Who the fuck does this guy think he is...

Who the fuck does this guy think he is? He has no scientific credentials yet is foolish enough to go against 99% of climate scientists who say otherwise.

>inb4 (((scientists)))

Other urls found in this thread:

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

...

Literally anti Patriots

He is the oil companies little ho

He's not actually wrong, the sun and our orbit are the primary causes of climate change.

Also anyone who uses muh 97% as an argument shouldn't be listened to. That's not how science works. Use real arguments for fucks sake.

It isn't though, water vapor is the main greenhouse gas, methane from cow farts is also one of the major greenhouse gases.

Care to share some information on IQ correlations to crime, and IQ also being lower in brown skinned races? If you want to talk science lets go onto that subject.

Water vapor makes up over 90% of the greenhouse effect.

It's pretty funny.

It's like Donald Trump is trying to see how far he can go before people figure out he's doing it on purpose.

Like

>How many completely unqualified hacks can I stick into these appointment spots before people realize I'm deliberately fucking with them?

>97% of climate scientists
like finding that 97% of women's studies majors claim they've been rape survivors and that we need feminism

They are all wrong as this chart shows the REAL reason for global warming

This. Let's be real. If I'm a subway sandwich artist and you told me there was no artistry in sandwich creation, I'd be pretty pissed.

>Also anyone who uses muh 97% as an argument shouldn't be listened to. That's not how science works. Use real arguments for fucks sake.

In a way that's part of how science works.

Review of data and replication of experiments by other scientists.

If half of them had a completely different conclusion, then it'd be worth looking into and checking. But when we're talking about over 97+ or whatever it is, then we're approaching a point where the naysayers can be explained by errors in their review or experiment or being on someones payroll.

she eats more food than a small family does.

and probably emits the CO2 of a small family as well.

>99%

stop pulling numbers out of your arse

and as long as you can rationalize and empirically prove something that goes against scientific consensus you can and definitely should speak out

That has so little to do with this subject, it's amazing.

Also, climate change will be the #1 driver of migration northward of those brown people. So either we fix the climate or you will be inundated with savage equatorial shitskins. The sorts of people not even Mexico wants.

the real stat is that 3% of authors who authored papers agreeing with the AGW theory don't believe in their own findings

the sample wasn't "all scientists" or "all climate scientists" but a very specific example: people whose names were on papers that concluded that AGW is true

Are you meant to say that there was a lot less water in our athmosphere than 200 years ago? Care to explain how it got up there?

Ding ding ding.

He's right.

t. actual NASA scientist who knows who and how data is fucked with

No, I'm pointing out that the very large majority of the greenhouse effect comes from water vapor.

not 97%

82% of 79 respondents

read the fucking doran zimmermann study ffs

>are you meant to say
I see my English is going downhill for some reason.

He's not wrong though. If he said
>CO2 is not the primary contributor to anthropogenic climate change
He'd still not be wrong. CO2 is just a part of it. Atmospheric carbon, even, is just a part of it. Things like methane have a far greater effect.

/thread

>theory don't believe in their own findings

>theory don't believe in their own findings

Well if that's true, they can either explain why their results are flawed and unreliable or they can get over it and accept the findings lol.

If I believe the earth is six thousand years old and I perform a science experiment that says I'm wrong, but I still won't believe it, does it matter that I don't believe it? Does my lack of acceptance of the results somehow invalidate the fact that those WERE the results?

Trees like carbon just plant more trees.

And if burning carbon dioxide led to more water vapor?

The 97% figure has been reviewed countless times and is conclusively bullshit. They asked if carbon emissions played any role at all in climate change, no matter how small--which is fucking obvious, every goddamn fart affects the climate on some miniscule level--and then spun the result to make it look like carbon was claimed as the primary cause.

Right, right, but he's not qualifying that statement with the explanation you just did. To the layman, who has no idea about methane and water vapor, etc, the head of the EPA just said climate change caused by humans isn't real.

