Is man made climate change real?

is man made climate change real?

Other urls found in this thread:

petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/prioritize-refugee-status-afrikaners
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

nobody knows, lots of assholes who want to control things guess.

We also don't know if we can do anything to stop it.

There are no experiments you can run, and so you rely on computer models, which are glorified made up numbers.

climate change is totally man made bullshit, yes

So why are glaciers melting ? Tell me more about your vision of global warming.

I still remember when "an inconvenient truth" told us the ice caps would be gone by

>all credibility = lost

i like how it was called "global warming" but when science proved there wasn't any warming, they changed it to "climate change" to make it seem legit.

I remember watching Channel One in highschool and there was this weird kid in florida who installed signs on poles reading "water level will be THIS high by 2012!"

Hopefully he killed himself

Ice caps gone by 2015

Link to full document or didn't happened

only in some parts but we are having record ice in others

Nope

stop being so french pls

> the earth should stay exactly the same as it has been throughout my 12 years on earth.

> Natural geological and atmospheric processes aren't allowed to happen without my permission.

Did you know the entire earth was once covered with ice and snow? Why did it melt?

Maybe it is maybe it isnt, im not going to get into that now, but until we have an actual, viable solution what do the climate change crowd actually propose?
They demonise non-believers all day long but offer no tangible solutions to this supposedly earth-shattering problem.

I remember when they tried to meme it into "global weirding".

Which is a very vague and completely unfalsifiable notion. It gives them license to call any small change in the weather a man-made catastrophr

Isnt it time for you to pray towards Mecca?

Man discovered fire :^)

>why is ice melting

the same reason your mom sucks somalian dick, it's the cycle of life and death

What if by tripping over red tape we fell out of capitalist competition and had the land bought out from under us by china who subsequently rape your green utopia for a quick buck

>is man made climate change real?
The preponderance of climate change would be natural, however, it seems reasonable that industrialization pumping 6 gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere over a relatively short period of time will have some lagging impact on the climate system.

The Earth is warming, it is currently accelerating, and man-made activities are mathematically contributing to that warming. We just don't need to produce so much greenhouse gas and acid rain. We can still do something about it.

I like the Pascal Parsimony on this: We currently live in a period of optimal climate. Soon, in geologic time, the climate will become less optimal. A new Glacial Age, perhaps.

We should do what we can to prolong the optimal climate, not accelerate the climate into a global snowball or a global dessert. Even if we buy ourselves an extra 100 years, think of what the global economy can produce in that amount of time. It's well worth the investment now.

> climate change will destroy us all.

> quick! Lets redistribute all the wealth!

> we need the world to work together, so we must implement a global government

This is their solution.

Yea I thought it would somehow involve them taking my money and giving it to brown people, but honestly I don't see how it helps.

Ask the sun

I just want your sources

Ofc I know that, but it took literally thousands of years because it is mainly due to earth's rotation and orbit changes.

No.

ALL BURGERS MUST SIGN THIS
petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/prioritize-refugee-status-afrikaners

Climate change is communism.

It's an excuse to literally tax you for breathing out CO2.

Gay, what is a hundred years? How much carbon is expelled into the atmosphere when all of the aluminum is drawn up from the earth to make one large windmill?

How much copper and lead and acid is drawn up from the earth to sustain solar farms?

Collective, government (((green))) programs cause more carbon to be expelled into the air than negate.

>Having a dissenting opinion on Sup Forums

You're a Jewish space shill from the planet Zion

>Being this retarded

The global average temperature fluctuates +/- 5 degrees over centuries. What is happening now is no different.

Even if man is accelerating the warming or cooling, it is still going to be withing earth's natural margin of error in which life almost all current life on earth is sustainable.

Name one proposed solution that doesn't involve taxing carbon with no actual climate outcome for doing so?

All is as it should be

You've got to break down "Climate Change" into its subcategories. Simply asking if Climate Change is real and responding yes means you agree that it's man-made, irreversible and must be stopped by man immediately.

Is Climate Change even probable? Sure, take one look at China's smog cities and you'll get a glimpse of what too many emissions can do to anyplace. That aught to be enough to warrant limitations on pollutions large facilities can output. I think it's worth putting a cap on, same as dumping and drainage. Or at least forcing investment into counter-effecting technologies.

Is it irreversible? Nobody really knows. Just because the ozone is disappearing doesn't mean that the Earth cannot adapt - humans have only been creating the pollution for a very short part of our planet's life. Nature is not nearly as quick to change gears. Beyond that, the Earth has come back from both extreme heats and extreme colds, like its molten formation and ice ages. Climate has its own wide trends spanning hundreds of years. Even day-to-day weather is hard to predict, so you can imagine that larger time periods become a lot of educated guessing and modeling.

Harvesting energy will always have a cost environmentally. You cannot ignore the heat output from converting forms of natural power into electricity. Even "clean" forms of energy have problems - for example, wind turbines kill large amounts of birds.

