"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate." -- Global Warming Petition Project, signed by 31,000 scientists and professionals.
Ice core data from the British Arctic Survey reveals that CO2 and Temperature have been swinging up and down for hundreds of thousands of years. Pic related.
Sup Forums If the Climate Change lobby can provide official and verifiable evidence of the extent of man made climate change, I would gladly believe it. So far I have not seen any such evidence.
The ice core data is conclusive and I don't see how it can be denied? Climate change is real, there's no argument about that. However, we have to be logical and honest with ourselves and say that there is no real evidence of any significant man made climate change.
... although, around 31,000 'scientists and professionals' would disagree with the conclusions in that link. I'm sceptical when I see a column headed, 'What the science says' because there is no doubt that science is actually very spit on the subject.
John Peterson
Yeah, now zoom in on the last 2000 years.
Chase Martin
fyi... pic related. Now in a cold period.
Justin Watson
>Yeah, now zoom in on the last 2000 years. If you zoom out, we see repeated cycles. We are now on the upward rise from the bottom (coldest) part of latest cycle. So, yes, of course temperatures are rising now.
Joshua Ortiz
Millions of years of sea level change.... Data shows a sequence a sea level rise and fall. No overall trend showing that sea level change is rising above the overall trend.
Nathan Collins
It's not about whether they're rising or not, it's about how quickly they're rising.
If you look at all the charts in this thread, all the rises going back millions of years are rapid. Am I wrong?
Hunter Moore
>Here's what I mean. I see it but I can't corollate that charge with this chart:
Mason Walker
Also... no global warming for over 17 years.
Owen Nelson
Yes, you are. In , there's a change of ~15 °F in ~10k years. This seems to match, roughly speaking, with . What we're seeing now, is a change of ~1 °C in ~100 years. You're telling me the two are even remotely close to being comparable?
>corollate Why are you even arguing about something like this when you don't know basic statistics vocabulary? Also: that graph shows temperature in °F, which no self respecting climate scientist would do. I'm not doubting the validity of the numbers, but rather saying it has been made ad hoc by climate change deniers, with the scale once again chosen so you can't see the difference the last few centuries have made.
And here it is again: either you're looking at way too much time and don't have the resolution to see a recent trend, or you look at too little time, and fail to see the recent trend as well. It's also worth noting that 17 years and 6 months is a very arbitrary length of time, probably chosen exactly do that the linear fit had a trend of exactly zero.
Joshua Campbell
>change of ~15 °F derp meant °C of course
Alexander Taylor
Do you realize that the link in has literally every single argument you've described, and has thoroughly debunked them?
I mean literally every single argument.
Juan Adams
Well, I looked at it closely and over the long-term, I can't see any significant different in the cycles going back millions of years. My point is that many non-climate change scientists have been saying, look at the longer-term trend. 15 C in circa 10 years? This seems extreme when data I've seen shows there has been no warming at all in the past 17 years.
>Why are you even arguing about something like this when you don't know basic statistics vocabulary?
I did actually study some Stats as part of my degree course and have to use stats in my job - which involves a lot of data analysis.
>don't have the resolution to see a recent trend Fair point but, equally, if you had the resolution of what happened in the many previous cycles, there's nothing to say that there were equally rapid increase/decreases in temperature.
Brody King
>This seems extreme when data I've seen shows there has been no warming at all in the past 17 years.
>has literally every single argument you've described, and has thoroughly debunked them?
A big part of the problem is that the Climate Change Lobby has a vested financial interest in what has become the establishment 'accepted view'. Al Gore was backed by George Soros for example. Can't look at the Climate Change offiial view without asking what's behind it.
Jonathan Morgan
>EVERY SINGLE ARGUMENT. As an analogy, if you wanted to know what was behind current day Liberalism, you could ask the Democrat Party and get the official view... Or you could be more sceptical and get information from other quarters. Believing the establish seems to be a foolish thing to do.
Ryan Bell
This is such a fucking a cop out.