And that's how he intended it. If anyone really gets shitty with him over the statement he'll fall back on "well, factually that's true", except that'll be on a little spot on page 12 and the statement he just made will be on page 1 for days.

>burning carbon dioxide

So why is there a tremendous push for solar?

Also please bring up that scandal where the solar manufacturing plant swindled and embezzled billions of dollars from the government.

But he's telling the truth, iirc methane is far more destructive to the environment than CO2. We should obviously reduce our output of both, but the fact remains that his statment isn't wrong.
Plus
>appeal to authority
>you haven't got a piece of paper so I dont have to prove my position, just shut up and accept my beliefs!
NOT AN ARGUMENT
sage for slide

Most of the methane from cows comes from burps, not farts.

Also, one of the contributing factors is their shit diet. Eating nothing but grass leads to bloating and extra methane production, in the wild they eat more variety including shrubs and plant material that's harder to digest and has higher tannin content. Basically, they're eating like the burgers that eat them later.

why would a climate scientist publish findings that go against AGW in the first place?

imagine how you would treat that person
imagine how everyone else would treat that person

it would be a stupid thing to do for one's career.

People who want solar don't understand it's current limits.

And before someone says "but the money now will provide for research later"

That's not true in the slightest and won't overcome the the current ratio of yield vs real estate.

Sorry but if emissions by humans DO have an effect, even if it's extremely small, then it doesn't matter if it's the "Primary force".

If it has an impact and if the Earth can only absorb so much extra carbon (Just using carbon here for simplicity) before the temperature begins to exceed the norms, and a warming trend emerges which doesn't 'match up' to previous cycles, then there was nothing wrong with the question.

Because whether it is a big effect or a little effect, whether it takes a lot or a little bit of emissions, the effect over time is that there will be a harmful warming trend that costs everyone a hell of a lot of time, money and effort to deal with down the line.

Glad to see that you read minds. It's not his fault that he's a little autistic and your average "layman" is a little very retarded.

>But when we're talking about over 97+ or whatever it is, then we're approaching a point where the naysayers can be explained by errors in their review or experiment or being on someones payroll.

You just described the opposite of what science is, that is assuming that 97% is even a real number. Go look up the history of plate tectonics or any ground breaking scientific theory over the past few centuries.

None of the political proponents of anthropogenic climate change have ever offered a solution that would actually solve the issue of manmade climate change. Cutting carbon emissions in the western world won't do shit when there are over a billion people in the third world catching up. If any of you people actually cared about the environment you'd be calling for bringing back colonialism and nuking China.

>no scientific credentials

neither has bill nye, the science spastic

>97% argument not how science works

However, it important component of religions.

I am sorry my yellow friend, let me rephrase my question.
Burning fossil fuels generate heat and carbon dioxide among other things. What if the heat created by burning fossil fuel leads to water evaporating. Water vapor and carbon dioxide are well known for being greenhouse gasses.

What do you think the scientific community is, a popularity contest or some kind of a little club? lol

If someone designs an experiment properly and follows the correct procedure and comes up with different results, that's a point of interest that people will want to understand, not something you get angry at and stop talking to them over.

Findings aren't an opinion they're reasoned conclusions based on the data gathered.

I seriously hate the fucking climate change elitists. To them, the opportunity to get off on being superior to somebody else is much more important than actually reducing your environmental impact.

It's especially bad in my department at my uni. Students and professors alike are on their toes waiting for the next opportunity to sniff their own farts. Whenever Trump is brought up in one of my classes, it's 3 minutes to gigglefest about his "Chinese climate change" quip.

One bitch lives in a house that is realistically 3x the size of what her and her family needs, drives a gas-guzzling SUV which gets 18 miles per gallon highway, and drinks 3 plastic water bottles per day. When pressed about whether she actually cares about climate change, her response was "my family worked for the house and it's 'well insulated', I don't get to choose my car, and I try to recycle my water bottles!"

Really makes my blood boil, how smug these fuckers are, and the lengths that they will go to feed their own egos. I can't wait to get out of this shithole

I used to date a Neuroscientist and she said the scientific community as it is right now is a joke. Publish or perish, and if your research goes against the status quo good luck getting published.

