REDPILL A TRUMP SUPPORTER ON CLIMATE CHANGE POL.
I havent been able to get a dead set idea on whether this shit is legitimate or not. Liberal propaganda has had me thinkin big oil has actually been the ones spreading the propaganda against it.
The main argument i come across with liberals these days is that trump does not believe in it.
What is this boards ultimate opinion on the issue.?
Other urls found in this thread:
climatedepot.com
abc.net.au
express.co.uk
youtube.com
youtu.be
youtube.com
twitter.com
that bear just cant find food cuz john west stole all his fish
You have been visited by the Cardiobear of Bad Gains
You will lose all of your gains unless you post "Shoo Shoo Skelebear" in this thread
Nobody denies climate change
It's the fact china and India produce 80% of the world's emissions and regulating our business does shit to fix anything.
with climate deniers in charge of the most powerful country on earth, the world will continue to sleepwalk towards disaster
polarbear numbers are on an alltime high you idiot
I used this picture as a propaganda peice that has been used by ((them))
attacking a picture instead of the facts. fucking mongoloid shitposter
shoo shoo skelebear
That's what all bears look like right after hibernation.
its not bullshit
pretty much every scientist in the damn world agrees that humans are having a damaging impact on earths environment.
even if the temperature of earths atmosphere is bullshit (i dont know which way is true, and anyone here who suggests they do is full of shit. no legit masters degree atmospheric scientists browse Sup Forums), theres still numerous ways that we are destroying earths climate. soil erosion, overgrazing, etc... we are fucked
The main argument for global warming is.
>we know co2 levels are on the rise
>it's getting hotter
>wow what a coincidence
Most "graphs" you will find on the subject only go back as far as the 1800's. In general, it's pretty much impossible to know what the interaction between industry and climate is because we have such little understanding of what's happening on a global scale. It IS however impossible to reduce the amount of co2 being released by purchasing a different refrigerator and complaining online.
look at it this way
> anti climate change lobby
all carbon based fuels, an unbelievable amount of wealth
> pro climate change lobby
?
who's winning globally? pro climate change lobby. So if they can beat all the resources of the anti-lobby, and they don't really have any comparable base of resources, does it seem reasonable to assume that their arguments might just straight up be better?
shooo shoo skelebear
The problem is they kept moving the goal post. They slid "Climate change" quietly in place and preaches it like its proven science when CO2 rise no longer coincides with global mean ( Useless value anyways, It's impossible to know the absolute average of an entire planet's atmosphere with any precision) The issue as well is that they use even older proxy data to justify the trend of past and modern averages. The whole science is dodgy as fuck.
Fact is it's impossible to prove the theory of Climate Change because climate ALWAYS changes. The Theory doesn't tell you what causes climate change. Just that CO2 is bad and we're BAD!
>Intergovernmental Panel on CLIMATE CHANGE >1988
>UN Framework Convention on CLIMATE CHANGE
>1992
>pretty much every scientist in the damn world agrees
That is a fallacy, called appeal to authority. It is not very convincing. Why? Every scientist agreed in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an apocalyptic ice age.
Dude stop you don't get it do you well look I have a fisheye and a weather balloon when the camera looks toward the horizon the earth is flat. Clouds aren't real, Chem trails are real but fracking isn't dangerous. I inhale diesel fumes
Nobody said the IPCC was an Institution BASED around a single theory. That would only expose them for being unscientific. (arriving with a pre-conclusion). the IPCC was tasked in climate RESEARCH and the theory was still called GLOBAL WARMING. For fuck sakes I even remembered High school science where they explicitly called the theory Global Warming.
they didn't
during that period there were like 7 peer-reviewed papers that even raised it as a hypothetical possibility
even at that time, the overwhelming majority of peer reviewed articles agreed that as GHG concentrations rise, global avg temperature will increase
Still WRONG.
Science is not a democracy. Only takes 1 correct person to destroy the rest.
Shooo shooo skelibeer.
Climate change is real and all the skeptics are science illiterate, propogating baseless conspiracy theories (which must be distinguished from theories with actual evidence) or paid shills of the oil industry which stands to lose billions here. Also that polar bear is starving because polar bear population is at a record high due to bans on hunting.
That's because there were memos going around about global warming as early as the 80's among Oil exec offices... Oil fumes are bad for you to breathe believe it or not. I personally can smell gas fumes that hit me even when I am inside and there is an open window and a truck goes by.
Look at China, is that fucking normal to you? Japan? Are we literally being left behind here???
The science is pretty settled on the mechanism, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it traps more heat from the sun and reflects it back to earth.
Humans have increased the CO2 output. And so contribute to an increased temperature. That's not very controversial, most people with a brain agree up to this point.
