Sup Forums unironically agrees with this logic

>Sup Forums unironically agrees with this logic

Other urls found in this thread:

dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html?ito=social-twitter_mailonline
google.com/amp/www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/amp/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html?client=ms-android-hms-tmobile-us
youtu.be/QmJN-LMPnX0
nextbigfuture.com/2017/01/terrestrial-energy-notifies-nuclear.html?m=1
s8int.com/crichton.html
scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Climate change will fuck over shit skins the hardest. Every time you drive you are getting back at them.

Sometimes it's warm and sometimes it's cold! Climate Change!!!

>we're gonna need a bigger bait.

>when the art is so shitty I can't tell if it's a bowtie or his mouth screaming

>US temperature records officially kept since 1880s
>130 years of records, up down up down up down

Al Gore is a cunt.
Warm winters, cool summers. Mild winters, hot summers.
It happens.

do you like mouths

>Sometimes it's warm and sometimes it's cold and we have a long-term trend where it's warmer now than in the past!
FTFY dumbass

>it happens
yes, for various reasons. Currently "it happens" because of an increased greenhouse effect

The amazing thing to me is that the exact opposite argument (It's hot out, there's Super Hurricanes, Global Warming is Real!) somehow isn't just as absurd.

anyone like mouths her

>because of an increased greenhouse effect

Prove it.

>because of an increased greenhouse effect
Prove that. Protip: You can't. The more likely reason is the fact we've been coming out of a little ice age for the last hundred years.

>It's warmer now than in the Ice Age, I bet Chevrolet did this!

I could go for a good mouth

the proportions are all messed up. doesn't even look like a mouth

>man it's a hot day, guess global warming is real

> It's SUNNY!! Global Warming is true, we are all GONNA DIE!!!

this is anime girl and mouth is full

If you believe in "global warming", you are fucking retard. No exceptions.
t. user that lives on one of the hottest places on earth

halt den mund.

If science says global warming exists and that races other than white are inferior.....then science is raycis and no one has to listen to it.

Libtards btfo

The climate got warmer. Clearly it's our fault.

>CALIFORNIA IS IN A DROUGHT!!!
>GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL!!!

>Ice shelf the size of RHODE ISLAND (1,212 mi2) has broken off of Antartica (5.405 million mi2)
>GLOBAL WARMING,
>FLORIDA UNDERWATER BY TURN OF THE CENTURY!

fake news

dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html?ito=social-twitter_mailonline

That daily mail leak is really getting to you eh?
google.com/amp/www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/amp/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html?client=ms-android-hms-tmobile-us

>Trigger
They're called seasons
There is 4 of them

>alternative facts

Trump administration to terminate EPA

Nice going, red hats.

The boat actually didn't rise into the air like that. That's a hollywood myth that was quicken disproved.

Way to miss the point, trumptard.

Ecocultists unironically believe they can run the world on memes and killed the nuclear Renaissance that would have actually saved them eventually if every bullshit assumption on climate was right

youtu.be/QmJN-LMPnX0

Stop driving a car and buy a horse. Oh wait, they fart

No, I think I got the point quite clearly. You let Hollywood plot contrivances drive your world view on how things actually work.

remember when they were pushing it as global warming? then it didn't match their narrative, so they called it climate change. but they forgot that in the 70s they were afraid of global cooling. idiots

Frog in boiling water.

>i look like a retard
>must divert attention

>remember these things that aren't true and I made up?
no user, I don't remember some bullshit that you made up.
Do you remember doing any research at all on this? No you don't, because that never happened either

Welcome to third world status, red hat, hope you accept responsibility when the time comes.

If you believe an historical event we can actually check for ourselves happened in a way that didn't actually happen, what makes you think I should believe your claims on a global-scale phenomenon?

Sure thing.

>i don't know how to google "global cooling"
good job, retard

>still trying to divert attention from the topic

...

It still is called global warming in professional circles. It dropped out of favor when speaking to the public because of retards like you who love to share isolated statistics which show a drop in temperature.

Ironic coming from somebody who never googled either "global cooling" or "global warming vs climate change"
Scientists in the 70s still knew that global warming would win out in the long term. It's almost as if you only get your information from other retarded science-denialists!

What an arbitrary way to lay out that chart. Why not just look at the average temperate? Why not choose Celsius?

EPA help out Flint a lot didn't it? Oh right, it's didn't.

>Why not just look at the average temperature?
we do that too, pay attention
>Why not choose Celsius?
because this is fucking America

do you know how many ice ages there have been? more than one and we've had a "little ice age" "recently"

>cherrypicking this hard
Why not compare air and water quality across the US from now vs. before the CAA/CWA were passed?

Do you know what caused those ice ages?
Obviously not, because then you'd know why those aren't relevant to the CURRENT (ie, what's happening NOW) warming

REMINDER both the government trying to trick you into unnecessary taxes and the ecocultist circles trying to convince you to not reproduce are ignoring the fact there was technology in the 70s that could make your standard of living cheaper and the air cleaner

nextbigfuture.com/2017/01/terrestrial-energy-notifies-nuclear.html?m=1

Because they would go back on those now that the pubic is more aware? Nope. But they will keep taking money to look the other way if it helps them or their backers.

>because this is fucking America

We use metric for science in America. I would expect a global warming scientist to realize that.

>tfw fell for the climate change meme

i want to hug santa elephant

>It's a natural warming cycle
>Lets prevent it
>Tomorrow lets fight the tide.

It's not like you're any better

...

