What evidence do you have of climate change being a hoax?

What evidence do you have of climate change being a hoax?

Other urls found in this thread:

dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html
daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/2014/03/have-past-ipcc-temperature.html
youtube.com/watch?v=SI5ulKiZAoE
kinetics.nsc.ru/chichinin/books/spectroscopy/Struve86.pdf
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_absorption_by_water
nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Wikileaks leaked a group of US scientists manipulating data in 04 or so. Thats when the big anti global warming started.

But what idiots dont realise is that they manipulated a trend of warming, just a bit more extreme

Its common sense that the earth has a changing climate.

Its moronic to assume humans can influence it.

So when the government started taxing people for carbon emissions I knew it was money driven bullshit "science"

dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html

>Be research group
>Need money
>Manipulate results so that the government gives you more funding
>Repeat

Its not 100 degrees out right now. Its the same as it always has been.

The weather is way different where I live

that post was abysmal.
there are thousands of people around the world experiencing climate change, and 99% of scientists around the world even non profit agree that it is indeed real.
Btw, dont call yourself right wing if youre just another climate change denying cuckservative republican.

>99% of scientists around the world even non profit agree that it is indeed real.
>99% of scientists don't want to get defunded

Climate change is real, but the IPCC models have consistently predicted more warming than reality.

The media then takes the IPCC's highest, least accurate predictions and exaggerates them further to make their stories more interesting.

Climate change is a slow-motion crisis and we likely won't see much of a temperature-driven ill effect for half a century at least.

daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/2014/03/have-past-ipcc-temperature.html

what proof do you have of climate change being real? your op pic? you know there used to be ice ages too right?

>in order to implement debt-based currencies nations had to implement income taxes as funding mechanism
>globalist want to implement world currency
>need funding mechanism
>show pic of polar bear to retards
>retards clap and give money

>Failed predictions
>common sense

I don't argue that it's a hoax so much as i argue that even if it was.. with the amount of money and resources invested in the idea, its literally too big to fail. Bureaucrats, scientists and activists rely on the climate change hype to live. They'd never allow a change in the conversation

It's an idiot question designed to promote an idiot belief system. The climate does change, but all assumptions that it caused by man are ludacris.

Scientific observation has discovered many climate changes in the past, and none involved that activities of man, therefore, it should be assumed there is a natural cause to the climate cycles before a man made cause is promoted.

the 40 years of failed predictions.

It's cold outside.

So explain what you know about what the solution is...in other words in specific steps explain how "Cap and Trade" would work.
I seriously doubt you can, and that should be a big warning.

the media and scientists thought they had a moral urgency to lie about it and now nobody trusts them, like linking individual weather events to global warming so public started pointing out when it was unusually cold.

The physics are wrong.

CO2 absorbs energy on set wavelengths.
Those wavelengths have a max possible output based on solar radiance that is absorbed and emitted by the ground/sea.
If you absorb 100% of the energy then adding more absorbing material nets no more warming because it's already being totally absorbed.
Prior to the turn of the last century their was a small amount of CO2 wavelength energy left to absorb.

As CO2 was added it warmed very slightly.
Now that we are at saturation for absorption their is no more CO2 warming possible.

~

CO2 is the output of 70% of our energy production. Energy production is the single largest sector of every economy. Taxing CO2 lets you tax the world.
It makes perfect sense to lie about science to push forward regulation that gives you control over the largest sector of the economy. Pic related; that's Noble Prize level worthy climate activism.

that the global temperature chart begins where it does is a lie of omission. it instantly moves all climatologists into the category of "huckster."
the fact that they give me a blank look when i bring it up conversationally tells me all i need to know: they've been brainwashed.
it's fucking cold as shit on earth right now, we're near the floor of global temperatures. were you ware of that?
what about the ice age? were you aware we are currently still in an ice age?
what is the expected conditions that would cause the planet to exit an ice age? (which we've been exiting for many thousands of years.)

so stop lying, issue a televised public apology, all climatologists involved /must/ resign and vow to never work in the field again, and then we can talk about your plans to ensure hucksters are de-credentialed in a much more timely fashion.
after that we can start talking about global temperatures and whether we're looking at "cc" or "acc".

>It makes perfect sense to lie about science to push forward regulation that gives you control over the largest sector of the economy
>Lies about science

I'm trying to understand the argument you think you're making, but there's so much false information that I'm not sure where to begin.

