Can someone give me a rational argument as to why those with conservative beliefs don't believe in global warming?

Can someone give me a rational argument as to why those with conservative beliefs don't believe in global warming?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=FLPNS6fejvI
youtube.com/watch?v=5Smhn1gL6Xg
populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
climatechangereconsidered.org/
youtube.com/watch?v=QwviDPo4Rh4
youtu.be/iEPW_P7GVB8
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

there's no evidence for global warming

All of the thermometers we use are made in China. The Chinese tampered with the thermometers and made them read a few degrees hotter than it really is. It's all a Chinese hoax.

If we can nuke the world into a barren wasteland, we can make it a little hotter. It just means some changes will happen where we'll have to adapt, but it won't be the end of the world or anything. Conservatives don't believe in the latter doomsday scenario, which is correct.

All solutions to fixing it involve trying to tax it away.

Energy sources that don't require fossile fuels are preferable for multiple reasons and they will be adopted given time for the technology to develop. We don't need the government to "fix" this problem and make things worse like it usually does.

I believe the Earth has cycles, human influence doesn't matter to the degree "specialists" would want you to think.

This.

>IPCC whose research funding relies on demonstrating that global warming is occurring say that we are warming at 0.005 =/- 0.01 deg per year
>Blame and ban CFCs and CFL
>Oops that didn't help we're still warming
>Blame methane
>Oops wait we can't do that because gooks produce most of the world's methane on rice farming
>Blame CO2
>Proposed solution is to shut down industry in white countries, and provide more gibs to nonwhite countries while providing no restrictions on them.

WEW

REALLY MAKES ME THINK

>lets just be clear that degree is a word you chose

It's not that we don't believe in it, it's just that we don't care.

it doesnt matter, the scale of our influence as single countries wont do shit on a global scale. if the climate changes we wll just adapt like always

I believe it but I don't care because I have guns

Conservatives tend to not be the most educated group of people in the world. They don't want to listen to the science behind global warming.. they would rather watch football and drive around in their pickup trucks.

Global warming is bullshit.

Let Rubio explain it to you.
youtube.com/watch?v=FLPNS6fejvI

Because ihave a solid STEM education and can read and interpret data to formulate my own opinion with out a clearly biased alarmist spoonfeeding me globalist talking points that im supposed to swallow on faith alone.

A common theme presents itself when you dive into the data, there is nowarming trend, the 1´C increase since the 1700s just isnt there, and lies within the margin of error of the testing a equipment and instrumentation calibration error, plus the data from 18th and 19th centuries is simply not reliable. In fact, id consider all temperature data pre-1960 weather satellite to be skewed.

Carbon dioxide data is 'slightly' more reliable but simply doesnt show a catastrophe like leftists would have you believe. An increase from 350 to 400 ppm in 3 centuries is nothing. NOTHING! They either are pushing their political narrative or dont understand what 'parts per MILLION' means or cant wrap their mind around the carbon cycle. If you test CO2 over a grassy field youll get levels over 1000ppm, if you sit in your closet for an hour youll get levels over 5000 pm. Toxicity doesnt happen for CO2 like they say. The implication is warming, but yet they ignore methane and tanker ships and china... and want you to feel guilty of living a 1st world lifestyle and share with brown people.

Being Conservative draws in a lot of backwards religious retards, gotta stick to 'muh values'. Lots of poorly educated people who have grown up in their local echochambers and refuse to change.

LOOKING AT YOU Sup Forums

Very well said.

The glaciers have been consistently retreating for the last 12,000 years. The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in the last few centuries may have increased as a result of human activity, but no data suggest a correspondingly rapid increase in the rate of polar icemelt and even if the Earth did warm as a result of the postulated greenhouse effect that apparently does not actually exist, the tundra permafrost would thaw and be rapidly colonized by vegetation that would absorb the excess carbon dioxide.

Beyond not making sense, the argument for the existence of global warming is always coupled with the proposed solution that nation-states should bow to an unaccountable elite of internationalist bureaucrats who will save us from this "danger".

youtube.com/watch?v=5Smhn1gL6Xg

Because, retard, there is a super convincing argument for why climate change isn't happening, and even if it is it isn't caused by humans, and even if it is there's nothing we can do about it.

