Is Climate Change Real?

hey Sup Forums, is global warming or climate change real? Or before answer that, what does global warming or climate change mean to you?

And if you'd be so kind:
>Age
>Political party affiliation
>Education level
>Current occupation

Other urls found in this thread:

dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html
pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1987/1987_Hansen_ha00700d.pdf
youtube.com/watch?v=Gh-DNNIUjKU
youtube.com/watch?v=0gDErDwXqhc
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Yes

>Is the climate changing?
Yes.
>Are humans major contributors to large scale change?
No.
>Are humans major contributors to changes in very specific locations (i.e. cities)?
Yes.

Here's my view on it:

I believe Global Warming under the definition of "increased temperatures of the lower atmosphere" is indeed happening.

>19
>None
>Associates
>English Teacher in Taiwan

Datamining scum can suck my globally warmed dick

what exactly do the babies want with the climate change? Is it some excuse to make more money?

Also, how is everyone's trust in the IPCC or UN? is the data they report accurate?

It's fake as fuck. It used to be global cooling, then they realized they could make money by selling global warming, then they realized that the data wasn't showing what they wanted, so they make up fake data (seriously, they do) or cherry pick data, then they called it climate change so that everything will fit their definition now.

Cold winter? Climate change
Hot summer? Climate change
No rain? Climate change
Too much rain? Climate change
Bad Hurricanes? Climate change
No Hurricanes? Climate change
Terrorism? Climate change

It's all bull shit

yeah Im 5 year old girl. Communist, PHD in global weather patterns, and I'm currently a climate scientist

>>Are humans major contributors to large scale change?
>No.

Who else is shoving carbon into the atmosphere? We are impacting it when the levels go up each year. The earth has to be able to do something with the carbon. The left over sits and collects for next year. Repeat.

The Earth hasn't had this much carbon in the atmosphere since the last mass extinction.

no. the chinese invented the idea to cuck other countries

google link shortner: F8I532

Page 57's chart will explain the RCP models. Which one do you guys think is the real one?

There's an industry out there that's been growing for the last 10 years. There's definitely money to be made right now.


Any reason why you believe this?

what If I told you that there's no real way to know for sure what the temperature was past 1880?

>Does the climate change?
Yes

>Is the global scam know as "Global Warming" that is used to force globalist politics and economic policies real?
Yes

"Global Warming" is the current incarnation of a secular god/meme used to cause fear and panic to enact political and economic change.

-----------------

>Age
30's

>Political party affiliation
None

>Education level
College, Degree in Computer Science

>Current occupation
IT and Writer

Yes climate changes.
Maybe humans influence it.
No it won't be the end of the world even if we do change it. The worst that will ever possibly happen is the end of civilization as we know it.

If you're worried about the end of civilization as we know it then the correct course of action is to improve the adaptability of our civilization so that it can survive climate change regardless of what caused it to change whether it be humans, nature, or meteorites.

Any evidence of this? There are institutions all over the world, academic and corporate who's research all show the same thing

We're currently at 400ppm in the arctic, which is less than 1% of the atmosphere. It's still a microscopic amount of carbon.

Check out the NASA temperature scans, seems like they're actually warming to me. The data is also backed up by several instutions in Japan, China, EU countries etc.

Your opinion at face value doesn't hold much, any evidence to support your opinion?

>Check out the NASA temperature scans

Cool, yeah I'll check them out and I'll also check the NASA temperature scans from the 1800's.

>Who else is shoving carbon into the atmosphere?
Basically, everything else besides trees and algae, releasing almost 800 gigatons of CO2 per year.
Even if you factor in human's marginal effect on the balance of CO2, CO2 ppm has a marginal effect on climate change. Both observed and hypothetical values for the correlation between CO2 ppm and change in temperature vastly underestimate global observed changes.
>The earth has to be able to do something with the carbon. The left over sits and collects for next year.
The leftover carbon fuels the growth of carbon-absorbing lifeforms and our output has not sent this process into overdrive.

Also see

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

Here you go

>does the earths temperature range change
Yes
>Is it the classic liberal fairy of captain planets enemies LITERALLY KILL THE PLANET, ARE YOU ANTI SCIENCE BRO!?!
No.

It's fucking nothing but a politicized tool. Climate science is now tainted with politics, and they can never be untangled.