However there's no solid evidence that such actions will lead to catastrophic runaway global warming that will fuck the earth. Computer models that predict this aren't real science.
it's either intellectual dishonesty or outright ignorance to claim they there's no big sponsors of the pro-climate change lobby.
seriously, 2 minutes of googling will clear that up for you. stop posting this lie, regardless of whether AGW is real or not.
Ps. one can still argue whether its caused by humans but the warming is undeniable and the idea that all scientists are part of a giant conspiracy is ridiculous, ive got a cousin doing climate research and I have hard time believing he is being paid off by big solar or whatever.
Even if you bought into it hook, line, and sinker, they have no idea what it would actually take to address the problem. Lower emissions by how much? Even if we lowered them to 0 the climate is still going to change one way or the other because it's always changing. How much time could we possibly buy? Is it even worth trying, or would we ultimately have to find an alternate solution anyway? They have no answers for this. "Just do it, trust us. Just buy these technologies I definitely have zero personal stake in."
There is truth the to the argument, but most 'pro-environment' laws do little to help, instead doing more towards choking out small/middle businesses that don't have enough lawyers to mimize the impact of such laws on their earnings.
It is real and it is manmade.
>skipping leg day
kek
>completely missing the point on both of those
fact is, people used the term climate change well before today and climate scientists have always been very clear about the difference of the terms "global warming" and "climate change".
on the second one, the poster I was responding to made that claim that during the 1970s every scientist agreed the Earth was heading for a new ice age. Pointing out that this is completely false is not a fallacy
Of course climate change is real. The kind of people that deny it are the same kinds of people that argue the earth is flat when there's overwhelming evidence supporting the contrary.
it's 40 degrees outside right now, in 5 months it will be 80 degrees, that is a 100% increase in just 5 months! At this rate, human beings will not be able to survive another year because it will be 170 degrees outside so we have to do something about it now so that doesn't happen.
This.
Even if the US completely stopped using fossil fuel and and reverted to 3rd world living standards (which literally nobody is willing to do) it would barely make a dent in emissions whilst India and China are chugging away, and anyone who thinks people in the developing world countries care more about some polar bears or about a 10cm rise in sea levels over 50 years, than they do about their own livelihood and children's welfare is delusional.
>The science is pretty settled on the mechanism, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it traps more heat from the sun and reflects it back to earth.
IR radiative feed back forcing is a bit dodgy. Satellites have shown all long wave IR escapes into space. CO2 did very little to reflect it back on earth. Since CO2 reflects IR in all direction so the earth gets even LESS of this feedback. CO2 being an effective GHG in it's current concentration and altitude is really weak in reality. Water and Methane still stronger by magnitudes.
...
First of all there is no warming. At all.
climatedepot.com
Second. Increasing CO2 is the best thing humanity ever did to the planet. Earth is getting greener by the minute.
abc.net.au
And your stupid polar bears are multiplying like rabbids
express.co.uk
Does anyone have the stats on the top nations responsible for the most emissions? Wiki is out of date by almost 10 years
It's a communist hoax to implement taxes on the air we breathe and expropriate private land/prevent industrialization/competition of smaller countries.. The planets climate fluctuates wildy over many millenia naturally, we can not ever hope to get an accurate dataset on such lengths of time. Their "calculations" are based on 100 years of temperature collecting, it's absurd and, frankly, insulting to anybody with a modicum of intellect. Hence the lefties cultlike belief in it. Really though, you just have to take 1 quick look at who is pushing this and it should be clear.
>vid very related
youtube.com
>we can't stop it by ourselves
>therefore let's do nothing and sabotage all international climate conferences
There's hope for some of you yet
Yes it is real and has been real for billions of years. Even if the human race consisted of a few tribes of hunter gatherers and the industrial revolution never happened climate would STILL be changing.
>Nobody denies climate change
I deny humans have a major part in it.
China and India do cause a fuckton of pollution though, that shit needs to stop.
now post a Holocene temperature reconstruction as it appears in an actual scientific article
>the fallacious "what if we make a better world for nothing" argument
...
Winters are getting warmer and warmer here.
Right and it still faces many problems as a theory because we can't even reliably predict it. Nor make meaningful simulations that even back scatter. The science is nothing more than a way to control productivity since CO2 is such an easy target. Climate Change is very much a reality of having a spinning planet and an atmosphere. But the mechanisms behind the theory are not very sound to me. The current data we have and the limited measurements of the past makes this theory impossible to truly validate making it a perfect political tool.
China is moving towards a service market. Still sucking
very smol
Climate change is real. Humans having any noticeable effect on it is not.
that polar bear looks weak af
Aren't we still technically in an ice age? I remember reading somewhere that ice age = you have ice on both caps.
What about the fact that most of the pollution comes from factories that spit out shit for west to consume though?
And China is actually doing something to the situation
...
>But the mechanisms behind the theory are not very sound to me.
like what? give a specific example we can talk about?