A scientist lives and dies by his research. If his theories get debunked then he gets no grants or funding, he may as well be flipping burgers at McDonalds. Of course Climate Scientists are going to defend the global warming narrative, they can't afford not to. They need those tasty government bux to survive. I wouldn't believe anything they have to say on the subject really when they have such a vested interest in it.

>However, it important component of religions.

the religion of peace, tolerance, and brutal hardcore fascist dictatorial regimes.

like those the left believe in.

We have so little understanding of our climate as it is though. The reason we have manmade climate change today is because the effect of sunspot activity isn't keeping rising CO2 levels in check. But we have such a short temporal understanding of the sun that we can't be certain what lies down the road. It would be abnormal not to be skeptical of climate change theories.

>muh scientific consensus
I wonder what they think about the proud history of scientific consensus, which includes getting BTFO by every famous scientist we learn about in school

On top of that, they all support gas taxes because they can easily absorb the cost, but people who can't afford heat for their homes, or increases in the price of food cannot. Everyone is so allergic to sacrifice, but as long as they get their Starbucks latte in a giant plastic cup, they're happy. Yes I'm butthurt.

And you just explained perfectly why "climate science" (as far as the average person knows it) isn't science. Because it's been so politicized it has basically become a popularity contest.

Climate change is natural. The last vestiges of the ice age are melting away.

We had ice melting before many pol users grand dads existed. Still no major rise in water levels.

>Publish or perish, and if your research goes against the status quo good luck getting published.
It's always been that way. People just never learn.
Christianity didn't stifle science. Other scientists did.

Who gives a fuck about climate change when nations like China, Brazil, and India exist who absolutely do not give a SHIT about climate change yet are the primary causers

You should have gone into the geosciences. Just today my paleo professor was bitching about how GSA meetings used to be like keg parties until the woman came around.

In chem, friend. We don't have it half as bad as the soft sciences, but hopefully med school next year is more redpilled

>In a way that's part of how science works.
that's how (((science))) works and why it took more than a generation for the works of Faraday and Maxwell to gain any followers against a mindless zerg of (((scientists))) using Newtonian mechanical models for electric and magnetic phenomena in spite of better evidence.

>What do you think the scientific community is, a popularity contest or some kind of a little club? lol

You obviously don't belong to the science community in any way. That's exactly how it is. It's also the reason climate science became such a toxic subject.

Climate scientists are funded by the government who wants to tax us for climate change.

Clear conflict of interest

Same reason it took a long while for Climate change to gain consensus, but it did and scientific method functioned as it should have.

Now people have the correct answers and we should be acting on them however we can.

Wrong.

Shows what you know. India and China are both on track to kick our American assess in green energy in less than 20 years.

I guess you had to think up SOMETHING to try to create an equivalent to the relationship between oil and gas companies and dissenting scientists.

Good effort, at least.

My only experience with chem was an ex-marine who spent decades in industry and told us never to listen to the media. Guess I got lucky.

That's my favorite lie they like to tell.

>CHINA AND INDIA ARENT DOING IT WE SHOULDNT DO IT

Except they fucking ARE doing it lol.

No, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

What's a greenhouse gas?

If the minute incremental destruction of the environment is that important then the only solution is massive culling of humanity.

Climate change scares you, try the sequestration of limited soil minerals into the biomass of humans and peripheral species like farm animals.

The estimated 25 foot depth of US breadbasket states rich too soil is currently at an average of 5 foot depth. That means in 1/5 of the time it took to get here, our most important resource will be gone.

They are manufacturing green products for cucks like you to purchase, that's not the same as them converting their economies to run on green energy. Dumbass.

>Burning fossil fuels generate heat and carbon dioxide among other things. What if the heat created by burning fossil fuel leads to water evaporating.
I think it's insignificant. It's known that the water vapor from nuclear power plants does cause higher temperatures in areas down wind, but it's such a small impact. Water vapor is the most potent greenhouse gas, but it's important to remember water vapor doesn't stay in the atmosphere as long as CO2.