>23
>rethuglican drumpfkin
>HS grad/trade skills
>Thermal/UV laser imagesetter sales and service for a small indie company.

Same could be said to the "Global Warming" zealots.

Other than charts made in Microsoft Excel the only proof you provide is your word that "Global Warming" statistics are something other than a globalist scam.

The burden of proof is on you to push your agenda. You are like a Christian asking an Atheist to prove that God isn't real. It is not my job to prove or disprove your agenda.

Until I see hard proof that "Global Warming" is real as is being pushed you will still be the cucks running around looking for converts to your new "religion"

I've aided with some research in developing a better equation to model the relationship between CO2 and global temperature change and came to the conclusion that there are a number of other factors which humans have little control over that cause the bulk of the effects that we see.
See also The development of cities which produce an immense amount of localized heat have had major impacts (5 to 10 degrees max increase) on weather in and around them, but in relation to the whole of the Earth, their effects are negligible.

>hey Sup Forums, is global warming or climate change real?

no

>And if you'd be so kind:

no
>>Age

no
>>Political party affiliation

no
>>Education level

no

>>Current occupation
no

SLIDE IT

If you're concerned with gases in the air you should be much more concerned with methane than with CO2.

Humans account for 13 gt in one day and that's just for breathing. Doubt 800/yr is correct. mind if you source that?

Who said I'm pushing an agenda? I'm asking if you have a reason to believe global warming isn't real when there's data available to all (google maps, nasa maps, ipcc, epa, un, who) all telling the same story. Are the few stories about potential corruption enough to dissuade you?

Doubt 5 - 10 degrees, that's way to high even for RCP 8.5 climate models.

Just methane? What about Sulfur dioxide, nitroxide and other GHG?

I'm unsure what you're trying to say.

>I'm unsure what you're trying to say.

NOAA has been manipulating their data for the last decade or so, to make it appear that the past was cooler than it really was, creating a fake warming trend, that would seem real.

Humans have been recording surface temperatures since 1880. NASA simply archives this data.

What about the other institutions around the world whose data matches NOAA's current data?

Also, where are those two graphs from? I can't find source on those.

>what If I told you that there's no real way to know for sure what the temperature was past 1880?
This is an interesting claim because the thermoscope and the barometer were invented in the 17th century. Granted they weren't used rigorously until later in the 18th century with the Age of Enlightenment in full swing and intellectual societies well established. 1880 is a bit inaccurate. Currently, we have records of daily local weather patterns in multiple locations from around 1760.
I'm not as well-versed on the accuracy of retroactive analysis of weather data, but weather is certainly an understudied avenue in history.

>Just methane? What about Sulfur dioxide, nitroxide and other GHG?
Kinda my point, as far as green house gases are concerned CO2 is bottom barrel and the most unrealistic one to actually regulate. So of course that's the one activists are going to be the most hysterical about and the one they're going to talk about and try to regulate.

You see, where it becomes a problem is when we used to use fairly inaccurate thermometers at a few set locations to gather temps, we are now using satellites to accurately scan every square mile of earth, the data isn't the same. Just like how we try to guess temperatures of the past by looking at co2 in bubbles in the ice. It's fucking absurd.

Yes. Caused by humans? Not 100%.

NASA temp data

if you compare temp data of specific points from 20 years ago to what NASA says they are now, they have changed

People don't realize that temperature data is subjective, its not scientists recording down what a thermometer reads. They take that reading and then plug it into subjective equations to fiddle fuck with the data so it paints a picture that fits their narrative.

There aren't enough temp data stations over the planet to get anywhere near a good idea of whats going on, so they use equations and subjective interpretation to estimate what virtual temp stations would record.

There is so much leeway in climate science data collecting its literally all garbage.

Not that it matters anyways, because 100 years of climate data is completely statistically insignificant in predicting anything about our environment or atmosphere.
And even if it did, there was almost identical rise over run from about 1900-1940 as the last 50 years which climate scientists have basically hedged their bets on.

Answer me this question.

When did man made global warming begin? Give me a specific year or decade

It's real, humans have some impact, and the vast majority of alternative energy (solar, nuclear, etc.) is more sustainable and a better driver of tech than shitty coal plants or hydrocarbon based fuels in general.

I'd be perfectly fine even if there was no global warming with weening off of gasoline, so I don't have to see gas prices jump every time a refinery has trouble or there is a problem in the Middle East. Having a completely sustained national grid would be nice.