Earth is moving further from the sun slightly every year. Moon is also moving away from us ever so slightly.
Expect small yet incremental changes to climate
Hopefully we don't get hit by a giant X-ray beam from a Quasar or something... Space is scary.
shoo shoo skelebear
Well, the proposed UN solution is to just tax white countries, and only white countries for some vague goal of economic redistribution that may or may not help with emissions at all. There was also the recent NOAA whistle blower who revealed that some researchers purposefully manipulate their data to show a more dire situation than what is really happening in order to affect global environmental policy, thus securing even more funding. It's starting to look like nothing more than a fuckhuge racket.
Shoo Shoo Skelebear
No they're not, stop using Steven Crowder's shitty blog as a source. Also, climate change isnt modeled around polar bear population, its modeled on a plethora of research on temperature records, atmospheric data, etc. And the results confirm anthropomorphic climate change is happening.
shoo shoo skelebear
Shoo shoo skelebear
>like what? give a specific example we can talk about?
My concern is how they come up with these simulations that uses such few data points to generate. A planet has a near infinite number of variables that renders it impossible. The IPCC even says its a Coupled Non Linear chaotic system. (hence impossible). The attempt to even model the earth's atmosphere is doomed to failure from the start.
>who's winning globally? pro climate change lobby. So if they can beat all the resources of the anti-lobby, and they don't really have any comparable base of resources, does it seem reasonable to assume that their arguments might just straight up be better?
I'm inclined to believe it's real however much of the climate change industry is just as crooked, it's an easy source of government money and littered with scams. Then you have carbon trading which doesn't seem so bad but then you get dubious exchange markets derivatives and outright fraud.
Other issues are western factories closing only to have their work sent to even worse polluting factories in other countries.
The reality is probably somewhere in the middle of the two sides and it's an issue but it's also being exploited to sell products that have little impact overall.
Lol fuck off, India's per capita consumption is way lower than any western country.
>No they're not, stop using Steven Crowder's shitty blog as a source. Also, climate change isnt modeled around polar bear population, its modeled on a plethora of research on temperature records, atmospheric data, etc. And the results confirm anthropomorphic climate change is happening.
Nope not happening. Human emissions of CO2 is tiny fraction that's almost identical to NOISE when compared to natural sources of CO2. One Volcanic eruption dumps more CO2 than all of humanity combined. anthropomorphic climate change is entirely a fallacy Correlation does not equate Causation.
>consumption
Latest numbers show that only ~65% of scientists agree that humans are a main cause.
Climate change is still entirely based on ARBITRARY values. What is the
1) Standard mean temperature this planet should be in.
2) When did this (standard temperature) happen for any meaningful length of time.
3) What is the correct number of years to build a trend and WHY?
4) When are these scientist going to get real jobs instead of wasting money for Green Lobbyists?
>One Volcanic eruption dumps more CO2 than all of humanity combined.
Not true
I thought the number was 97%™, starting the backtracking are you?
Well, it's not like it matters, 97% of scientists agreed the sun orbited the earth at one point.
Shoo shoo skelebear.
that's not a mechanism, is it?
the complexity of earth's climate is the reason why we even use models (models are an approximation of reality, by definition) and climatologists are well aware of the spatial and temporal resolutions of the models that they use and what part of the climate system they recover most accurately. For example, it's well known to climatologists that the tropics are notoriously hard to model while higher latitudes are recovered very accurately in most models. So climatologists spent all their time looking at the uncertainty of their model outputs and you wont impress any of them by pointing this out to them.
But there is another thing to be said about this.
Let's disregard for a moment what I said and take your argument at face value.
We have a "non-linear chaotic system with a near infinite number of variables" and all our lives depend on that. Not understanding what might happen with human emission is even MORE of a reason to reduce the human impact on it. When we can model the climate, we at least have a rough idea about what's going to happen with increased temperatures and make some preparations for it - if we cannot model it (like you said) the response we get from the climate to the anthropogenic forcing might be an extreme escalation, totally beyond our imagination and no one will see it coming.
The conclusion you want people to come to when you say "the climate is too complex to understand" is to dismiss it. The conclusion anyone who has spent 30 seconds thinking about it SHOULD come to is to minimize the human influence even more.
This is important
Shoo Shoo Skelebear
It turns out all the data used to prove climate change was real was faked, but rest assured climate change is very real.
Climate is always changing. Politicians are lying to extract power. Green sector is huge a pool of money wasted on mediocre results but mostly nothing beneficial for environment.
Everybody has something to say outside of real climatologists. It's now not the matter of science but muh feelings.
As long as this remain a political matter we will never know. But it's getting warmer and it isn't man-made warming.
Shoo Shoo Skelebear
"Shoo Shoo Skelebear"
>Every scientist agreed in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an apocalyptic ice age.