Biologically speaking, it would make sense for plants that can convert these pollutants into nutrients for themselves would thrive. Perhaps genetically engineering a plant that does this would be worthwhile, as nature wouldn't create one for quite some time.

It's not very much a question of "Is it happening?" It's really a question of "What are the definite impacts?" and "What can even be done?" When people deny Climate Change, they likely have problems with the agenda as a whole and the data interpretation, not the data itself.

Aren't there bacteria that can actually feed on at least part of the typical nuclear waste produced by a nuclear fission reactor?

>The global average temperature fluctuates +/- 5 degrees over centuries. What is happening now is no different.

5 degrees is just enormous, 5 more degrees on Earth and half the lands would be recovered by oceans. And if it happens over centuries, the man kind should have know this in the past, but doesn't.

unfortunately yes

OP's pic is retarded.

There is no benefit to any of the "carbon-taxing" policies or any other suggested policies, other than allegedly reducing global warming. The whole point people argue against them is that they're economically detrimental. They are conterproductive to the goal of creating a better world. So if it's all for nothing, we've basically just implemented draconian economic sanctions on people for no reason, in addition to hamstringing other countries that are trying to develop but can't because a bunch of smug leftists from the UN told them it'll make the world hotter.

...I think there was a joke there but it wasn't funny enough to show up on radar.

Yes.

It would make sense that the simplest form of life, the single-celled organism, would be the first to adapt. Or at least begin to thrive. It might have been an adaptation from a different form of waste neighboring radioactive waste, but either way it shows how nature is completely capable of (slowly) dealing with human wastes no matter how harmful.

I wouldn't be surprised to see a trend showing an increase in C02-eating organisms ever since the industrial revolution, at least for America.

For now their long term plan for nuclear wastes is called Onkalo and is built to last thousands of years

What joke?

More CO2 in the environment is good for plants, right? So we might end up seeing a gradual return to conditions similar to what allowed ancient creatures like sauropods to become as huge as they were.

How stupid you are. We increase the CO2 level, we cut down trees to build pipelines and we polute oceans. How can this go wrong???

Why just solar? Why not nuclear as well? There exists enough uranium on earth to solve our energy needs for thousands of years and the byproducts can be accounted for to the gram.

Why not wind? Wind turbines don't even need inefficient boilers and all the material required is material we use every day. Indeed, the only drawback to wind power is that nobody wants to live by a giant windmill.

Coal, on the otherhand, is burned by the freight train full. The toxic byproducts have poisoned our cities before and there is no real account for how much damage has been done with this obsolete and hazardous technology.

subsidy incentives for building wind turbines and nuclear power plants.

Lawsuits for damaged buildings due to smog.

Ignoring climate change, can Sup Forums at least admit that air and water pollution is out of hand?

>climate change is totally man made bullshit, yes
>climate change is totally man made, yes
>climate change is totally bullshit, yes

I think it's supposed to appear to be a denial when in fact it's a confirmation.

>what is noah's ark?

Excess CO2 is almost a minor issue compared to hazardous waste. A working ecosystem will just gobble it up and make more plants. The real issue is how entire biomes get wiped out when some idiot decides they don't want to pay for proper disposal and dumps a thousand tons of metal salts into the river.

It's less common now since you can sue the pants off of any company that does this but it's still ugly when it happens.

But that's just it! None of the money that goes towards "preventing global warming" goes towards any of these things. Al Gore has done nothing for Flint, for Haiti, for the Amazon, for depleted fish populations, for endangered birds, and neither has any other global warming group. It doesn't reduce trash in the oceans, it doesn't decrease noise pollution, or water pollution, or air pollution, because CO2 is not a major pollutant. Solar panels and wind farms cannot replace coal plants, and take decades to replace the energy that was used to create them, energy that was created by burning coal or natural gas!

The only things that can truly reverse any of these trends, not just slow them down, are changes in demand, which in turn can only be done by a rejection of materialism. Of course, secular science cannot do such a thing. The secular opinion does not allow for anything beyond the material. And the only ways believing less is more in a material society are through non-empirical means that can never be validated. The best case scenario in a material society is the most efficient exhaustion of Earth's resources followed by a move to another planet or system, which will in turn be depleted. And of course, the bigger society gets, the more relative energy it requires. Making things more efficient will not decrease the energy used, but instead increase the amount done for the same energy. And we can only survive within a system so long as we are smaller than the system. As the our system gets more complex, we are begging for a logistical failure. In a large enough system, human error would not be tolerable, meaning that whether or not our system survives, humans are doomed. We will either outmode ourselves or our system will collapse under its own weight. Our only option of survival is to voluntarily limit ourselves. The only way this can be done is by believing there is something of value beyond the material. We can have knowledge or life, not both.

Get your head checked
Not that I agree with him, anthropogenic global warming is real.