>God controls the tides
>God controls the climate
>Sup Forumstards and Bill O'Reilly actually believe this
kys

What are you even saying?
Moon controls the tides
And the planet controls the climate, and it's been doing it much longer then we have been keep accurate data on it. So I'll take natural occurrence over man-made.
The kicker that makes me doubt this whole thing is that they don't have a plan for what to do it if does get warmer and are not looking into what to do, instead they are spending money and time on getting laws passed to push green energy instead of other energies and taxes to help make more green energy even though it isn't really going to help (their words) in the long run.

...

Climate changes happens in thousands years periods not a generation or two
Greenfags are delusional

s8int.com/crichton.html

And yes, Chrichton obtained his bachelor's degree in biological anthropology summa cum laude in 1964, and received a Henry Russell Shaw Traveling Fellowship from 1964 to 1965 and was a visiting lecturer in Anthropology at the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom in 1965.

tl;dr "Consensus science is not science."

pol thinks trump isnt a jew kike
of course they're retarded

...

...

...

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.

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.

Full of what?

Kek

C~U~M~

>it's staying the same!
>global warming is real!

>1 watt per metre squared!
>global warming is real!

Not an argument

>2.3% of scientists of a 30.7% response rate opinion survey think climate could possibly be changed by humans!
>global warming is real!

>we just left an ice age so the seas rising must be as a result of CO2 emissions! cavemen had no concept of the ENVIRONMENT, just like you neanderthal republicans!
>global warming IS. REAL.

Is a myth, the frog will jump out the moment it gets uncomfortable. Have you ever run hot water into a bathtub you're already sitting in?

>muh ocean
>muh climate change

Bill Nye disagrees with me so I guess I'm wrong though

75/77 climate scientists surveyed think it could be caused by humans.

Are yo being intentionally retarded or do you really not know how to read this (admittedly awful) chart?

>We have accurate thermostat readings for thousands if not millions of years.
>We can correctly predict future weather.

Nah

One nuclear weapon detonated at a high enough altitude, can destroy terrestrial based electronics for thousands of miles. Pollution from Beijing is creating weather anomalies for the entire region surrounding the city.

This whole facade of "we're too small to matter to Earth" is getting tired.

It's all fun and games until our bread basket has no climate to support the industry anymore.

>science is too hard for me so I like to ignore it
We get it. You're retarded. No reason to be ashamed, you just need to stop having discussion about science.

>science is too hard for me so I like to blindly accept it
We get it. You're retarded. No reason to be ashamed, you just need to stop having discussion about science.

I'm aware of muh 97%. Low response-rate opinion surveys mean nothing, but let's entertain for the moment that you have an argument (lol)

>1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
>Results show that overall, 90% of participants answered “risen” to question 1

Which is a no-brainer. But, see pic related. It falls well within the fluctuation seen within the Holocene. To have all the climate data in front of you and not say "yeah the temperature has increased across this small period of time" would be foolish.

>2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
>82% answered yes to question 2.

Another no-brainer. We exist on such a large scale now on the planet that we CAN affect the climate in some fashion. Did they say it's due to CO2? No. Did they ask? No. If anything as a result of our actions, it would've been CFCs eating at the ozone layer (letting more UV in) and we should be focusing our efforts on scrubbing those from the atmosphere because they will exist for quite a while up there unadulterated.

The pollers and scientific community are injecting a cause into the mainstream and backing it up with vague data nobody will look into.

What's so bad about global warming anyways? I hate cold weather, and I'm not the only one. Plenty of people wish the winters weren't so harsh. I'd rather have hot weather than cold, though that's my own personal preference.

>Pollution from Beijing is creating weather anomalies for the entire region surrounding the city.

Then write, pass, and enforce legislation on the biggest polluters like China first.

It's not a matter of preference. This is quite literally a matter of life and death.

>tfw I'm actually getting my PhD in computational science from a top 10 uni

isnt that the same as saying
>its unseasonably warm in november, global warming is real
?

How is 3000 responses low?

This. Regardless if its real or not, everytime I drive to the store, I smile at the thought that Im inadvertently gassing the mudslimes.

I'm absolutely fine with that. There's needs to be a worldwide effort for a reduction of pollution in general. But pollution stems from energies, most of all.

So there's the dilemma. We need energy sources to make the world turn, that's a fact. However, when money starts going into renewable energy, everyone seems to have an issue. It's no secret that coal and oil companies are pushing this narrative. One example is Exxon:

scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/

As of now it doesn't really matter. There are no preemptive measures for food scarcity anymore. There's going to be a point here in a couple decades where we start hearing more and more stories about American crops dissipating. Either due to nutrient degradation in the soil, flash heat / cold waves, or drying up of aquifers. At this point we better pray we develop a new agriculture system, or we're going to start eating each other.

>I'm absolutely fine with that. There's needs to be a worldwide effort for a reduction of pollution in general.


Bottom line: We were onboard with this utter consensus science bullshit for 8 years. China wasn't. You telling me all this in English is a complete waste of your time.

>Bottom line: We were onboard with this utter consensus science bullshit for 8 years. China wasn't.

So your solution is to just ditch it all? That's not a proper action. That's crying in a corner until your house burns down.

>You telling me all this in English is a complete waste of your time.

It's Sup Forums, the entire thing is based on wasting time. Besides, most of my friends are Physics or Math grad students. I probably wouldn't waste my time responding to you in any other outlet besides Sup Forums.

> High enough altitude
Yeah in fucking space, and the magnetic field around the planet protects use from the sun's flares. A tiny nuke isn't going to do shit.

>However, when money starts going into renewable energy,

you just dont seem to be very familiar with the technological specifics.

an energy source needs to be reliable first and foremost.

alse we DO have a clean and reliable energy source, its called nuclear power but the treehuggers dont like that one either.

Untill it actually affects our lifes we will not give a fuck,that is how humans are...