Why do I believe it is real? There is a viable mechanism (CO2, Methane, and H20 vapor all trap energy in our atmostphere due to IR absorption patterns that are well studied, even by undergrad chemistry students) and plenty of ice core samples and modern measurements to track changes.

>28, None, but somewhere between a T.R. and FDR progressive, 3rd year of med school, medical student

>Who said I'm pushing an agenda? I'm asking if you have a reason to believe global warming isn't real when there's data available to all (google maps, nasa maps, ipcc, epa, un, who) all telling the same story. Are the few stories about potential corruption enough to dissuade you?

This is my point. If I believe, as I do, that "Global Warming" is a scam disconnected from any changes in the climate why would you ask me to prove their agenda is right or wrong.

Again, you are asking someone who believes that "Global Warming" is an made up scare tactic to push agenda to argue on your made up grounds and "facts".

The burden of proof is on the "Global Warming" pushers to provide evidence and no spreadsheets typed up in Excel with "data" from "scientist" is not enough to convince me to change anything.

Finally, I will state the analogy once more. Having a Christian ask an Atheist to prove or disprove God is the same as asking someone who believes this is a scam backed by scam stats to push an agenda to argue with scam "data".

In other words, you are not going to be able to fool people with charts and printouts.

>But muh institutions and their state funded studies

Not going to cut it.

Is CNN finally polling people other than liberals for once?

If I recall correctly, the IPCC's 4th report in 2007 detailed those figures.
>Humans account for 13 gt in one day and that's just for breathing
Can you source that for me?

No.

(((They))) mine data from places like Sup Forums all the time but it never fits the (((agenda))) so they mark it up as anomalies.

>the vast majority of alternative energy (solar, nuclear, etc.) is more sustainable and a better driver of tech than shitty coal plants or hydrocarbon based fuels in general.

Bitch, are you fucking stupid? Do you know how much energy is created using "shitty coal and oil"? Pic related is how much shit we would need to produce to keep up with hydrocarbon fuels.

Can you imagine the toxicity of putting solar panels on 250,000 roofs a day for 50 years??? That would fucking destroy the planet. You're stupid

One correction. Nuclear is good. Nuclear is the way of the future, but too many idiots have been memed into thinking it's evil because Mr. Burns on Simpsons is evil.

>is global warming or climate change real?
No

Which activists? I haven't mentioned anything about trying to regulate CO2 emissions.

Humans have always had a way of measuring temperature, but nothing was well kept until 1880. Records from 1760 reported by certain sources are spotty at best, and the rest are filled in with "accurate guesses" based on the amount of carbon found in the arctic. Therefore, my point stands.

Oh but all the evidence to the contrary: pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1987/1987_Hansen_ha00700d.pdf

Check out page three, there's definitely some valid data left over from 1880. Also the reason they measure a couple of "co2 bubbles in the ice" is because it's the furthest away from human civilization. If we measured co2 levels in the city, a change in a bus line would affect the data.

First off, the graph of yours spans back 600 million years. Is it not acceptable to change your estimations after learning new things?

Second off, what are the equations that "fiddle fuck with the data"?

And since you're skeptical, what method of data collection would you deem as fair?

"Man made global warming" is a term defined differently by every institution on earth. Personally, I define it as "Increased temperatures of the lower atmosphere due to human activities" That being said, around the time humans started making fossil fuels their main source of energy (1880 - 1890
) is when "human caused global warming began"

>T.R. and FDR progressive
I like it, the sweet heart of the democratic party's policies.

Nah, just tired of all the bullshit on Sup Forums so I thought I'd stir the pot with an issue I think is interesting

Nah, I think this is some liberal shit stain who is getting his bachelors in journalism who is probably going to use this to slander Sup Forums. Liberals are too retarded to realize that Sup Forums is mostly satire. Gonna use this poll anyway. Sad as shit nigga.

Fair enough of a point. Then can I ask you what can someone do to prove to you that Global Warming is real? Is there any way?

>Doubt 5 - 10 degrees, that's way to high even for RCP 8.5 climate models.
That seems to be the average change when looking at historic records in open areas that have become cities in the past 300 years. The theoretical RCP 8.5 model is based on the CM3 Coupled Physical Model which is a whole Earth analysis and has nothing to do with temperature change in a specific location.

