Global Warming and whether or not you "believe" in it

My teacher was asked a question today by somebody in my class and it was about global warming. She asked him if he believed in it and said "Asking me if I believe in Global Warming is like asking me if I believe in gravity"

He basically said anyone that does not believe in Global Warming is stupid and there is no logical reasoning to oppose it.

There was no way I had enough knowledge to oppose what he said but does anyone here have any idea what reasoning there is to not believe in Global Warming?

Other urls found in this thread:

blog.dilbert.com/post/154082416051/the-non-expert-problem-and-climate-change-science
youtu.be/iQxzWpy7PKg
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

What kind of teacher? Unless it was a college physics or math professor, 99.99% chance he doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.

You probably are not a scientist, and that means you can’t independently evaluate any of the climate science claims. You didn’t do the data collection or the experiments yourself. You could try to assess the credibility of the scientists using your common sense and experience, but let’s face it – you aren’t good at that. So what do you do?

You probably default to trusting whatever the majority of scientists tell you. And the majority says climate science is real and we need to do something about it. But how reliable are experts, even when they are mostly on the same side?

Ask the majority of polling experts who said Trump had only a 2% chance of becoming president. Ask the experts who said the government’s historical “food pyramid” was good science. Ask the experts who used to say marijuana was a gateway drug. Ask the experts who used to say sexual orientation is just a choice. Ask the experts who said alcoholism is a moral failure and not a matter of genetics.

There are plenty of examples where the majority of experts were wrong.

blog.dilbert.com/post/154082416051/the-non-expert-problem-and-climate-change-science

>Unless it was a college physics or math professor, 99.99% chance he doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.

Even if it was a physics or math teacher there's still a 98% chance he doesn't know what he's talking about.

>Americans still debate whether global warming is real

No wonder rural and suburban retards voted Drumpf

The answer is that you don't come to any conclusion about whether it's true or not until you can personally understand it yourself.

This means acknowledging that you don't know very much.... which people don't like to do... but it's the only honest position.

The earth is undeniably warming. You are a retard if you think it isn't. But it isn't majority man-made

He teaches AP Biology in high school. I already know he's retarded considering some of the stuff he goes on about but this one really set me off I just didn't have enough information or the mindset to attack him.

>the majority of scientists tell you. And the majority says climate science is real
The majority of climate scientists say man made climate change is real. It's a job security thing.
Also, it's more a religion than a science. End of climate days prophecy, a carbon tithe, armies of climate priests...the parallels are obvious.

You can't compare them. One group makes predictions based on human-related subjects like politics, and the other studies the environment, which has no human element to it. 400ppm CO2 levels in the atmosphere isn't a stance, it's a scientific fact. You can't dispute that. Having a position on climate change is like having a position on gravity.

I don't doubt that at all, but I am 100% sure he thinks it's because of us and not just nature taking its course.

Enjoy more sandnigger migration in the coming years due to "global warming".

The only response is to what he says is to say that "only an idiot thinks that others are idiots for being skeptical of scientific statements. "

>American education
My teacher in high school made students question global warming. Students who were for it had to find facts and research about it, and same for people who didn't believe in i, to prove their point. I once had one on one talk with him and he said that scientist who research shit like global warming just spread fear so that their research gets more funds and they get richer of it.

That was like 10 years ago.

Gee i wonder if pumping millions of years worth of carbon into the atmosphere in about 200 years will be bad hurr durr. let's find out hurr durr

There are a lot of reasons to oppose global warming. Wanting humanity to continue, for example. Unfortunately I got my MS in atmospheric science and we are quite fucked due to fixed nitrogen deposition and eutrophication/deoxygenation of the oceans. Also we're going to hit the point where CO2 causes cognitive impairment. I really don't care about global warming it's just a nice kikey catch-all to support agenda 21 and one world jew governance.

How long do we have? I give it 10 years to be honest.

CO2 levels may be a fact , elevated CO2 levels being caused by human activity is an opinion.

>He basically said anyone that does not believe in Global Warming is stupid and there is no logical reasoning to oppose it.

science doesn't require belief by definition, it only requires theory and repeatable result

>mfw literal Atlantian because Florida was flodded in 2016

Regardless, higher CO2 levels are bad and present a myriad of problems. It's like a virus, just because it's natural doesn't mean they can't harm us and shouldn't be eradicated.