Every single time the website is mentioned, all discussions relating to the science ends and the attention shifts to the boogeyman of al-gore, lobbying, or jews.
Debate the science or fuck off.
Joshua Lee
>Debate the science or fuck off. Or, for example, a Liberal wanker would say something is true because they 'fact checked' it on Snopes. You reference the climate equivalent of Snopes as a justification of your arguments.
Nolan Butler
shoulda herped b4 ya derped >therefore no global warming
Jack Powell
You have no argument, dumbass, they've all already been debunked. Go through all the positions you've listed and look at the arguments presented against them. If you still disagree afterwards, and think the science is wrong, then list why and then there can be a worthwhile discussion.
Blaming soros or al-gore or whatever stupid conspiracy shit you can pull out your ass to run away doesn't help your position.
Christian Thompson
Correct
On to the next thread
Xavier Kelly
That website looks super legit and convincing OP
Christopher Butler
Ok, here's another chart going back 600 million years. We are not at the lowest point for CO2 and Temperature. Yes, of course if you reduce the time window down and ignore all historical data, you can show short-term rapid rises. ie. Pick a small enough sample data set and you can show whatever you like.
Alexander Morgan
>That website looks super legit and convincing OP Yes, can't argue with the ice core data and the British Arctic Survey. Also, it's true, about 31,000 climate scientists and professionals disagree with the establishment position on man made climate change.
Elijah Hernandez
I meant, we ARE at the lowest point for CO2 and Temperature.
Robert Davis
>Digging way back in time, we know that Earth's climate has certainly been very different than it is now: 2 billion years ago there was not even any oxygen in the atmosphere. 550 million years ago high CO2 levels caused extreme greenhouse conditions. Humans were not around to care; the most advanced life form at that time was a flatworm. Humans could not physically survive over most of the planet in the age of the dinosaurs (Cretaceous, 100-65 Myr ago). Only very small mammals were beginning to evolve. Global average temperatures were 10-12 °C hotter than today. Most places on land were so hot that humans would risk fatal heat stroke every summer.
>The geological record shows many ancient changes in climate, including massive ice ages, hot-house conditions, oxygen-free and acidic oceans, and massive extinction events. These changes happened millions of years before humans, most occurred before even primitive mammals, appeared on the scene. Previous climate changes were caused by orbital wobbles, solar fluctuations, and movement of continents. None of those effects are causing the current heating sks.to/past.
David Davis
cont.
>Human civilization is roughly 12,000 years old, as defined by the start of permanent settlements and agriculture. Agriculture became established as the glaciers retreated from the last ice age. Modern society has developed entirely in our current geological epoch, the Holocene. Global temperatures haven't varied by more than ±1 °C since. There have been regional shifts in climate (Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age, etc), but since civilization began humans have never experienced a hotter global climate than now.
>Going back further, over a million years or so, our pre-human predecessors experienced a series of long cold glacial cycles. Several short interglacial periods were as warm or slightly warmer than our current climate. For example, the climate 400 kyrs ago, was slightly warmer than now. But more typically for the last million years it's been 4 to 8 °C colder. Each transition from warm to glacial ages and back took thousands of years, giving humans and prehumans many generations to adjust.
>So, really, the climate hasn't changed much since we settled into towns, invented plumbing, and started calling ourselves civilized.
>Since humans and our human ancestors have been on Earth, average global temperatures have never been 3 °C warmer than now. In the next 100 years our children will be the first people ever to experience that kind of climate.
Dominic Wilson
Well it's common sense that if you burn oil or carbon based compounds you will release co2 and if you cut down rainforests they bind less of it but what i don't really understand is the greenhouse-effect or something like that. Why would the heat from sun start building up on earth if there is some co2 or other particles in the air? Wouldn't it just block part of the heat and keep the rest a little longer? Hows that so much worse than direct heat from sun and fast cooling overnight?