>CO2 absorbs energy on set wavelengths
Ok, sure, no harm there

>Those wavelengths have a max possible output based on solar radiance and that is absorbed and emitted by the ground/sea.
What? Are you trying to say that one wavelength can have variable energy? Or are you trying to say that the wavelength (and it's accompanying, constant energy) depends on solar radiation? The latter's true but the sun emits light across the entire electromagnetic spectrum.

>If you absorb 100% of the energy then adding more absorbing material nets no more warming
If 100% of solar radiation were absorbed by the earth's ocean, land masses and atmosphere, we would all be dead. The whole point is that under normal circumstances, a large part of the radiation is reflected/refracted back into space. HOWEVER, CO2 and other GHGs absorb some of this radiation, causing an increased retention of heat as it cannot escape the atmosphere. An increase in GHGs therefore leads to an increased heat retention.

We have never been at a point where 100% of the sun's radiation has been absorbed. If absorbing 100% of radiation by astral bodies such as the earth would be a normal occurance, we wouldn't be able to see the moon at night (as it owns its visibility to the reflection of solar radiation).

>ANYBODY WANT A COKE?

More data is collected, predictions improve.

Mass media runs every hypothesis to the extreme because extremes sell papers.

Why does this imply that the climate is not getting hotter?

Not a hoax, but an excuse for more government control of the means of production...

>If you absorb 100% of the energy then adding more absorbing material nets no more warming because it's already being totally absorbed.

Got me to respond.

But energy doesn't just get "absorbed". Where does it go after absorption?

lrn2conservation of energy.

Climate change is fucking normal. It's the global warming bullshit that was never fucking right at all. Algore is a fucking hack.
We all say the dumbass movie "Inconvient Truth" that has been debunked completely.
We should be dead by now according to the movie but we're not. It was nothing more than a scare tactic.

Because the actual data doesn't bare that out. It's all speculation and conjecture taught as fact in our schools

>What evidence do you have of climate change being a hoax?
Climate change is not a hoax.

The hoax is that we as humans can suddenly change our Co2 emissions and somehow stop it.

There have been multiple times over the life of earth when this has happened without humans. People assume that because they have lived 30 years that the earth is a constant. It is not. They cannot grasp the fact that the earth is still very tumultuous and that changes happen on time scales that they cannot comprehend.

the kikes want more of my money, and more control of my government because of it, say "its irreversible", and it's only forced on white countries (and especially not pushed on China or India)

it's the same deal with endless niggers ((((replacement migration))))), universal healthcare, basic income, negative-interest rates, fractional reserve lending, and so forth

So even if it turns out to be a hoax, or it wasn't a hoax but every scientist in the world was just wrong or something, why take the chance?

youtube.com/watch?v=SI5ulKiZAoE

rural and suburban retards told me so

It's real and the only solution is to kill every non-white and everyone not willing to live in a rural permaculture on this planet.

I'm not saying "global warming is happening XDXD" I just want to know what evidence you guys have.

Kek

This.
The earth exiting the ice age is the only thing that makes sense.

However, this doesn't mean our crops and shit aren't going to get fucked up. Humanity as a whole has been spoiled by a stable climate condition, when in fact the climate is usually anything but stable.

Climate change deniers can't produce a single argument that isn't cherry picked, the only scientists who debate whether or not it's still happening have been paid off by oil companies. Exxon has known about climate change since at least the late 70s, and have even spent hundreds of millions of dollars to raise their off shore oil rigs approximately 8 feet. Surely they wouldn't go to all that trouble and money if it was just a hoax?

>there are thousands of people around the world experiencing climate change
Thousands? Try billions.
>and 99% of scientists around the world even non profit agree that it is indeed real.
Oh, like the leaf said?
>Its common sense that the earth has a changing climate.

See? Right there. You're a fucking retard.

Go to sciencedirect, researchgate or even just to google scholar and type in "climate change".
Read peer-reviewd articles and form your own opinion; educate yourself.

Science is not decided by consensus, you fucking baby child. POLITICS is decided by consensus.

>What? Are you trying to say that one wavelength can have variable energy? Or are you trying to say that the wavelength (and it's accompanying, constant energy) depends on solar radiation?