The incalculable amount of variables which factor into climate are impossible for us to comprehend much less measure, disseminate and discern each influence with every other corresponding variable affected. It is closer to chaos than picking out a handful of environmental flags and stating such a blanket explanation as fact.

Even the simplest of processes become near chaotic when examined in ever increasingly smaller scale much less planetary. Improvements in data collection with disregard to localized environmental and topographic variables (changed or underreported), coupled with the sheer amount of data collected for comparison antiquates previous data in scope and methodology.

Climatology is political party, which explains the wildly unreasonable reaction to qualified dissension in peer review, refusal of data sharing and dismissal of the need for reproduction when errors and falsifications are present. If it had remained in the scientific realm, it would still be called Meteorology. That every climatologist concurs, what they were taught and are now teaching is fact, means nothing. Experimenter bias can be attributed to much more than a salary in the prestige of fronting humanity saving research in our dire final hour, receiving awards and accolades and earning a prominent place in the regulatory behemoth established to counter the contrived results before they show no fruition. It might just focus data gathering at predetermined locations of concentrated production of the conformational data required.

...

>You can't dispute that.

you can take additional measurements which contradict earlier measurements also,

the most important thing with any scientific data, who funded the research

usually thats more important that the data itself unfortunately

The embedded politics are on display when all importance is placed on halting progress and limiting freedoms instead of countering the perceived effects through their own means of collection, disposal, or production of whatever they imagine will balance things out.

If man's influence on climate change was correctly represented as a hypothesis, it would not currently be the basis for the regulatory systems being devised, causing apoplectic opposition to the devastating economic ramifications and repression of civil liberties. Then research with the removal of politics being of foremost prominence in the exclusion of experimental bias would ensure the integrity of the studies and true consensus can be found.

Good post, leaf.

Pragmatically speaking it literally does not matter if I choose sides on this issue to be honest. That's a blatant exposure of how impotent an individual is politically, but it's also sort of comforting in a way. It literally does not matter if I make up my mind on this.

...

Remember the meme "in about 20 years we'll fight wars for water?" that was around in the 90s and 2000s?

Global warming is going to kill us all is the new hottest meme.

Global warming is real but it is not happening because of muh carbon n sheit
There have been numerous times earths climate has changed from ice age to warmer and its happening again
We cant stop it

>eutrophication/deoxygenation of the oceans

I'm actually quite concerned about this as well and I consider it the number one environmental threat facing humanity

I see the double whammy of fukushima and acid rain being the primary threat to our oxygen supply and just wonder why we don't throw eggs at Al Gore when he appears in public pretending in his retarded movie that oxygen mostly comes from tree when it mostly comes from ocean life

>I give it 10 years to be honest.

without change 100 years best case, 10 would be my worst case assuming no additional threats

Global warming / Climate Change is solely due to the inbound Planet X aka Nibiru.

It's hard to believe NASA has kept this planet secret for 34 years.

Here President Reagan alludes to this planet several times.
youtu.be/iQxzWpy7PKg

>Have you poured through the data yourself? The numbers, the figures?
>Oh interesting, so let me get this straight, you get your information from books written by men you've never met and you take their words as truth based on a willingness to believe, a desire to accept, dare I say it, a leap of faith?

most normies believe climate change completely on faith, I'm agnostic

I honestly think there's going to be a culling soon, so that's where I get my 10 years from. The people who run the show are going to have to eliminate most useless people to buy themselves more time.

...

>in about 20 years we'll fight wars for water?

we have been fighting wars for water, USA usually wins, we do this by taking over the natural water supply in a nation and using it to make soda, grow flowers for export, then we loan money for the plebs who live there to buy water at jacked up prices, they can't get any because it's all been diverted to make soda and grow flowers or whatever they do

there was a film about this called blue green water wars

been going on for decades already, Bush family bought a huge water source in South America, probably cost them 40 kilo of rock

Global warming aside, isnt pollution fucking up the planet significantly? How should we deal with it

group think

What difference to you does it make what I believe? Wtf are you the thought police?

the culling is happening but those who are to be culled do the work themselves, hiring people to cull others is way too much work,

we just have to do nothing and everyone will be culled,

if we want to stop it we need 3 lifter reactors and 4 submarines working on shutting down the fukushima mess not to mention all the "background radiation" which is simply poorly maintained reactors across the globe leaking more and more each year

if you want to know this is real and bad I can tell you Obama renewed contract to build more of these bullshit reactors meanwhile China is building much safer lifter reactors

15 years ago we had 4 seasons
Nowadays we have winter and summer.