Parker James
>Digging way back in time, we know that Earth's climate has certainly been very different than it is now: Ok, focus on the Tertiary period for the past 60 Million years approx. All down as a long-term trend with the beginning of an upturn. Here
Liam Reed
For hundreds of thousands of years CO2 peaked below 300 ppm. In 1950 it reached an average of ~320. Within 50 years it increased to above 400 ppm.
Isaiah Carter
>co2 Good questions FinBro. Of all greenhouse gasses, it's just a few percent CO2. More trees is good but it's also good to use wood in a managed way - the climate change lobby would say, don't cut down the trees.
Jaxson Long
is less of the belief that it's fake, but rather that it's impossible to control unless you just killed off half the world's population. these "green" programs help by 1% or less.
Kayden Martinez
>Within 50 years it increased to above 400 ppm. Yet, if you look at the charts even just in the most recent Tertiary period on Earth, the trend has been down and there has been a relatively recent up turn. The Climate Scientists who disagree with the establishment view are saying that the current and likely prediction of CO2 are not going to be high enough to worry about for a number of reasons. The establishment Client Scientists are throwing out data that does not fit with their official view.
Jordan Ramirez
That's answered in the fucking link retard Science is not split at all, it's basically conclusively proven
Nicholas Morgan
>but rather that it's impossible to control Well, yes... Especially because we are actually in a cool period and nothing will stop natural warming. Even if there is man made warming, its probably not going to be a significant factor when we look at the variations in the past.
Isaac Rodriguez
>That's answered in the fucking link retard >Science is not split at all, it's basically conclusively proven Ok, so as many Climate Change scientists disagree as agree... And you say they are not split? Nothing more I can say to you.
Grayson Gonzalez
This a chart of global warming and cooling periods. For the fags that keep yapping on about recent CO2 increases (a very recent trend), just look at where we are at right now. Please use your common sense.
Elijah James
All the charts I posed are verifiable scientific data. Here's another one that shows the ice core data for global temperatures. For the user who said we shouldn't look too far back in time, we can look at the past 10,000 years on this chart and the fact remains the same. Currently in a cool period and the recent rise is nothing out of the ordinary.
Joseph Anderson
> Sup Forums If the Climate Change lobby can provide official and verifiable evidence of the extent of man made climate change, I would gladly believe it. So far I have not seen any such evidence.
It's a religion. It's about believing and not about facts.
Justin Price
What even is your argument?
Yes, the earth was warmer and had greater CO2 concentrations in the past than today, that doesn't mean that our species, or almost any species for that matter, can exist within those conditions.
The more CO2 and other greenhouse gasses are emitted, the more solar radiation is trapped. The more solar radiation is trapped, the hotter it becomes. The hotter it becomes, the more the ice melts and the oceans warm. The more the ice melts, the less we can reflect solar radiation, which causes more warming. The more the oceans warms means more release of methane, which again causes more warming.
>its probably not going to be a significant factor when we look at the variations in the past. Re-read I'm getting tired of this skepticalscience.com/10000-years-warmer.htm
>Yes, the earth was warmer and had greater CO2 concentrations in the past than today, Granted, no point in looking back too far - like what it was like 600 million years ago. However, even looking at the past 10,000 years, the observation is the same. We are in a cool period and recent rises are nothing out of the ordinary over that period. I would have thought it was obvious what my argument was. See
>The more CO2 and other greenhouse gasses are emitted, The entire focus by the Climate Change lobby has been on CO2 yet only a few percent of greenhouse gasses are made up of CO2. Even if man made climate change is as scary as we are being told it is, the science being used is often bad science. They omit any data or conclusions reached by other climate scientists (outside of establishment climate change groups) that does not fit their position. There are plenty of climate change scientists who would disagree with you on your appraisal of CO2. All this suggests to me that the cult of Climate Change needs to be destroyed and some proper science needs to be done on the subject.
Josiah Roberts
>skepticalscience.com/10000-years-warmer.htm The equivalent of Snopes for Liberals. A 'fact check' that provides the 'facts' that fit in with Liberals' propaganda. Showing me one establishment website that is there to backup the establishment view on climate change is not proof.
