scientists""" are incorruptible superhumans, they're gods more or less, and everything they say is absolute gospel and there's no way that the things they "find" were "found" for nefarious reasons or because they were bribed

FOLLOW

THE

FUCKING

MONEY

AND HIS NAME'S JOHN CENA

Ever heard of argumentum ad Populum?

These are getting more and more lazy. Ctr wasnt even this bad. The truth is David brock will die young and alone and probably with hiv. Suicide is probably the best option he has.

>he doesn't know about The Oregon Petition.
>he doesn't know about the Medieval Warm Period.
>he doesn't know the last 11 years have been getting progressively cooler.
>he doesn't know about Climategate where IPCC scientists were caught red-handed cooking stats in order for climate change to be 'real'.
>he doesn't realize the benefits to those who control the climate change narrative by the existence of the climate change narrative itself.

Appeal to authority.

>the catholics supressed science may may

while your point is correct, you are historically illiterate. ironic given your point is based on historical context. the CC did indeed hold that kepler's model was an alternative though it did not predict certain stellar movements better than the geocentric.

Also this bolsters your point. In the end, people will base their incorrect views on the best science

Scientists agree that the climate is changing

Scientists don't agree on what should or can be done about it

Isn't appeal to authority a logical fallacy?

when that """""""""authority"""""""""" bases its facts on, well, FACTS, it isn't a logical fallacy.

Like immigration and illegal immigration

We should all be taxed and told what we can and cannot do by the United Nations!

Funny since gravity also is a theory.

it's not enough to be based on facts

you must consider all facts

"global warming" and "climate change" bullshit have a SINGULAR FOCUS on carbon emissions, ignoring the facts of a carbon storage system in planted trees.

They do this to tax you. They are responsible for killing the environment. Plant a tree or fuck off.

kek

>follow the money
It leads to oil companies. Now what?

Not an argument.
youtube.com/watch?v=SSrjAXK5pGw

I wouldn't believe in the traditional definition of gravity either in that situation.

natural climate change regulates itself. It has been like that for more than 300 million years. We mustn't stop climate change, we must stop ARTIFICIAL climate change.

In fact, I'd say without the democrats and their "climate change theater", we'd be kicking China's ass RIGHT NOW for polluting so god damn badly.

and fuck anyone else dumping shit into the rivers too. Fucking christ.

>Climate change
fucking bullshit. I hate you all.

Not questioning science means there would never be innovation.

Science is my god fuckers make me angry.

>nature regulates itself
nah, I stopped reading right there.

Chickens are totally the result of domestication. That species probably would have died by now had we not kept it around to eat it. We are masters of our world.

Plant a tree you FUCKING FAGGOT

Till the soil you GOD DAMN NIGGER

I like how they even use the word "Virtually" which means "everyone we choose to publish and make visible"

...

That's stupid. You can either be convinced by the evidence (or "believe" it wow oh my god) or not be convinced (be a fucking retard).

just blindly accept everything youre told but the high class. dont look at the red flags.

so youre saying the majority of people will perpetuate a lie so that the cash keeps rolling in? who woulda thunk

So does the climate change denier.

As much as I believe in global warming, libturd need to stop this stupid meme of "LOOK AT ALL THESE SCIENTISTS!! THEY CARE SO MUCH ABOUT GREEEEEEEN!!!!"
It's just plain false and gives more reason or proof to deny climate change.
Most scientists are autistic fucks that gives zero shit about anything outside their research. A hardcore physicist gives zero shit about politics, chemists give zero fuck about on going genocide and mathematician wouldn't even care if there's a nuclear holocaust. It also doesn't help that ecologist and climatologists are looked at as a joke in the science world.

>Implying I believe in gravity

You shouldn't believe in anything. When you do, you stop thinking about it, and a mind not thinking is clinically dead.

...

by the high class*

> Consensus

Science is not democracy. You don't get to vote.