This board has deteriorated. What a fucking dumb ass
Shoo Shoo Skelebear
>Every scientist agreed in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an apocalyptic ice age.
No they didnt, most papers from the time kept the warming consensus. The concept of cooling was just 70s clickbait from broad and shoffy media reporting.
Shoo Shoo Skelebear
Shoo Shoo Shelebear
>Shekelberg
Oy Vey! An Anti-Semite!
It's fucking bullshit, the melting of icebergs won't affect the rise of the sea levels, even in (((their))) educational videos they acknowledge this:
youtu.be
But in then they keep showing you how icebergs melting, instead of ice from the surface of antartica melting, because they're not melting.
Think about it, if the ice from antartica melts, wouldn't that mean that the whole continent would be open for us to colonize, and even use that melted water for human use?
The Mechanism I was referring to is IR radiative forcing. :} (Atmospheric convection squashes all and it still escapes into space). Reducing emission of an insignificant trace gas is a very silly idea to trying to understand an unimportant field of science like climate science. You are essentially saying STOP EVERYTHING we have to know what the environment should be tomorrow. What I'm saying is your junk science is worthy of study but not at the cost of Human civilization. Singling out CO2 as the major driver in Climate change made Climatology Junk science. Do what most people before your time do when "climate" becomes hostile. ADAPT. Best way to minimize CO2 is for everything to stop breathing and every vehicle to stop moving. That seems reasonable enough -no- . In Other news. Cosmic rays are ionizing water molecules to form Heat trapping Gas. News at 11.
shoo shoo skelebear blis :((
The science behind it is very solid and needs tuning up
The policies to counter it are legitimate but have been politicized
Being an uneducated schizo won't change those facts you retards, you can't claim yourself to be right-wing and anti-science. Unless you wanna go full 'genders aren't real, men and women are the same'
I mean creating Clouds. You know what I mean.
I doubt Antarctica would be safe for us to colonise, the caps seem a little prone to freezing.
Global warming is a hoax. Our impact on the heating/cooling on the world is very minimal.
Climate change is not a hoax, we're tearing down forests, damming rivers, throwing our shit into lakes, oceans and streams, tampering with the migratory paths of animals and building towns and cities over their homes. Fuck it though, they can adapt.
So give us good predictions that back scatters to the past and we'll listen for now. Stop breathing. CO2 spewing french scumbag. Climate Change "Science" uses very fuzzy logic using averages from Many failed models. It's garbage all around. Not sound at all.
Shoo shoo skelebear
this blatant dismissal of modern science (that uses the empirical method) is so astounding & idiotic
when someone says "majority of scientists agree", thats not some vague, half-argument equal to "some politicians think..."
when the MAJORITY OF SCIENTISTS agree, you have to realize, this is not trivial. these are not dumb idiots who jerk of to images of frogs. these are educated fuckers who know more about this shit than we can ever pretend to.. and these people are all saying human impact on the environment is legit, and its fucked. only retards disagree with this
Also, in their videos they acknowledge that melting icebergs of sea ice, won't affect the sea levels at all, but then they keep fucking showing you melting icebergs:
youtube.com
Their theory is that if all the ice from the surface of antartica melted and went to the water, the sea level will rise. That would only happen if all the water went into the water without forming rivers, lakes, pond in the surface of antartica or greenland.
When even Osama bin Laden said that Climate Change is the biggest threat to humanity, you know it's not liberal bullshit.
Think for yourself and don't be a retard that goes "Oh Liberals believe it so I must believe the opposite"
But still, their theory doesn't hold, because they keep showing you melted ice in the water which won't affect the rise of the sea levels.
If the problem is the ice from antartica, why can't we just move some ice factories there and use that ice instead?
>Human emissions of CO2 is tiny fraction that's almost identical to NOISE when compared to natural sources of CO2
You're a retard. Human CO2 is only a small fracton when you account for the entire system. The earth naturally produces CO2 in large amounts via sea degasification, soil degredation, dead plants, and even volcanoes. However, these are equally absorbed by natural weathering, live plants, etc. The difference is we've now added to this system and imbalanced it. and we're also under a waning solar luminosity so dont blame the sun.
Imagine this: You have a bucket of water. Its filled, but not all the way to the rim. You add a liter of water, then remove a liter. No change. You can keep doing this and the level wont rise. Now, imagine you take your liter and remove it, then add a small cup of water in. So now you add a liter+a cup and remove a liter. Sure, the cup is smaller than the 2 liters (added and removed) but what do you wager will happen over several repetitions?
Uh no, you're missing a bit here. That would only cause warming of +2 degrees maximum. The real issue with global climate change is that they are unsure on how that +2 change will effect the hydro cycle which could have a much bigger effect, which will in turn potentially release methane kept under the arctic and Siberian shelf.
Modern evidence would suggest that the predictions about the volatility of the hydro cycle being unfounded.