Jacob Moore
FUCK THIS! THIS IS THE JEWISH PROPAGANDA AND YOU'RE FALLING FOR IT!
Human civilization is a lot older than 12000 years ago! It was reset by a cataclysmic event around 12000 years ago.
The pyramids and Ankor Wat are aligned with constellations in the sky, 12500 years ago. DO NOT FALL FOR THE JEW OR WE WILL ALL DIE!
Ryder Martinez
>eike-klima-energie.eu Yes, the Sun's phases are dismissed by the climate change lobby because it would upset their apple cart.
Luis White
I don't care whether it's fiction or not: I care that it is being used as an excuse to have complete control over people's lives by regulating a basic part of the economy: energy. Not to mention carbon taxes.
Justin Sanders
>Lists the massively-debunked 97% claim You can fuck right off
Justin Stewart
>Human civilization is a lot older than 12000 years ago! I'm sure you're right. However, even without spreading the scope of this thread, it's worth understanding more about a significant global/climate event that occurred around that period. This is part of my general belief that we are lied to more often than not by the globalist establishment. They are actively opposed to research into anything else apart from their narrow interests.
Bentley Perez
>I care that it is being used as an excuse to have complete control over people's lives... Absolutely right. Thank you for input lad. Anons, take notice of this.
Noah Roberts
Is an increase in CO2 from 320 ppm to above 400 ppm in a span of 50 years when in the last 800,000 years it NEVER peaked above 300 natural? What do you think has caused this huge spike in CO2? Volcanic activity?
You asked me for evidence, I gave you a site that has some listed.
Also I can't read german. If there are any specific doubts you have with the science try going through skepticalscience.com/argument.php
It has every argument listed and debunked along with sources.
>The entire focus by the Climate Change lobby has been on CO2 yet only a few percent of greenhouse gasses are made up of CO2.
This isn't true, there is a growing focus on methane and possible methane release from permafrost/oceans. The problem is we can't directly stop this from happening, so long as the earth continues to warm, things will keep melting. The only thing we can do is cut down on CO2 emissions and try to slow down the process, atleast until we're smarter and have some experience with geoengineering.
All I hear is waaah waaah and waaah. Debate the science you fucking pussy. If there's something wrong with the science, point it out. Otherwise shut the fuck up and quit running away.
Did you even read through any of it?
Nathan Morales
>almost no species can survive greater CO2 and heat
More CO2 and heat means bigger everything, as history proves, who cares if the human species will diminish, we are trash tier and cause destruction to everything else around us.
Justin Ward
>So, really, the climate hasn't changed much since we settled into towns, invented plumbing, and started calling ourselves civilized. Gradually getting back to your comments. Agreeing with you. Also, even if there is a significant man made effect on climate change, the bad science done by the climate change lobby has probably got it wrong. There's more truth in urban areas (glass, concrete, road surfaces, etc) being responsible for reflecting sunlight back into the atmosphere and raising temperatures than is the case for CO2. I'm not totally ruling out man made climate change but I think people are being fooled by globalist establishment, which steers the climate change lobby.
Brody Hughes
What occurred was a meteoric in North America, which at the time was covered in ice. The impact melted a lot of the ice and created a huge wave that flushed trough America and over into the Atlantic. Folklore from all over the world talk about the flood, even the Aboos, that have been isolated for some tens of thousands of years.
That is what caused the extreme change in world climate 12000 years ago, a meteorite hit a glacier several miles deep, breaking it up to such a degree that it caused a flood and a resulting few centuries of unstable and extreme weather.
This is also what is responsible for the mass death of biomass in North America and elsewhere worldwide at that time.
Now the ice is melting at the poles and we will start to see extreme wheather, who can be blamed I can't say. But we aren't innocent or the worst. Feedback loops that may be triggered will be far worse than we ever could be.
We may be the last drop that pushed it over the edge, but that don't fucking matter now as we will start to see such extreme instability among states and regions of the world in the coming years that we need to focus on that or just let the rulers build their retreats and keep doing what they do.