>comparing apples to oranges

I didn't say more productive, I said sustainable.

Also, hydro and nuclear is the way to go to catch up, solar is a good supplement. Also, solar roofs are not the drivers of solar power.

Depending on what breakthroughs are made (if we ever break 15% efficiency with organic cells, for example, it would be dirt cheap) it can change rapidly too. Coal and oil are the best they are going to be.

>(1880 - 1890
>) is when "human caused global warming began"

Then do you not find it odd than Global cooling was the fear in the 70's? Don't you think they would've been able to see this supposed warming trend that had been happening for nearly 1 century?

>there's definitely some valid data left over from 1880

But do you not see how there's a problem with that? They're using data that isn't even comparable. If they used the exact same thermometers now as they did then, the data would be useable. But this is like saying "well, my mom felt my forehead and said my temperature is 99 degrees" but then taking a thermometer and seeing that infact, she was off by a half degree.

What's toxic about solar panels?

not here to do your sociology homework

reported

real
40
independent
college graduate
audio engineer/music producer

When did I say I was even liberal to begin with?

Just double checked. Yes you're right, 5 - 10 degrees is RCP8.5 bounds in 100 - 300 years. I haven't checked out CM3 yet.

>Fair enough of a point. Then can I ask you what can someone do to prove to you that Global Warming is real? Is there any way?

Unfortunately, the "system" has failed too many times to provide sound information relating to a large swath of political issues. I find "Global Warming" to be an Al Gore pet project turn Liberal wet dream and trusting anything around the topic is never going to happen. No person can provide enough proof for me to accept the agenda.

If I see the effects of climate change myself I will begin to accept the potential that this is more than natural fluctuations. Pictures from Google Maps and stories on CNN will only further my belief that "Global Warming" is a scam.

At this point my own eyes will be the judge on climate change and/or "Global Warming".

Actually I was just sick of Sup Forums's usual autism and thought I'd engage people for once. But alright man, whatever you need to do to feel better about yourself.

>nothing was well kept until 1880. Records from 1760 reported by certain sources are spotty at best, and the rest are filled in with "accurate guesses" based on the amount of carbon found in the arctic
This has nothing to do with estimating carbon in the Arctic unless we are referring to pre 1760s temperature estimates. I am just pointing out that we have detailed measurements of temperature, barometric pressure, and general observations, three times daily in some cases, alongside journals of intellectual men in the late 1700s who focused their lives on the cataloging of this information. My point is a minor point which puts the data about a century before 1880.
I am very skeptical of methods of temperature estimation through carbon analysis in the arctic but am not qualified enough to speak scientifically on its merits.

>what If I told you that there's no real way to know for sure what the temperature was past 1880?

You'd be pretty wrong.

30
Democrat
Masters in Management Information Systems
IT Manager

>Which activists? I haven't mentioned anything about trying to regulate CO2 emissions.

The ones who make climate change out to be 'a definite change in Earth's temperature because of CO2 emissions' of course. Basically every mainstream climate change supporter.

>Other than charts made in Microsoft Excel the only proof you provide is your word that "Global Warming" statistics are something other than a globalist scam.

And peer-reviewed research conducted by Climatologists, as well as resounding consensus from each national academy of science.

But nah Sup Forums "scientists" using WUWT's blog as a resource are who we should listen to.

> 32
> Democrat
> University & doctorat
> Teacher

'Global warming' is a myth/scam used for political purposes.
Climate change would be a potential reality considering that, after the industrial era, we've done more damage to the ecosystem than all the years before that combined. If we continued to disrupt the ecosystem, we could potentially cause unknown effects that would be necessary to restore the balance (for example an Ice Age). Our earth, however, is not as fragile as many think and it can repair itself much easier (for example see recent Ozone layer observations).

>hey Sup Forums, is global warming or climate change real?
It was, but solar panels got cheaper and the free market fixed it.
>Or before answer that, what does global warming or climate change mean to you?
Not a whole lot.
>Age
27
>Political party affiliation
Lolbertarian
>Education level
9th grade
>Current occupation
Wat

You bring up a good point. I don't know enough about global cooling fear in the 70s. Do you think because of this, there's no way global warming is real?

As for your second point I'd point out

Climate change is real
The question is if human are causing it
If we aren't, nothing we can really do about it
If we are, nothing we can really do about it, because China and India will still pump shit into the air
We're fucked either way if it keeps going up

>(((peer-reviewed research conducted by Climatologists)))

Wew lad... stop sucking the kike cock faggot.