I see nothing wrong with watermelons losing their government funding. In fact all progressives within the government need to be purged.

>Who is Galileo?
99% of the aristocracy agree's that the earth revolves around the sun.

This, loss of biodiversity and arable land are two far more pressing issues than climate change. Nobody seems to care or talk about these things though.

BREAKING

Paris agreement was made based on falsified data according to renowned NOAA scientist whistleblower

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

note that banned the Daily Mail as an accepted source the day after this story eas published

""climate change"" is a scam designed to usher in a global government and to give control of our economies to the giant banks

ever wonder why all the big banks are pro carbon tax/market? you think it's cause they love the environment? hahaha

It's just people wanting to get grant money and government office holders wanting to increase their coffers by whatever means necessary.

Methane disperses much faster than CO2 does

>Now people have the correct answers and we should be acting on them however we can.
We don't actually and thanks to politicians like Al Gore, we'll probably never have the correct answers.

who gives a fuck

because those who push """climate change""" don't actually give a shit about the environment

they just want to control our economies via global taxes and carbon credits they can create out of thin air (hmmm, where have we seen that scam before?)

>99% of the aristocracy agree's that the earth revolves around the sun.

Yeah except back then, they started with the conclusion.

Now, the "Aristocracy" (Actually scientists but you're having fun so whatever) didn't just get together one day and say "The Answer is X". Instead they did lots of experiments and shared information with eachother until it became clear that the answer is X.

Stupid comparison.

Actually no, theyre both also investing in renewable energy as part of their infrastructure spending.

U JUST KNOW THAT CONSERVATIVE BINT ON THE LEFT WITH THE EXPOSED SHOULDERS SUCKS A MEAN DICK

Maybe so, except the results they produce are checked and checked again by all kinds of people who don't all get grants and hold fancy offices and the answers come out the same.

You can attack the source of the information, but what's true is still true, no matter who releases the information.

Surely you have facts to back up this claim.

>99%
Because most scientists have been brainwashed by the Universities. They put their Marxist ideology first and integrity second. Those few that don't are persecuted.

Yes, the exact sciences of women studies and climatology. These niggers can't predict past a week so were supposed to believe those long-term predictions

99% of all their predictions and models have been wrong..

not to mention Al "Soros Shill" Gore and his "muh no more arctic ice by 2014" (for the recors there was 5.8 million square miles of ice in 2015)

sad how many well meaning useful idiots buy into the climate scam

Chinese is building 6 coal plants a year. The fuck are you talking about?

Nah. The whole "97%" meme was a study that Cook published that fudged over an important detail.

Of the studies submitted by climatologists that acknowledged the idea of AGW, 97% agreed it was real.

The liberal media took this and ran with it. "97% of scientists say we're causing global warming guys! YOU CAN'T DISPUTE THIS!"

Of course, what the study neglected to mention is *to what extent* those climatologists felt that AGW affected climate change. Less than 1% of the reports listed AGW as the leading cause of climate change.

That fact, however, didn't get traction in the liberal media.

>97%
That's just not right though.

...

leftypol kill yourselves desu

yeah, the "97% of scientists agree" is nothing less than blatant lies

Climate change is real. Anthropogenic climate change is not. Don't like climate change? Feel free to complain to the sun.

It's true though, methane is.

All long term climate models are inherently flawed. We'd probably have to observe the planet and sun for a million years or before getting enough data to fully understand the climate. The geologic record and ancient Chinese astronomers don't seem to be enough as it stands, but things could change.

this senpai

Carbon dioxide isn't


Methane and NOx are

>Op a whiney cunt

>Believing leftist lies which will result in further "carbon" taxation, esp. living in Europe
This is why your country is done for, Fritz.

Climate science is a international communist cult. Nothing proven; only fudged computer models. Same kind of pseudoscience as evolution and eugenics.

I'd call it a half-truth more than an outright lie.