That's my answer to you, if you want to be a fucking retard and believe climate change is not a thing then I can't help you.

Never said I was. I'm bothered by the fact that a teacher is insinuating that I maybe stupid, along with others, because we are skeptical of Global Warming.

That's probably why he teaches at a high school

well thats the point you don't believe in science, you believe in imaginary shit like the easter bunny and santa claus

a teacher saying believe in science is confirming that science is a fantasy, which is a very concerning development

science teaches you to be skeptical of everything though

So you have formed an opinion, you don't know why you have formed that opinion, and you want strangers on 4chins to tell you why you hold your opinion.

Behold the textbook conservatard.

You don't "believe" in global warming, you "acknowledge" it.

Are you saying unsafe nuclear energy and radiation is going to be the real killer?

Planets in Global Warming

- Earth is experiencing global warming
- Pluto is undergoing global warming
- Mars Is Warming, NASA Scientists Report
- Global Warming on Jupiter
- Global Warming on Triton
- Global Warming on Neptune

Global Warming is a Space event!

Ask them to explain global warming and when they fumble trying to deliver a coherent explanation ask them why they're so adamant about something they know nothing about.

Look into subduction zones and tectonic plate shifts

This is patently idiotic to say.

>Polio research.
Nevermind the findings/test results, the fact that the government is funding this is what's really important here.. not polio.. lol..

"Global Warming" has become an easy "science fan" identifier. People that can regurgitate science sounding shit but only have a veneer of knowledge about it and haven't done any homework beyond that. They will attempt to wear you out with their GoogleFu though and toss every ad hominem known to man. Most always circling back to their appeal to authority of 97%. Which is also a bullshit statistic parsed out of a larger dataset. So yes, his statement is very ignorant. AGW is a hypothesis, not a very good one, deliberately unfalsifiable, and contained in a realm of science that is fledgling at best and likely closer related to the study of how to chase grant money.

And as someone with a STEM degree, let me assure you the most insufferable pricks are the ones that are experts in one sliver of a field and thus assume they are an expert in everything else. Which is why many "science communicators" rub me the wrong way. They usually only know enough to suck all the oxygen out of the room.
But the other sad rule of life is that a teacher or boss usually needs to be humored until you are out from under their thumb.

Oy vey, sounds like he's a good goyim! Parrot the MSM, goys!

Except that IS a thing, water business is already one of the biggest in the world.

Bush bought 300.000 acres of the Guarani Aquifer in Paraguay.

Brazil's coup president was also making business with Brazil's part of the aquifer.

Of course retards like you don't bother to read about anything.

>anyone here have any idea what reasoning there is to not believe in Global Warming?
Nope. There isn't any reasoning.

You can cherry-pick some irrelevant data to attempt to construct a skewed picture based on nothing. You can't argue against proven, overwhelming evidence.

Global warming is fact. How it occurs is partially theoretical, but mostly tested and proven.

Do you acknowledge that we're still environmentally fucked due to pollution, over-fishing, and resource depletion?

You retards have to disagree with absolutely everything where it gets to a point where you're denying climate change? I mean come on, there's a limit to the amount of contrarianism you can have until it comes back to bite you in the arse.

Doesn't matter. We can eliminate carbon emissions and make cheaper power with a space elevator.

The Earth is following a constant trend for the past hundreds of thousands of years. Man-made climate change is a tiny dent and LITERALLY won't affect anything. If you want to make a change, kill all cows and you've automatically gotten rid of 14% of all greenhouse gases.

There aren't... bugs on this planet, are there?

The Annunaki, builders of the Pyramids reside there.

Ask the experts how many times scientific findings were right.

And the overwhelming majority of time? They are.