>da jooooz

You're a literal retard.

It would make sense that if one doesn't have trust in mainstream sources, they would seek alternatives. But yeah the validity of their conclusions from those sources are questionable at best.

Fuck off both of you. Take your shit posts to the other climate change threads.

Says the faggot buying into and protecting their scam.

>70
>Republican
>Wharton School of Finance.
>POTUS

Climate change is a load of you know what.

Maybe you should investigate their claims and find the faults in their research. There are many that break their argument, but ad hominem attacks don't do anything to help your cause.

of course its real you goddamn fool
>34
>independent
>masters in sociology
>head chef, wendy's

I used to beleive in climate change. Ten years ago. None of the predictions came true. Realized it was a scam. Got tired of being a rube for the democrats. Cap and trade, carbon sequestration, it's all a racket.

...

>then they realized that the data wasn't showing what they wanted, so they make up fake data (seriously, they do) or cherry pick data
Regarding that, this video was interesting:
youtube.com/watch?v=Gh-DNNIUjKU

> find the faults in their research

The average human does not have the resources nor the time nor the ability to conduct their own researches that will debate those in question.

What they have the capacity to do, however, is 'pattern recognition'. Once they realize the dishonesty in the methods that certain people use, it doesn't matter who these people are or what they stand for, they simply cannot be trusted anymore even if they tell you the sun is white.

As for your ad hominem fallacy claim, appeal to authority is just as bad.

>18
>left
>uni
>film maker
its real. but it shouldnt be a priority when you cant do shit about china and india fucking up the planet with their filth

Like the boy who cried wolf. So like I asked before, what is something that could convince you?

>Maybe you should investigate their claims and find the faults in their research. There are many that break their argument, but ad hominem attacks don't do anything to help your cause.

You people are insane.

Again, you are asking me to disprove a scam. You are asking an Atheist to disprove a Christians god exist.

The burden in on the pushers of the agenda to provide proof and not those who disbelieve to disprove the agenda.

Going into a data war with people who are fabricating evidence to push what I believe to be an agenda/scam is insane.


>Believe my scam because my data agrees with my argument.
No
>Disprove my data!
No. Prove to me your data is not just "convenient truth" for you to use as a straw man.
>muh scientist and government funding
Nah. Take your weapons of mass destruction and shove it up your ass.
>You will die when the climate changes!!
Nope.
>We will forcefully tax and regulate what you will not believe in.
2016 election
>We will scream and yell in the streets about how you hate the Earth
Have fun getting gassed by the police

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

The chemical process they go through to make them, and the ore they have to mine is toxic

>You bring up a good point. I don't know enough about global cooling fear in the 70s. Do you think because of this, there's no way global warming is real?

Im saying that the same group of people saying global cooling was happening in the 70's are now telling us there has been global warming since the 1800's. Somebody has to be wrong if both of them are looking at the same data, and why do you think they won't be proven wrong again?

Thank you, I'll start watching this

This Changes Everything: Capital vs. The Climate

Yes

>he doesn't know about water vapor

It's easy to hit a tipping point where the Earth can't correct as easily. If it gets hotter, BY DEFINITION there is greater energy in the system.

If there is more energy, the odds of water entering a gaseous state increase. If more water is water vapor, it ends up in the atmosphere. If it ends up there, it acts as a greenhouse gas.

We need some greenhouse gases, obviously. Too much, and you turn into Venus (which is far hotter than it should be at that distance/orbit because of the atmosphere it has). Where we are now, the tipping point hasn't happened yet. No one knows exactly when it will happen... but it's basic chemistry and physics. The more energy we trap here, the worse it gets.

There is no mechanism to prevent runaway from released gases due to increased heat (tundra trapped gases, water vapor, etc.)

DATA MINE THREAD

DO NOT REPLY

>clouds trap heat from the sun

OK kid

They can't mine data if you give them bad data

tee hee!!!

>he doesn't know about the sulphate aerosols and volcanic eruptions that lowered IR absorption from the 1940s to 1970s

Different types of pollution do different things. Sulphate aerosols have a much more potent effect, but clear quickly and cause acid rain. We stopped that type of pollution, but CO2 emissions continued the entire time.

Dropping red pills over here boss.