The wavelengths are produced by the ground or sea absorbing high energy EM radiation and emitting it at a lower energy level across a broad spectrum of wavelengths.

The total output at any one wavelength is based on the input energy to the absorbing material, the type of material. This output number is fixed because the ground/sea doesn't change it's material composition to a huge degree in terms of absorption/emission. The sun's output is variable but generally within set ranges.

So the total amount of energy at wavelengths CO2 can absorb on is set and generally unchanging.

>If 100% of solar radiation were absorbed by the earth's ocean, land masses and atmosphere, we would all be dead.
Clearly the context was 100% of the radiation that CO2 can absorb, you are being intentionally stupid.

>An increase in GHGs therefore leads to an increased heat retention.
But only to the limit of energy going up and out. Once their is no energy at a wavelength escaping adding more of the gasses that absorb it doesn't cause more warming.

>But energy doesn't just get "absorbed". Where does it go after absorption?
>lrn2conservation of energy.

It causes heating, and is remitted if the energy level is high enough as a lower energy photon.

Let me make it easy, in pre 1900s time 90% of the wavelengths that CO2 absorb on were absorbed, 10% made it out to space without causing any more warming.

In 1990 100% was absorbed.

In 2020 100% was absorbed but the amount of CO2 was 50% higher than in 1990, but causes no new heating over the 1990 level.

If you tripled the amount of CO2 over today you get no more heating. Other greenhouse gasses can cause some warming, but the policy debate is only about CO2.

Anyone who watched an Inconvenient Truth and took everything seriously is a retard, the climate models used in that film were ridiculous to the max. That doesn't mean that it isn't happening, and it absolutely doesn't mean that Western civilization will suffer greatly for our arrogance on the matter. Lmao, the crop failures haven't even really started yet, and all faggots can say is "Hurrr durrrr but we're not under water yet so it's not real". That is seriously the logic of most of the climate change deniers on this board, and it is sickening. It's not really anyones fault though for not taking it seriously, humans evolved to deal with immediate and imminent threats that we can use our five senses to deal with, not the seemingly imperceptible effects of a changing climate. People will only care when they can't feed their families, and by then, it's already over. Keep memeing about having 'muh white children' though you stupid autist faggots.

the lack of evidence it isn't a hoax
also the facts there is no warming and no globe do not help to make a case for a global warming

The earth's climate does change.

The real question is if the warming per doubling of CO2 is 1 degree celsius (In this case we could add a couple degrees to the world's temperature and it would be a boon for humanity, all while burning all the fossil fuels we want).

It's possible it's as much as 3 degrees celsius though. That's too high and we would need to ration quickly.

The temperature increase since industrialization indicates it's closer than 1 degree per doubling. Source: Am infrared spectroscopist.

That a Polar Bear's latin name is Ursus maritimus

Sea or Marine Bear, they are know for being in the sea not on the Ice

increasing polar bear population

Its pretty cold here in the winter

I get it. But the thing is, forget all the science because all that is just a distraction designed for the sub-110 IQ crowd (most of pol, all of reddit).
The real masters of the universe (Goldman, JPM alum) don't care about the retarded science - they are interested in the trading market.

The supposed answer of how Cap and Trade will work is some people will sell "carbon credits" and industry will buy those credits.
The idea being a nog in Africa in his jungle will sell $100M of carbon credits to keep his land undeveloped, and that a heavy industry buyer in the west will buy. JPM has estimated the total size of the market could be $500B annually.

Now, I have no idea how old you are, but do you believe that a bunch of wallstreet traders are going to give a nigger in Africa $500B a year because people care about polar bears...its retarded on its face. This is obviously just a giant scam.

Perhaps this little red pill has been helpful?

>climate change being a hoax?
climate has changed since the formation of earth, it changes and will continue to change as long as earth exists

Geoengineering and space weather.

Thanks, I will

Thanks for the basic gestalt

Peer review for climate science has been subverted by political activism.

Which is why never get into the science argument. Let the other retards do that (like you see in this thread).
The science is purely a autistic beta-only domain. If people want to talk "muh climate change" speak only on the various financial 'solutions'.
Sometimes for fun I will become and advocate for it and look into the losers eyes as he realizes its all a scam and 'people like me' are going to buy new Ferraris with it.