Robert Anderson
>All I hear is waaah waaah and waaah. Debate the science you fucking pussy. All I hear is bla bla bla from someone who posts a website that acts as a proxy for the climate change lobby and expects me to treat it as gospel. I often find that fags who get offensive are doing so because they have the weakest arguments.
Jaxson Edwards
>Did you even read through any of it? Yes. I saw the long list of supposedly 'debunked' points. A more objective review of the climate change argument would have recognised that there are some week points on the official side. As I said, reminds me of Snopes 'Fact Check' for Liberals.
Lucas Jenkins
>The climate change lobby
fucking what
The fossil fuel lobby is larger by leaps and bounds.
And that isn't fucking evidence. If you want to debunk their claims, go through the literature and critique the methods and conclusions.
>be more sceptical
lol
scepticism is basing your scientific beliefs on some fucking poll skepticism is reading the literature yourself and coming to your own conclusion.
Zachary Young
The vast majority agree tho...
Jace Edwards
>Now the ice is melting at the poles and we will start to see extreme wheather, Yes, because if we look at hard data from ice core samples, we have been in a cool period and temperate is bound to go up - regardless of what man made effects might contribute to that.
Liam Hughes
Then yeah, things are fine. It's not like the CO2 we're emitting is somehow "not natural". It came from the earth, and it goes back to the earth.
>the bad science done by the climate change lobby I hear this all the time, what bad science? The IPCC's predictions have, for the most part, been accurate. The times at which they're not accurate is when they're too conservative.
Debate the science or fuck off.
>A more objective review of the climate change argument would have recognised that there are some week points on the official side.
What weak points? Oh wait, you're not going to answer this, you're just going to go on another tangent about jews, lobbying, or al-gore.
You're completely ignorant and have 0 arguments, which is why you only make unfounded assertions and then pussy out when someone calls you out on it.
Daniel Lopez
>And that isn't fucking evidence. If you want to debunk their claims, go through the literature and critique the methods and conclusions. Didn't you notice that I posted data from the British Artic Survey about ice core samples? I've done quite a lot of reading up on the subject and thought I would share with Sup Forums. Sorry about that mate.
Christopher Taylor
>The vast majority agree tho... Sure, just like the vast majority would have believed the MSM not so long ago. People are waking up. Thank goodness for that.
Nicholas Reed
Hasnt it already been proven from Wikileaks that climate scientsits faked data to get laws passed at the UN?
Josiah Stewart
This and this
Jayden Barnes
Here's your problem mate...you have no clue how the scientific method works. When you look at the data in a macro view and see an oscillating trend extending hundreds of millions of years back it is reasonable to assume that is the normal behavior of the system. It is then incumbent on those saying humans are causing global warming prove that any warming that is happening is not part of that natural cycle. Pro tip: you can't. 1. Climate is infinitely complex. Meteorologists can barely predict the local weather extending out 5 days...now you expect me to believe we can accurately model the entire global climate decades in the future? 2. Everything about anthropogenic global warming is based on projection models, not recorded data. If you don't understand the system you're modeling, your model is worth its weight in dogshit. 3. We don't know why there were massive shifts in climate in the past. Until you can isolate and describe those completely natural processes you can't definitely say jack shit about our impact on climate. 4. Temperature has stagnated in the last 15 or so years but carbon emissions have doubled...where's the correlation much less causation? Citation was from a report published in the economist ~2012...check it out.
Angel Roberts
No, fuck you. Being all absolute and shit. Like there is this natural balance and that everything is fine cause it's natural? Bitch, billions will be displaced. Your little fuck island will starve.
You make it sound so inconsequential, like nothing man does matters. Your just like the flat earth people, so absolute, so certain and so limiting in both perspective, worldview and behavior. The absolute "truth" you spew is propaganda, it's the to control you. To limit you, to make you a good goy!