The fact that we know corporations have covered up evidence about climate change is irrelevant, the fact they've lobbied against it is irrelevant, and the fact the scientific community is in near unanimous agreement is irrelevant.

All that matters is that the only people who deny climate change are right-wingers like me. Which is what I base all of my beliefs on. Please ignore any other conspiracy theories I subscribe to. The fact I believe a bunch of other baseless bullshit is circumstantial.

Stupid bangers n mash. Learn how to read:

1. populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

2. climatechangereconsidered.org/

Uh, there kind of is.

we currently are in the warm phase of an iceage. it is bound to get warmer. at sometimes, so global warming/climatechange may be real, but that doesnt mean its manmade. furthermore you should ask why the little fact of us being in the ice age is never mentioned in the discussion, almost as if (((they))) dont want us to think the climate changing/becomming warmer could be a normal progress and make us think the only reason it could change is the human, and human alone

Impressive! Poorly explained AND wrong.

I'll call BS on that.

this doesnt make sense
saudi arabia and gulf emirates unaffected, yet yemen and iraq are heavily affected? wat?

Um, methane & other greenhouse gasses are expressed in "co2 equivalent" weights, aren't they, to allow for a single figure - co2 in tonnes/millions of tonnes - to be used.

I doubt that any people who are not actually morons will say they dont believe in global warming. It is warming, but whether it is manmade or a cycle is harder to decide since we only have about 200 years worth of temperature measurments. That would be fine if the world was 2000 years old, but considering that it is way older 200 is not a big enough sample to start talking about it being manmade at least.

Not 'consistently'. Glaciers that were relatively stable for centuries have retreated greatly in recent decades. EG: the valley parts where tourists were taken to see - even walk on - a glacier were well-known. And now have little or no view or contact of the same glacier.

Global warming = more government, and more taxes. And will not change a thing about the environment. Conservatives know that government always wants more money and power, and the warmist religion gives them both. We do not trust the government. It steals from us. Leftists love the government. It is their god. They want it to steal more from conservatives, and give the loot to the leftists in return for their unwavering support.

>The earth cools and heats naturally over time!!!
Are there natural cycles of trash islands in the pacific too? How about massive deforestation or over-fishing?
>Well, we only have fishing data from the last few hundred years. We don't really KNOW if people are to blame.

There's so much more to the debate than "muh warming."

and nobody denies that deforestation, overfishing or ocean trash exist and are a problem. so what's your point?

the evidence for warming is there, assuming there's no conspiracy with those who get to measure the temperature directly.

the issue is no one can definitively say what the relationship is between gasses & warming.

We know its a logarithmic relationship, but it's the details that matter.
The numbers scientists have given out on how strong the correlation is ranges between [it won't be a problem in the next million years] to [it's going to be a huge problem in 300 years]

scientists have NO consensus on HOW bad it is, which is the important part.

that tends to get left out in the leftist propaganda pamphlets

google CO2 doubling if you want to learn more

How is the trash islands relevant to global warming? And did you mean to reply to ?

My point is that I have never once heard "global warming is fake!" followed by "But boy we should clean up our oceans!"

People just assume that all climate change = global warming and since global warming isn't happening then I can go back to sleep.

until the solution for global warming is something other than taking money from one group of people and giving it to another, then global warming itself cannot be believed in.

youtube.com/watch?v=QwviDPo4Rh4

Icecaps decreasing is provedly cyclical, which means we ARE warming, yes, but we are because of a cycle. Also, different areas of the world are warming, or cooling in the long run, 'greenhouse gases' are gases, which mean they take the shape of whichever container they are in, in this case Earth. Which means that everywhere in the world would be heating, not just on X or Y.

I dont really get your point. Are you implying that people who say "global warming fake" does not want to stop thrashing the oceans?
What is climate change? It feels like a buzzword

Why do those with liberals beliefs not believe in race realism? Simply because it's what their ideology demands. Logic doesn't have much to do with it, it's about how to win.

Because like all things, the temperature seems to fluctuate over a period of time in a pattern. We are on a decline which seems to be constantly changing due to some factor that is man made but it is insignificant until it has no changed for 100 years? By then it is possible for a new ice age or the planet will just wither into dust. But sand does not move fast, so again, 100s of years.