>Its moronic to assume humans can influence it.
How so? About 6 billion tons of carbon are being extracted and burnt by human activity every year. The current quantity of carbon in the atmosphere is about 850 billion tons, and it's increasing by about 3 tons a year. How can you claim human activity isn't having an impact?

i thought it was global warming? used to be global cooling, now its climate change, almost like the liars are trying to keep up with the natural changes on earth....strange

Scientists also believe a dude in a dress is a woman, and the anus is a sexual organ.

>opinion
>discarded

These pics used to make me feel sad when I was about 17 before I realized polar bears swim for miles and purposely stand on ice patches to catch fish.

None. What evidence do you have of it being man made?

>The wavelengths are produced by the ground or sea absorbing high energy EM radiation and emitting it at a lower energy level across a broad spectrum of wavelengths.
First of all can we please agree that "wavelengths" are a property of EM radiation and not the radiation itself.
I would also argue that the earth and oceans reflect light rather than absorbing it and re-emitting it at a lower wavelength; absorbing light, causing electrons to move to a higher energy level and subsequently emitting light when the electron "falls" down to ground state is a property of fluorescent and phosphorescent materials, and I don't think the earth and ocean are any of those two.

>The total output at any one wavelength.
Again, what do you mean? Wavelength is a measure of frequency. Do you mean the energy of light at a certain wavelength? Or are you referring to the wavelength of light "emitted" by the sea as you mentioned earlier. You can say I'm being intentionally stupid because of the context, but if you do not clearly define the context than misconstruing is inevitable.


>Clearly the context was 100% of the radiation that CO2 can absorb, you are being intentionally stupid.
>But only to the limit of energy going up and out. Once their is no energy at a wavelength escaping adding more of the gasses that absorb it doesn't cause more warming.

This was my whole point, you say that all of the radiation is already being absorbed so a net increase in absorbent wouldn't make a difference, but the notion that 100% of radiation entering the atmosphere, reflecting off the earth's surface and travelling through the atmosphere again is absorbed, is false. There is an excess of radiation leaving the earth at any given point in time. Therefore there is always radiation that can be absorbed. Adding extra absorbent, will therefore lead to more absorption of said radiation.

>social """""scientists"""""
Not even biologists take that shit seriously.

I really don't see how any political movement could influence a global scientific effort to the degree that every peer-reviewed publication is false, but even if that were the case, for what benefit would this be done? The entire world thrives on the petroleum industry; not just fuels but for the large majority of every polymer and fine chemical you use each day. This is arguably the biggest industry in the world with the biggest reach in products, so why would a political movement put effort (and a lot, presumably) into falsifying data to try and subdue this industry?

I think climate change is real (the climate has been changing ever since there's been a climate) but how much humans contribute, if at all, is up for debate. Since weather is essentially random with dozens of factors ranging from topography to atmospheric composition to variations in the sun's energy output means it takes thousands of years for most changes in climate to be statistically significant.

>it's moronic to assume that organisms can affect their own climate and ecosystem
>Sup Forums logic in 2017

>First of all can we please agree that "wavelengths" are a property of EM radiation and not the radiation itself.
Radiation comes in two types particle radiation and EM waves. In the context of global warming radiation means EM radiation only.

>I would also argue that the earth and oceans reflect light rather than absorbing it and re-emitting it at a lower wavelength;
Then you would be wrong.

>absorbing light, causing electrons to move to a higher energy level and subsequently emitting light when the electron "falls" down to ground state is a property of fluorescent and phosphorescent materials, and I don't think the earth and ocean are any of those two.
Water absorbs EM radiation, and emits lower energy EM radiation. It just like the ground also reflects EM radiation but the energy drop on reflection does not lower it to a range that's absorbed to any important degree by atmospheric gasses.

>Again, what do you mean? Wavelength is a measure of frequency. Do you mean the energy of light at a certain wavelength? Or are you referring to the wavelength of light "emitted" by the sea as you mentioned earlier.

They mean the exact same thing. Energy of EM radiation = the wavelength of the EM radiation. This is high school physics.

>This was my whole point, you say that all of the radiation is already being absorbed so a net increase in absorbent wouldn't make a difference, but the notion that 100% of radiation entering the atmosphere, reflecting off the earth's surface and travelling through the atmosphere again is absorbed, is false.

100% of radiation that is at a wavelength that CO2 absorbs on is absorbed.