You're like the guys who say "Steve Jobs didn't go to college so it doesn't matter if anyone else does!"

It's cherry picking. It's nonsense.

If people were concerned about real pollution and real environmental problems then I'd have no complaints. Instead, they waste their time, money, and energy (an everyone else's) on a global virtue signal which has resulted in exactly jack shit of tangible good.

Global warming is both real and has a positive effect on our lives and the environment. It will save us all from the encroaching ice age, prevent our time from simply being an umber stain in this cold icy universe.

>most normies believe climate change completely on faith, I'm agnostic
That's just a pretentious way of stating that you're too lazy to read much, and too stupid to understand the few things you do.

To be fair, there's more and more overlap between global warming alarmists and people concerned with the environment. On the other hand, it's far too late to do anything anyway.

...

Right? It's not like green energy, electric cars and recycling have created any jobs or innovations over the past thirty years.

ITT - Conservatard morons who place their trust in the scientific method every day, when they board a plane, undergo an operation, drive their car, consume food, water, medication...............but when their conservative overlords dictate, they throw the scientific method out the window and start shilling for their masters.

Conservatards. dumb. as. dogshit.

>implying the axis of the Earth's rotational spin has shifted to be ((perfectly perpendicular)) to its solar orbit..

Shut the fuck up man, you have no idea what a season is, and you have no idea what you're talking about.

Scientist here. I'll give you the greentext facts about global warming:

>Modern society is producing a lot of greenhouse gases
>We know greenhouse gases cause earth to retain heat and slowly get warmer
>We also know that the earth runs in natural temperature cycles
>The debate is about how much we're contributing to it - not whether or not we're contributing to it

Contrary to popular belief, it's really a debate worth having. Drastic action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions now is almost a moot point, because most scientists already believe that the melting ice-caps are past the point of no return. Moreover, the trauma to world economy may cause more eventual harm than the rising sea levels.

Clean energy such as solar should continue to be a major focus, purely for the fact that oil, coal, and most energy resources are finite.

But as far as global warming is concerned, it doesn't even matter anymore what caused it - it's happening, and nothing will change it.

>tldr: global warming is a liberal talking-point

Global warming is real. the only people that don't believe it know nothing about thermodynamics, chemistry, and physics. Thing is, I don't really give a shit. We've been in an ice age for so long I welcome the warmth.

Ask him about the numbers.

Ask him how old the earth is, then ask him to present evidence of the claimed rise in temperature.
>inb4 graph with current temperatures compared with numbers from the 18th century even though the earth is 4.6 billion years old and has gone through ice age after ice age after ice age

What is this "expert" shit, anyone with a base knowledge of physics understands global warming is real.

What chemicals do you think cause global warming?

>the Earth survives these changes therefore they are irrelevant
Earth has been around for billions of years. Modern society and agriculture? Not so much, friend-o.

Please see

So when will some Day After Tomorrow shit go down?

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth

0.04% of air is co2.

these scientists say that about 33% of global warming is due to co2 the bigger part is due to steam.

they also claim that 30% of co2 is generated by humans.

so it is a third of 0.04% multplied by 0.3 makes ~0.004%.

so a 0.004% part of air makes the world heat up 0.8 degrees in the last century.

minor things like the earth axis movement and solar winds that have a fuckton of energy in it have absolutely no effect, makes totally sense and scientists can surely measure these things!

btw the scientists said it would be cold as fuck last week, it was sunny and warm the whole week.

I "believe" global warming based on my understanding of physics.

Minor other things that are in equilibrium have no effect on the equilibrium.

This is true. Now add minor things that are not in equilibrium. Now notice that your system spirals out of equilibrium.

Put ten-thousand pounds on one side of a scale. Now put ten-thousand pounds on the other side. Notice that the scale is level. Now add one gram to one side. Notice that that side goes down.

>lol you can't blame that one gram

You really can.

CO2, H2O, CH4 are all greenhouse gasses. Any gas the blocks rays of heat from escaping earth.