>in recent decades
Wrong, they have been receding in the U.S. the late 1700's and they probably were before that too.

I'll look into it. Source?

>pic related

>Are you implying that people who say "global warming fake" does not want to stop thrashing the oceans?
I'm implying that they don't care about anything other than "showing the government I can't be bossed around!" and if that means ignoring all of the very real ways that people fuck up this planet in order to prove some abstract point about how "certain" we are that CO2 is contributing to that destruction then so be it.

I guess I see your point, there might be people like that, but it seems farfetched that all "global warming"-deniers hates the earth on that kind of level.

As long as you're a Sup Forums aspie who takes this all seriously and can't honestly tell the difference between scientific data and propaganda. You will all forever be cucked by your own stupidity

I don't think they "hate the earth." I think they're caught up in a false choice between "not caring about your environment" and "licking the government's boots."

Winterchan has yet to show her power level. Needs more meme magic
>I love you winterchan

youtu.be/iEPW_P7GVB8

Most of them don't believe in science.

It's not that I don't believe in it, it's that
>climate change scientists have been proven to lie on documents regarding climate change to make themselves appear right
>most evidence is either inconclusive or part of said falsified documents
>most data we do have to draw comparison to (early 1900s and further back) is ancient and therefore unreliable due to lack of solid testing equipment

Don't get me wrong, we should absolutely treat the environment better than we've been, but I just don't believe the global warming boogeyman.

Look at dilbertman's look into the climate debacle.

The fuck are you on about, CFCs were causing ozone destruction; banning them fixed the problem and the hole over antarctica ended up being sorted out as a result. Nothing to do with global warming or climate change.
Gentleman: this is the level of discourse the uneducated bring to climate change debate.

Oh wait it's a leaf, why do I bother.

>leaf

Though in all fairness most mainstream conservatives are fucking stupid, there is an obvious rational argument behind AGW denial.

1. All charts produced as evidence for AGW only show the temperature uptick from the 1800's or so (industrial revolution is when they believe earth started warming). When you look at temperature graphs of the entire earth's history you'll notice current temperatures are well within the natural variability of the Holocene period (current stage in earth's life).

2. We are producing so much fucking CO2 right now that it is laughable to think that the industrial revolution put a dent in our atmosphere. If our CO2 right now had the same supposed effect CO2 did two hundred years ago we'd all be fucking dead. It just doesn't add up.

Nope

Global warming and IPCC are frauds and we should clean up our oceans.

There you just heard it

>No arguments presented

If climate change is man-made, what is the temperature supposed to be right now?

>conservatives are dumb
>blacks overwhelmingly vote liberal, lowest average iq

almonds = activated

...

1.) Those who are pushing this issue the hardest are the same people who push rape culture, gender wage gap, 1-in-4 women will be raped, blah, blah, blah. All a load of bullocks, so when a very complicated issue like changes in the Earth's climate is muddled with other horseshit ideas, why would it be irrational to be skeptical of this as well?

2.) When virtually every proposal to curb pollution exempts those countries that are the worst polluters in the world (China, Russia, India), and targets only western capitalist countries, especially the US, why is it irrational for a normal person to be skeptical when it sure as hell looks like these countries are being targeted for no other reason than they are wealthier and environmental proposals mostly focus around re-distribution? The proposals themselves tell me that these people are not serious about the environment.

3.) No other academic discipline targets and shames people for wrong think like climate science. People have lost their jobs, been attacked and harassed, etc for daring to even raise questions or doubt about the methodology or models used. In every other discipline, academics who put forward bad ideas are simply countered. They are not threatened, unlike many people connected to this branch of science.

4.) When people raise very reasonable questions about this issue, talking down to them by calling them stupid, or invoking terms like "Denier" to paint them to Nazis is a surefire way to make sure that you NEVER convince anyone of your point.

There you go OP, 4 rational arguments.

There's so much bullshit in it.

I mean, even if we take all their predictions to be on point, it's not nearly the extinction level event they purport it to be. And, as well as that, not including that, even if they are correct, there will surely be methods in the future to correct it with the rate of technological advance we have.