>There is an excess of radiation leaving the earth at any given point in time. Therefore there is always radiation that can be absorbed.
CO2 only absorbs at set wavelengths. If the energy level (wavelength) is outside of those set ranges it passes through it. This is why you can see visible light, even while it passes through the atmosphere.

Earth ain't a globe, it is a realm. The global warming pushed by the globalists is a scam.

You are using a lot of big boy words that you aren't ready to use yet, kiddo

He has been quite clear. I don't think you'll get it no matter how he explains it.

The constant faked data and emails that show corroboration to fake data.
Also, the fact that they've been making predictions for decades and have been completely wrong each time.

>I really don't see how any political movement could influence a global scientific effort to the degree that every peer-reviewed publication is false,
I didn't say false. I said politically motivated. If you have research that would cast doubt onto the base of climate change a paper publisher might opt to not publish your work because it would be 'unethical' to cast doubt on climate change. Your work not matter how scientifically sound might anger donators to the organization you work for and funding is critical to scientific groups.

I'm making direct reference to an actual case here.

Also we know from the ClimateGate emails that researchers are willing to "redefine what peer review means" in order to discredit scientists that had other opinions.

>but even if that were the case, for what benefit would this be done? The entire world thrives on the petroleum industry; not just fuels but for the large majority of every polymer and fine chemical you use each day. This is arguably the biggest industry in the world with the biggest reach in products, so why would a political movement put effort (and a lot, presumably) into falsifying data to try and subdue this industry?

Why are people still supporting communism when it's clearly terrible?

Because they have incomplete information, believe in unrealistic potential technological developments, because they want to engage in activism to feel good about their character, because they are simply stupid people that have been mislead.

>words have meaning

Essentially every 5 years some new scientists come up with an infalliable bit of proof that we are doing is ruining the climate.

And then 5 years later someone else proves they were wrong and it was

Until they're fucking sure what they're talking about, it's not science.

>What evidence do you have of climate change being a hoax?

A scientist told me.

>Radiation comes in two types particle radiation and EM waves. In the context of global warming radiation means EM radiation only.
Yes, and wavelength is a property of EM radiation, or are you going all the way back to the "light is a particle" debate.

>Then you would be wrong.
Thank you for providing such thoughtful evidence to your claim, I am instantly convinced.

>Water absorbs EM radiation, and emits lower energy EM radiation. It just like the ground also reflects EM radiation but the energy drop on reflection does not lower it to a range that's absorbed to any important degree by atmospheric gasses.
With the exception of black body radiation, water does not emit radiation. It absorbs radiation, which is then transferred to increases in intra-molecular motion which dissipates through the body of water. It does not have the proper electron configuration to allow excitation and relaxation to take place. Read a book (it's even free):
kinetics.nsc.ru/chichinin/books/spectroscopy/Struve86.pdf


>They mean the exact same thing. Energy of EM radiation = the wavelength of the EM radiation. This is high school physics.
No, that is not the case, the wavelength is a property that contributes to the total energy. That's why the equation is "E=(h*c)/λ" and not "E=λ", but the two are directly proportional, which I guess is what you're trying to say.

Getting to the point however, if there is a surplus of radiation travelling through the atmosphere, across the entire electromagnetic spectrum, then there also has to be a surplus of radiation with the wavelength that CO2 can absorb. Or do you think that the sun produces huge amounts of radiation except with the wavelength at which CO2 can absorb, of which it would only produce a little? Or do you think that the ocean reflects all wavelengths of light except that at which CO2 absorbs?

Yet you, who is apparently ready to use said words (how else would you judge other's capabilities of using them) refrains from using them to formulate his own arguments.

I believe it is real, but human induced climate change is a hoax

>evidence
Vostok Ice Core samples.

Ice core samples were taken below Lake Vostok in Antarctica.

Results: Increases in temperature came BEFORE increases in CO2, and were seperated by hundreds of years.

Conclusions? CO2 is not responsible for climate change. Man is not responsible for climate change.

>With the exception of black body radiation, water does not emit radiation. It absorbs radiation, which is then transferred to increases in intra-molecular motion which dissipates through the body of water. It does not have the proper electron configuration to allow excitation and relaxation to take place. Read a book (it's even free):

'Water does not emit EM radiation'
Well played troll you wasted my time.