Jeremiah Jackson
Solar radiation management
Bentley Diaz
>Then yeah, things are fine. It's not like the CO2 we're emitting is somehow "not natural". It came from the earth, and it goes back to the earth. Yes, that's true although the other side would say that won't work if too much CO2 gets dumped in the atmosphere too quickly. However, the bad science the establishment climate change 'business' uses won't take into account other science that goes against their position. For example, if CO2 goes up, it will go up to a more optimum level for plants, trees, etc. In other words, all the plants and trees will take in more CO2. There are self-adjusting mechanisms as well but too difficult to explain/too many words.
Samuel Price
...
Sebastian Martin
>Hasnt it already been proven from Wikileaks that climate scientsits faked data to get laws passed at the UN? There were a few cases of data being 'exaggerated' or 'bent' to fit the narrative. However, I think the worst problem is that they simply ignore independent data that does not fit in with their position. It's bad science. More of political thing than a true science project.
Austin Moore
There's plenty of periods that show 1 degree increases over a period of about 100 years.
Parker Price
and if you knew anything about science you would know that one set of data does not nullify all contradictory evidence and if you knew anything about environmental science you would know that ice core measurements underestimate global average co2 concentrations.
Brody Anderson
>When you look at the data in a macro view and see an oscillating trend extending hundreds of millions of years back it is reasonable to assume that is the normal behavior of the system.
Let me ask you again. What caused the increase in CO2 from ~320 in 1950 to above 400 today when in the last 800,000 years it never peaked above 300? This is NOT normal. Answer this question.
>1. Climate is infinitely complex. Meteorologists can barely predict the local weather extending out 5 days...now you expect me to believe we can accurately model the entire global climate decades in the future?
No climate scientist will say climate is more complex than meteorology, because it literally isn't. Meteorology is much, much more complex. Weather forecasting is a much more tricky job than predicting long-term trends in climate.
2. Everything about anthropogenic global warming is based on projection models, not recorded data. If you don't understand the system you're modeling, your model is worth its weight in dogshit.
Another assertion, what don't they know about the system they're modelling?
>3. We don't know why there were massive shifts in climate in the past. Until you can isolate and describe those completely natural processes you can't definitely say jack shit about our impact on climate.
Another assertion. We do know why there were shifts in the past, but any source I give you you're just going to dismiss and not read.
>4. Temperature has stagnated in the last 15 or so years but carbon emissions have doubled...where's the correlation much less causation? Citation was from a report published in the economist ~2012...check it out.
There is a nitrogen plateau. Also, those plants that can utilize CO2 better than other plants will out-compete those that can't. You also need to account for the greater amount of water/minerals needed to sustain growth.
Xavier Johnson
Here's your problem mate...
>When you look at the data in a macro view and see an oscillating trend extending hundreds of millions of years back it is reasonable to assume that is the normal behavior of the system. > I already posted a 10,000 year chart to cover this.
>1. Climate is infinitely complex. Agreed. So Establishment Climate Scientist themselves can't be sure. Yet the dismiss the view of many independent climate scientists who disagree with them. Go figure.
2. Everything about anthropogenic global warming is based on projection models, not recorded data. Wrong. Not everything. A big part of my job involves data analysis mate. Historical data is gold. Trending off that data using stats can show what you want. You're very dismissive but, actually, it's you who don't seem to understand jack shit.
3. We don't know why there were massive shifts in climate in the past. Totally agree. Which makes it rather odd that the establishment climate change lobby feels safe to predict. I'm not predicting. I'm pointing out that solid data shows without doubt that we are in a cool period in the cycle and things are now beginning to rise. An eternal cycle.
4. Temperature has stagnated in the last 15 or so years but carbon emissions have doubled. Yes it has and the establishment climate change lobby have been working hard to explain than and they can't.
Blake Bennett
>No, fuck you. Being all absolute and shit. Like there is this natural balance and that everything is fine cause it's natural? Bitch, billions will be displaced. Your little fuck island will starve. No, fuck you, you complete tosser. Yes, billions could be displaced as a result of a temperature rise what would have happened anyway if you open your eyes and look at the continuous rise and fall cycles going back over time. Solid data mate. Anyway, fuck off you cunt, you as stupid a brick.