And it's not a simple choice. There are plenty of consequences to moving away from emissions. And it's not a choice that overly matters when only half the people are on board. The easiest way to cut a countries emissions is to buy the products which produce emission from other countries which don't observe the limits.

I'm not saying I don't believe in man made climate change, I would need to look into it more to form a coherent opinion, I just think the leftists are completely full of shit on the issue anyhow.

It's not real.

The earth warmed significantly during the Middle Ages, far before industrialization.

Wow you're retarded.

There's a common belief that "green is the new red", aka that stopping global warming will require communism.

It's obviously not true (just look at the French Messmer Plan), but that seems to be the driving force.

If you believe AGW has any falsifiable form of evidence backing it you are simply too invested in your own delusion to admit you are wrong.

I'm sick of dismantling this trope hundreds of times over.

Equatorial warming bubble hypothesis was the original theory for global warming presented in the 70s. It simply doesn't happen. I have yet to find a "CLIMATE DENIER" who actually denied that earth's climate ever changes.

This really is a political agenda to hamstring industry in Western nations and attack personal transport. There is no evidence to suggest that CO2 emissions have any major impact at all on earth climate.

The same graphs that use a micro slice guess from 1860 also ignore solar radiation which show an identical sun surface temp increase correspondent to sunspot activity. But correlation does not equal causation in any context.

OP you really are a dumb faggot and I just did the rest of you a favor. There is no argument, the IPCC is a hoax, science is never settled, and Bill Nye is a shill who isn't even a scientist

Fucking RARE.

Environmental conservation and biodiversity is the real issue. If these clowns stopped running around complaing about the climate changing without any direct evidence showing that it was caused directly by humans then perhaps more would be done to redevelop business practice and change the culture of consumption. I'm all for global business, however governments should protect biodiversity by regulating the free market against global cooperations unnecessarily developing on land for over production, ie: McDonalds. Those niggas tear down the rainforest and throw away tonnes of food each year. Makes no fucking sense

And for much of the planet's history we've had no glaciers at all.

So fucking what if they recede? It's a non-problem regardless if it's natural or Manmade.

love 1 and 2 user. but 3 is just wrong. Lately lots and I would even say most academic disciplines are firing and chastising people all the time for just being mildly conservative. Even If you are talking about hard sciences only I still would have to disagree. Particularly in oncology, but that has mostly to do with drug companies and money

>Leafposter
At least address the argument

how would you know? you're whole country is mad max
LITERALLY

My perspective is that climate change is happening but we shouldn't fall on our sword to fix it when the rest of the world (outside of gated white communities like Western Europe. And even then Norway isn't about to stop selling their oilbux) will not do so. It's also highly dubious that the apocalyptic scenarios envisioned will come to pass - they are suicide fantasies of gaiast misanthropes. The reality is a lot less sexy than Mad Max or Day After Tomorrow. Instead of wastelands and NYC turned to ice you will have the low boil of more storms, more freak nature events, more eccentric weather. We won't have all our produce disappear but you will have financial hits when some freak frost event ruins X hectares of citrius in Florida.

And more to the point - climate change is going to disproportionately impact the third world. If you admit "I don't give a shit because the third world will suffer more than the US", "I dont' give a shit because tragedy of the common means it will happen regardless" then you are a heartless monster. So I think some conservatives opt to 'deny' climatechange as man made because it's the safer way of saying "I don't really care".

I am all for promoting green energy and shit but I don't want us to pursue a Maoist Great Leap Forward kind of policy to get there.

Because you have ignorant and uneducated people like Richard Lindzen who call it "climate alarmism" and think that they are qualified to make this claim just because they are an atmospheric physicist with decades of experience even though they've already been proven wrong by actual smart people like John Oliver and Leonardo DiCaprio and that guy who invented the internet.

Add a #5 to that list senpai.

The assumption is always made that any change to the environment must be evil. The notion that the climate may change for the better is forbidden nazi talk. They'll panic at the thought of global temperatures changing but ignore that the evidence that we have of this planet's history point towards its warmest periods being the most beneficial to life on the planet with the longest growing seasons while the cold periods supported the least life.

Because liberal shitbags lie about everything, why not this?

>have been lied to so many times by liberal propaganda that they no longer believe even the true stuff and assume it is jew tricks (it is).