Additionally, "Climate change" is a vague and undefined term. I don't mean in the sense of "hurr durr, it was global warming now it's just change because some things are cooling." I mean that in the sense that someone like me, who has done his reading and largely agrees with the science on CO2, could still take issue with something like the predictive models. There are tons of them out there; tell me, which one does the scientific consensus endorse? There is no consensus in that case. Everyone has their own special snowflake climate model that's fucking perfect, we fucking swear this time. And pay no attention to our predictions from 10, 15, or 20 years ago that all warned of doom and gloom even in the best-case scenario, but which never came even close to happening.

Seriously. Too many predictive models, and every single one over-predicted climate change for the last thirty years even in their best case back-to-cave-life scenario.

I'm not even counting the times some of them were caught falsifying data.

Basically it's a bunch of socialists who have the right inputs but can't make the right outputs, so they ask for more money and stump for socialism. Fuck 'em.

don't be daft. everyone knows the climate is changing. not everyone believes it is man-made. you know this to be the case and you still waste time making a shill thread and even uploading a picture.

i will be releasing the contents of my propane tanks into the atmosphere tonight just for (you).

didn't you know that the extintion of species is also natural, did you?
Do you also know that 96% of the total species ever been alive are now extint?

>Jim who went to plumbing school for 2 years and watches FOX new has a tighter grasp on fact than someone who's entire job is to find the facts and come up with evidence based conclusions based on those raw observations and data

???

>muh consensus
Science is not a democracy niggerfaggot

you're a fucking scumbag dude. I'd hurt you. badly.

>scientific consensus
That's not a repeatable mthodology

you're just making shit up. Stupid post

some people are stupid enough to think science is proven by concensus.

Can someone please show me the list of scientists that agree and disagree so I can have proof of this claim?

ok, nice ad hominem.

Climate change is religion for the modern irreligious, fuck off with your prophecy of doom and promise of government taxes saving us.

>you're a fucking scumbag
>I'd hurt you

pot, meet kettle.

Nice false equivalency. The climate changes naturally and we're at the end of an ice age, there were millions of years when there wasn't a single piece of ice on the planet.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation
Do some research instead of eating up all the obongo pseudo intellectual garbage.

Stupid science bitches

youtube.com/watch?v=Zgk8UdV7GQ0

The way science is used is mostly bullshit. I work in a 'scientific' field analyzing human activity and deliver assessments that are extremely accurate. The people I work for refuse to use my work to shape policy and only seek to confirm their own bias. I'm white, 34, have been in this field for 10 years and extremely well regarded among other analysts in my region. The executive hired a much younger black guy who knows how to build statistical models but doesn't understand the product of those models. He always confirms their biases and overcomplicates every single decision. He's the golden boy, he doesn't ever contribute and is basically getting paid $90k a year to nod and agree.

He looks more like how a liberal would draw a conservative.

This looks interesting. Do you have the source?

>scientists somehow have an ulterior motive to push man-made climate change

>republicans that receive millions in donations from oil companies do not have an ulterior motive to deny man-made climate change

HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

Just go to some random reputable university, professors give zero shit about things outside their research. That's how they became an expert in their field. Sure they might sign off some random petition for some cause but they give really don't care about things outside their interest. Oh, and I'm talking about hard science professor not some liberal arts or soft science shit.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation

>psuedo intellectual
>cites Wikipedia as a reliable source
yeah about that...provide me the same information from reputable scientific journals

the scientific consensus on climate change can suck my fat white cock. i don't give two fucks about how much the sea may or may not rise in the next 100 years and I'm going to keep driving my big ass truck because I can so fuck off. Now here are some of the failed predictions of these scientists that you worship as demi-gods taking their theories as law and their cock deep into your tax hole
>Ecologist Kenneth Watt declared, “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil."
>“air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” Ehrlich sketched a scenario in which 200,000 Americans would die in 1973 during “smog disasters” in New York and Los Angeles.
>“Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”
> “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”
>Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”
>“It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” declared Denis Hayes
>"Op is such a massive faggot that he will get aids and die within 20 years"

>Some of the effects in temperate and polar regions will be positive and others elsewhere will be negative.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

ALL of Europe, the US, Canada, most of inhabited Australia, and NZ is in the temperate zone (pic).