Owen Martinez
>and if you knew anything about science you would know that one set of data does not nullify all contradictory evidence and if you knew anything about environmental science Your entire 'argument' is to tell me what I don't know. I think the data speaks for itself. If ice core sample underestimate CO2, it would have underestimated over the entire period - 600 million years... You're not very clever are you?
Chase Wood
Maybe I was too dismissive of models...I'm saying that if you only understand 10% of the variables, what are you modeling? Yeah we can trend things and see what happened in the past and look at we're they're headed. But if we don't know what's actually influencing those trends the predictive power is less
James Perez
No you fuck, it's in the absolute certainty you have that it would have happened anyway.
You are the fucking spewing fucking jewish bullcrap. If the germans had won the war we would not have this issue.
Aaron Hernandez
I'm not arguing about whether or not we put the CO2 in the environment...I'm arguing if it's caused climate change
John Wood
>4. Temperature has stagnated in the last 15 or so years but carbon emissions have doubled. Yes it has and the establishment climate change lobby have been working hard to explain than and they can't.
Why do the oceans continue to warm rapidly then? After all, they do absorb ~90% of the warming with surface+atmospheric temperatures only a few % each.
Blake Moore
>But if we don't know what's actually influencing those trends the predictive power is less Agreed on that. However, if you look at historical data and there is definite pattern of cycles, we can draw conclusions like... We are in a cool period but things are warming up again.
Scientists should always go back over the data inputs as well because some of them might be shit. For example, global surface area is significant input and at least one independent climate change scientist has stated that the data is wrong (showing too high in recent years as a result of change in the number of temperature collection stations in Russia or something like that).
Caleb Brooks
Also pic related
Joseph Bell
>No you fuck, it's in the absolute certainty you have that it would have happened anyway. I just look at the pattern of the data mate and it's undeniable. We ARE in a cool period but things are warming up. There is a debate to the extent to which man made effects will influence the rate of warming.
Aiden Robinson
Who gives a shit about climate change ? Manmade or not, all it will harm nobody except polar bears and a few shitskins in the Indian ocean.
Which is why, if given the choice, almost nobody gives a shit about buying "clean" stuff.
Oliver Bell
I think we're in agreement. Climate scientists havent conclusively demonstrated a deviation from naturally occurring cycles. All we can say is that the science is far from settled. For all we know we're burning the heck out of the atmosphere, but so far it has been convincingly demonstrated
Dylan Rivera
>showing 40 years worth of data as evidence in a field of study that deals in thousands and millions of years
Henry Brooks
>Why do the oceans continue to warm rapidly then? After all, they do absorb ~90% of the warming with surface+atmospheric temperatures only a few % each. I did hear that and you make a valid point but given the bad science that has driven the establishment climate change position, we have to be sceptical at this point - at least until more independent climate change scientists' views are taken into account.
Julian Morales
I've read that previous climate shifts could be attributed to deep ocean volcanism...as far as I know juts not well-studied in relation to modern climate phenomena.
Jordan Lee
It's a very small time window mate. Everyone has to agree now that temperate has not gone up in the past 15 years anyway. You need to pan back and see it in context.
Jason Ross
>All we can say is that the science is far from settled. Yes, totally agreed. This is why I think the whole climate change establishment needs to be reformed into a more open and truth seeking project where it's ok to say, 'we do not know yet'.
John Sanders
It was not evidence for anything, it was supposed to demonstrate that you should look for the long term trend.
If there was no anthropegenic component in climate change, Milankovitch cycles should actually be driving us into a new ice-age.
Brody Garcia
...
Eli Sanders
>Milankovitch cycles should actually be driving us into a new ice-age. Not to disagree with your other comments but looking at this chart... , we are only just coming out of an ice age. Hence the warming. This is totally verifiable ice core data from the British Arctic Survey.