No, that's what they want to believe.
>Oh I care about AGW thus I care about the environment
BULLLLLSHIT
For the trillions wasted, we could own the rainforest and bought out every logging operation. Saved the species in the region. We could have cleaned up actual polluted streams and rivers. But no, we piss it all away for a farce. And we watch global "leaders" respond to this "threat" by stacking their private jets up on vacation retreats and rewarding fucktards that sent their private eyebrow trimmer halfway across the world. Promoting that bullshit has had a greater negative environmental impact than what it was supposed to have caused. It's virtue signal environmentalism and its had a real negative effect on the real environment. More worthy causes with potentially better tangible results get choked out for attention.

That's not what I fucking asked. Show me evidence that proves that the rise in temperatur ISN'T following a natural cycle. I'm not denying global warming, but the evidence presented is usually some smartass liberal arts tier study. "Friend-o"

Do you really think electric cars are "green"? If so, don't waste my time until you go do your own homework.

To see effects of global warming, refer to Venus. Venus is an example of a planet that is warmed by greenhouse gasses.

But aren't most of these expensive changes that the common man cannot afford, some of which (possiby many of which) wind up subsidized by the government? Do the Congressmen who lobby for us to become more green have any conflict of interest with the companies that manufacture green goods? Could those companies possibly use lobbyists to do this?

Can anyone tell me why Climate Change is even bad?
I believe it exist I just don't know to what extent (and no one does) but how bad could it possibly be? CO2 levels have been much higher though out earths history and life was thriving.

I don't see how this is the end of the world, kind of retarded to think that too if you ask me.

I've worked with a Paleoclimatologist studying tree cores, cores from buildings, recorded logs, and ice cores.

The data we saw can be summed up to this: is the climate changing (not warming, some areas are cooling)?

Yes, it is changing.

Is the change due to anthropogenic sources?

No fucking idea. It might add a little, but one, one fucking active volcano venting CO2 is more than all the nations producing CO2 combined.

And there's no way to know if we altered what would have happened naturally on its own. Maybe we sped it up a decade, but it terms of cycle changes of the weather machine called Earth, that's nothing.

There is direct proof that gravity exists. There are only correlations that show that global warming exists.

It's literally every single climate study done in thirty years. Literally all of them. Not most, or some, or I'm-just-being-hyperbolic. Every. Last. One.

You have an internet connection. Google it.

I think that they are a product of environmental concern in the market place, which has developed countless billions of dollars and new industries. So to claim that there aren't any positive effects of the research and attention paid is wrong.

Most of these are middle-class jobs.

Well, the climate was colder, since Atlantis was definitely a thing and was flooded out and a flood happened.

Humans can survive both a slightly hotter and colder climate, the ones worth saving at least. But i think the end goal should be cooling it with irrigating the earth with man made rivers and planting trees everywhere. Of course this is impossible with niggers around who would scavenge anything we build.

Electric motors are 99% efficient. hell yeah, they are green energy. ICEs are like 17% efficient. you fucking oil shill. And don't bring up "gas is burnt in power plants hurr durr" yeah, but power plants are able to take advantage of devices that increase efficiency that couldn't fit on an automobile.

>does anyone here have any idea what reasoning there is to not believe in Global Warming?

Global warming is true in the general sense that pumping CO2 into the atmosphere will change our climate into a new, possibly hotter climate. What is up for debate is how long it takes for this to happen. All the data I've read suggest that it takes a terribly long time (>200 years), so long that we would have used up all our oil anyways and should already be switching to fusion energy.

I'm not talking about jobs. I don't care about jobs in relation to this. Answer the questions to the best of your ability or tell me to go fuck myself.

Tell me how they ar ebuilt and where the materials involved is mined from a raw resource into a process one. If its china you're part of the problem.

>Can anyone tell me why Climate Change is even bad?
Because human beings eat food. Change the climate? Change the food that you can grow in it. Change it fast enough? Everyone starves to death.

WTF I love climate change now!

>I'm not talking about jobs
Yes, you are. This was your challenge:
>Instead, they waste their time, money, and energy (an everyone else's) on a global virtue signal which has resulted in exactly jack shit of tangible good.
The correct response is "it has produced shitloads of tangible good." Which includes jobs.

>Thinking whites won't be able to adapt
Sounds like god trying to save the white race to me senpai.

I can't believe people don't understand this shit man..

Protip - we are too far gone.

8/10

You mixed in degeneracy with valid points. Good job, leaf.