The only people who will suffer from this are NIGGERS.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

LET THEM FRY

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>smog disasters
>they didn't mention china once
holy kek im living in a cartoon world

...

This. It's controlled opposition. The oil companies do not want the real truth out that burning oil causes global cooling.

journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469(1984)041<3380:TLQGAT>2.0.CO;2

there you have idiot

climate change is real, the problem is doing something about it, I think companies should do something about but I also don't want the government to start getting bigger because of it. Pollution and climate change are a thing. Look at China for an example.

"But you're arguing with science".
Much of the data supporting Climate Change nowadays is being provided by the GISS (NASA/Government-owned), USHCN (Government-owned), and NOAA (Government-owned).
The data from these sources are ground units. This detail is important, because ground unit data is prone to tampering, due to placement of units next to heating sources, vents, concrete, etc.
The NOAA, in particular, uses a "Fudge Variable" in its data, to rewrite data from the previous years, to better align the historical observed data with its own projections. The NOAA has been audited and found guilty of this several times, yet still continues to act as an authority in climate science. The USGS is still writing its official "Letter of Apology" over the governmental-related source data tampering.
The official counter argument to this was that the NOAA was "correcting false measurements previously recorded", or "to account for scientifically necessary changes". In essence, the NOAA changes climate data that, several years ago, would have proven a temporary warming phase in America, proving that there is, in fact, a natural warming-cooling cycle.
On the other side of the spectrum, CRU (University-owned), RSS (Private research company), and UAH (University-owned), which vary between satellite units and ground units, show a lesser amount of heating, and a larger trend in natural warming-cooling cycles than the previous three sources of data. You can find their raw data on their respective websites.
For every pro-climate change set of data found, there was an anti-climate change set of data that challenged it. The raw data on both sides of the argument is too easy to manipulate. Even so, correlation should never imply causation.

What if both groups have an aligned motive? Say for example: globalism and pushing for a unified governmental authority?

Oil companies receive enormous tax write-off and subsidies for "green" research. No matter who is at the helm of the government.

>no mention of trees
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAA

DOES THIS WORK ON REDDIT?

DALETE DIS

What if they all shit out cancer-curing jawbreakers?

That'd be pretty neat.

When are they going to start trying to make questioning climate change illegal like they have with questioning the holocaust?

others are dumb enough not to deduce that banning Muslim immigration leads to even more problems in the long run

Tell me fucking straight up you spanish proxy cuck... Are you used to people accepting your bullshit without question?

Why should i cripple the enjoyment of my life when no one does anything about barges, bikes, china, or india?
Fuck the epa

>everyone just using appeals to authority arguments
>never anything about the easy to find data

"Who keeps the metric system down.... we do......"

Reminder that between 2004 and 2014 only 57 people have died in the US as a result of terrorist attacks. Between 2013 and 2014 there were 74 dog bite related fatalities in the US.

But I'm just some Maplefucker so whatever.

Could you point me to their most accurate climate model? It seems if the science is so settled, then it would be extremely accurate going forward.

What does the latest model say the temp will be in 10 years, 25, maybe 50? What did their models say 2015 temperatures would be like back in 1992? How about 2008?

youtube.com/watch?v=9_WHQkPrhjg

underrated post

Raw scientific articles and data are difficult for most people to understand. It's perfectly reasonable to look to somebody who has experience in the area to interpret data.

And yes I have looked at the data myself, and I am sufficiently convinced of climate change.

>Not letting terrorists in makes more terrorists come in

>scientific
Appeal to authority
>consensus
Appeal to the masses

Wow, they are so logical!

>if you kill your enemies they win

You're a fucking idiot. The countries that shut the borders to them don't have a problem. See Japan.