Climate changes existed for as long as our planet exists. Climate is not something that's stops and never changes again. What's important is a rate by which it does so.
And change doesn't necessary = bad.
For example global warming will make more of my land fertile and we will be able to harvest multiple times a year. And place where i live will have weather similar to that of San Fran, which i wouldn't mind because i had my share of freezing in the winter that will last me a lifetime, during my childhood in Krasnoyarsk and my military service way above the polar circle.
I prefer to keep my mind open on this topic and don't freak out like a child.

Would you care to provide me the slightest shred of evidence that states that water does, as a consequence of excitation/relaxation, emit EM radiation. Any, shred, of evidence.

Just read through the wikipedia article for EM absorption by water.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_absorption_by_water
>As well as absorbing radiation, water vapour occasionally emits radiation in all directions, according to the Black Body Emission curve for its current temperature overlaid on the water absorption spectrum.
>Black Body Emission
>i.e. for the same reason you and I emit EM radiation

I mean I know it's only wikipedia, but then again I linked you to a whole book pertaining to the subject if you would like to investigate deeper

nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses/
Your picture looks a little wrong there desu

yeah but the earth's atmosphere weighs about 5.5 quadrillion tons, 3 billion is nothing

I believe the earth is getting warmer, but it's not a new phenomenon. It's been warming and cooling for thousands if not millions of years.

Fucking Sup Forums has become a parody

spouting dumb right wing nonsense because you feel the need to be some uber conservative instead of having your own opinions

You assholes know that humans are contributing to climate change but won't acknowledge it because you don't wanna share opinions with le leftists

oh and the earth is flat too right? pathetic.

him

ur a shit

Stop shitting up the thread, Al.

I support gay marriage and I'm somewhat pro-choice, so your point is invalid.

They switched to the term climate change because retards keep going "Global Warming isn't real because of this big blizzard"

I think I'll just save this and show it to anyone who didn't give a fuck about our last education secretary but now is flipping their shit over Betsy DeVos.

First of all, if it's so real, why does the left always try to shut down any debate on it?

Second of all, I know something's a scam when the solution to it just happens to be a big fucking tax

>Stop providing arguments that do not match up with my own opinions, let us regurgitate the same notions over and over!
Are you in fact an SJW in disguise?

>Its moronic to assume humans can influence it.

Why? Other living beings can.

>They switched to the term climate change because retards keep going "Global Warming isn't real because of this big blizzard"
They switched terms because the globe stopped warming.

>what is a ratio

not true

on the surveys they send out to universities the so-called "scientists" surveyed include social science professors, biologists, mathematicians, not just "environmental scientists"

plus on the UN questionnaire they ask a ranked question and then present it in a disingenuous way

it'll be something like
"to what degree do you think climate change is real"

-entirely human caused
-mostly human caused
-largely human caused
-equally natural & human caused
-largely natural
-mostly natural
-entirely natural

people who select anything besides "entirely natural" are listed in the survey result as simply "believers of human climate change who advocate of global carbon emission reduction" and then these stupid stats like 99% of scientists believe in anthropocentric global warming

...are shared around social media and news websites without clarifying the whole picture to create a false consensus

Predictions haven't improved though.

They are consistently wrong.

What you are saying is that the oceans have no possible effective on global warming due to atmospheric greenhouse gasses because they do not emit any non black body radiation.

>hey guys an asteroid is coming
>quick pass a tax that international banking cartel can manage
>what will that do?
>ugh...you *hate* science.

die in a leaf fire.

Straight from the emperor of mankind.

>There are likely hundreds of millions of idiots who seriously believe human industrialization has had no effect on the climate
>There are likely hundreds of millions of retards in developed countries who don't think that they're western lifestyle has any effect on natural ecosystems

The bigger picture isn't that 'muh jewish scientists are lying to me, i won't believe it', everyone knows that those people are retarded and hopeless anyway. The bigger picture is how well will a completely oil dependent western civilization fare when the global temperatures DO change a few degrees, and no body can grow food? Do you faggots seriously think that humans can just keep reproducing and consuming resources on a scale never before seen, and there won't be any consequences?

Yup, we can just burn billions of barrels of oil into the atmosphere every single year, surely there will be no consequences. Surely this is sustainable.

forgot the Chinese are at the root of all this

Doesn't matter. The Age of Aquarious will come, and you jews can't tax it away.