I offer no appeal to authority and furthermore disagree with the conclusions reached by a large portion of the peer-reviewed research by Climatologists.
>The average human does not have the resources nor the time nor the ability to conduct their own researches that will debate those in question.
Fair enough, but they can talk to others doing research in that field to better understand how things work.

I disagree with the conclusions reached by a large portion of the peer-reviewed research by Climatologists, and have conducted my own research on that subject. I am asking you to disprove a scam because that is how easy it is to disprove it. If someone makes an assertion that is asinine then you should counter it with logic and evidence.
>The burden in on the pushers of the agenda to provide proof and not those who disbelieve to disprove the agenda.
They have provided data. This data, I believe is false and can explain the sources of error which changed their results. They don't need to provide proof to be rebutted they just need to provide something and then it is your turn to explain how foolish they are.
>Going into a data war with people who are fabricating evidence to push what I believe to be an agenda/scam is insane.
You bring us a good point here, but I've seen no evidence of widespread deliberate data fabrication.

Even though I came to the same conclusions as you, you stuck your fingers in your ears and shouted at me for believing in the honest debate of information.

I've established your mind cannot be changed unless you see immediate effects and I respect that. Don't group me with this guy.

... I think you missed his point.

... I also think you missed his and I would hope you're trolling. Water vapor actually does trap heat.

quite an ironic action there, no?

And I appreciate it as always

Hysteria
youtube.com/watch?v=0gDErDwXqhc

40
Registered Democrat
B.S. Environmental Science
Software Developer

While Carbon dioxide is great for plants, I would counter saying that increased GHG in the air would increase temperatures, resulting in droughts.

>clouds = water vapor

Nah man, that's dust + water vapor condensing on the particles, it's no longer water vapor.

Have fun in 4th grade though, they should teach you the water cycle pretty soon.

On an unrelated note, you comment in an extremely offensive manner. It's even worse than name calling.

Must be the med student blossoming narcissism that gets me.

I was more on the point that the Earth would "fix itself" easily.

There are positive feedback loops in the world.

>computer science


AHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHAHHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHA

Once again, I will not fight on your grounds. You will have to come to me and prove your agenda. Asking me to dispute your "data" is a fool's errand.

Clearly you have drank the cool aid and that is fine. I have not and will not.

All the scientist you need to pile into a lecture hall and put their worthless names signed next to your agenda is nice to you and your peers but means nothing to me.

ONCE AGAIN, having your priest... I mean scientist state that they believe the data they agree upon is "truth" is never going to change a thing. YOU HAVE TOO MUCH POLITICS IN YOUR SCIENCE!!!

My best advise is to wait a few generations and try again. Next time do not have crooked politicians like Al Gore and liberal university professors backed by the (((MSM))) be your only "proof" of your secular god.

Nah, I had that all beat out of me in practice by rotations and the military. Cockiness is for surgeons.

Anyway, can't see how it's offensive beyond being a response to your claim that it's a myth/scam. Hell, even without considering it to be a Sup Forums post.

Most of my relatives from Finland hate to even talk to strangers on the street though, is it just a confrontation thing you dislike? (genuinely curious)

the point is all the glorious scientific minds were wrong, in unison.
this is a huge complicated topic obviously
in brief
there are a thousand ways that the activities of mankind are negatively affecting the environment, and CO2 isn't one of them
an increase in CO2 would be good, period.
50 000 years from now we will be in an ice age and most of the species on this planet today will die. Just like many times before
Change is the only constant
Things that dont change are dead
The earth is ALWAYS getting colder, or getting hotter, ALWAYS. The climate always changes, climate change is a wishy-washy term replace global warming which had become laughable.
The sun is infinitely more influential on our climate than modern science has reckoned yet, and completely ignored as though our planet was in it`s own little bubble.
No matter what the supposed problem, taxes are always the solution according to our business men turned political leaders.

What?

Networking and the whole Cisco/Microsoft/Linux/A+ track. I support about 200 business IT needs (along with everyone else who works at the company).

Should I have gone to a homosexual filled liberal college and spend 200K on a dyke studies degree and vote Bernie to forgive my debt.

Fuck off faggot.

As a grad student studying climatology, I find it horrifying how anyone can deny the effects of climate change. The effects of this process on atmospheric, soil, and macroscopic trends regarding extinction and it's accelerating rate all point to humans. We need to do something about this.