Why does Sup Forums refuse to believe in global warming

Do you really beieve that scientests who are smarter than all of you faked proven data?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=5c4XPVPJwBY&t
populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

you ever heard of the supercontinent pangea theory?

I don't care. Let them die.

because Sup Forums believes whatever their current overlord wants them to believe

>science is consensus
Do libs have any capacity for self thought or so they bandwagon everything that makes them feel superior to someone else

Lack of solid proofs and their denial that climate changes constantly

It's a theory. Plane and simple

what's the consensus on race and gender being a social construct?

>le 97% meme

Global warming is totally happening. But there isn't a whole lot we can do about it, and despite what everyone says, it isn't going to destroy the world and everything in it.

Global warming is good. Prove me wrong. Pro tip: You can't.

libs say the exact same things about the right

what now

They're dumb. You assume that they're smart because of movie scientists.

David Friedman debunked the 97% meme. Also, science is predicated on predictive models not consensus.

Give the the example that went through your head

The reason is that conservatives are dumb niggers who don't like admitting the free market can't deal with this problem.

Because I'm either right or modern society ends.
It's a win/win.

From the people who can't accurately predict a hurricane's drift over 24 hours come claims of having supercomputer prediction algorithms that can assign root cause to weather (in 50 years).

Master Trolls and Welfare Queens, not scientists and definitely not smarter than the average plumber.

Because it's always the same nonsense. Some bullshit study that claims 97% of scientists agree.

It's utter nonsense. There's never any actual proof provided. It's just nonsensical models that have failed to predict anything accurately.

Being smart doesn't mean you're right. The cure for scurvy was discovered by sailors.

There is no overlord. mook left because he couldn't control this place.

In all honesty, you'd have to be pretty stupid to not 'believe' in climate change, however not thinking that giving more governments more power and tax revenue in a futile attempt to correct it is totally normal.

God you're dumb. It's like you don't have the concept of a statistical trend.

>statistical trend.
Isn't 100% accurate for predicting the future. You should know that.

Sounds like you don't either
>gawd ur dum xd
>post wikpedia page title
Really showed everyone

Government cant fix it. I am not going to vote for a carbon tax. I dont want globalist treatiest that only we will honor. Not the world policeman. Let it ride it's course

>97% of all scientists agree
I believe in Climate Change but even I fucking hate this bullshit. For one, it is just a broad designation. What kind of scientists? What is the source? Also they do agree for the most part that it is happening, but they don't all agree on the details of it. And even then consensus doesn't equal correct, evidence equals correct. I fucking hate the left because they always pull this misleading bullshit.

Why is it that after every "crisis" the left's solution is to increase the size of government and give it more control?

school shooting
>let's increase the size of government and give it more power!
bullying
>let's increase the size of government and give it more power!
school lunches
>let's increase the size of government and give it more power!
hurricane katrina
>let's increase the size of government and give it more power!
global warming
>let's increase the size of government and give it more power!

really activates my almonds

>97% of scientists

Silly OP, don't you know that 68% of all statistics are made up right on the spot?

JUST PROVIDE PROOF

I believe in global warming, and I hope the human contribution is real and significant. I hope we never stop.

Every day Saudi Arabia and Israel and the rest of that entire shithole region get hotter and hotter. I want that whole place to be a fucking frying pan. I want to see it hit 200F in my lifetime.

Fuck off.

KEK

i believe in global warming and i will fight to the death anyone who tries to take it away from me

>Why does Sup Forums refuse to believe in global warming

I believe, based on the best evidence, that it's real. I was agnostic for a time because I don't think we have the best tools to measure this. It seems clear now.

Global warming is happening, humans are the likely source.

The problem is that nothing useful will be done about it. Because it's also true that the proposed "solutions" like carbon credits are a fucking scam and just another stealth tax with no accountability designed to hike prices. And as usual the ones who pay are the middle class and lower upper class. The ones hit hardest are small businesses, the ones who can get exemptions or use creative bookkeeping, or just outright own a stake in the credit scam, are the big ones.

No single country will fall on a sword to "save the world", taking a gigantic hit to the GNP and risking triggering a larger economic crisis. And you sure as shit won't unite the world to lower consumption or stop using fossil fuels.

So whatever happens, will happen. The only way out is through. There are signs alternative energy is a serious competitor the old fashioned way; by being a better investment. It's also a technology that's getting better year after year, where legacy energy stands still.

Regardless, there isn't political capital to do anything close to what scientists say is necessary. So what's the point of treading this shit over again and again? We've missed deadlines already and we'll keep on doing so.

Climate change exists regardless of human activity, a bigger threat to the environment is pollution and real estate development replacing farmsteads and forests.

Nah. I just have a good memory, knowledge of the laws of thermodynamics, and don't believe molecules of any gas are capable of sentient thought, let alone the level of cognition needed to intentionally absorb and re-radiate solar energy in such a way that it makes icebergs melt, tropics freeze, and otherwise act to change the climate in any specific part of the world to whatever scares the people that live there the most.

they are afraid

This desu.

Because a lot of the data is fudged, the computer models have never matched up with the observable data, and they approach the topic with an attitude of a politician rather than a scientist.

I.E. "IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN THIS YOU BELONG IN JAIL" vs. "Let's have a rational debate like gentlemen about climate change, where we both produce evidence and counter-evidence to each other's claims in a public forum."

We'd rather believe in unbiased facts and science instead.

quick rundown?

Step 1. Give Al Gore money

Step 2. ???

Step 3. Global warming solved

It's pretty simple, which part don't you understand?

Gravity is a theory ya fucking donkey.

Anyone that argues against climate change has either never taken any time to look at the information about it or simply parrots and misunderstands phrases from talkers that they like to be in agreement with yet infinitely stupider than.

Man made climate change is real. That is not even open to debate. What is open to debate is what can we actually do about it? Changing lightbulbs and riding a bike isn't going to do it, to have any meaningful change would involve total global participation of billions of people, many of whom while being wholeheartedly for saving the planet would be in open rebellion at the sort of life they would actually have to live to do so. No one in malibu is going to eat crickets, live in a shack, and walk everywhere, nor are entire continents of people too stricken with drought and lack of food going to stop procreating at an exponential rate.

Climate change is real, halting climate change is nigh impossible even with threat of force. Can a single american in this thread see our country giving up cattle which is the largest source of methane being put into the atmosphere? Fuck no, I like steak and I'd rather see us all choke to death in the toxic wasteland we created for ourselves through our incompetence.

>97

There was a so called “consensus” that said the Earth was flat. There was a so called “consensus” that said sickness was caused by demons. Your so called "consensus" is not science. It is pure politics. “Consensus” is dogma.

When I was a boy, teachers in school said that New York would be under water by the time I grew up. They were completely, laughably wrong. Even though they are completely wrong about everything, all the time, warmists will never stop making up dumb predictions.

>tfw he fell for the "97% of scientists agree" meme
Spoonfed retard confirmed

"Never let a good crisis go to waste."

Science has become so political to the point where I have a hard time believing any of this shit anymore. How do you differentiate between fact and (((fact))) these days?

I think that cutting down on consumerism, learning how to be self reliant, and installing a would stove would do a lot for our environment, but that doesn't serve the insatiable list for gold that communists and corporations have.

>From the people who can't accurately predict a hurricane's drift over 24 hours come claims of having supercomputer prediction algorithms that can assign root cause to weather (in 50 years).

You're statistically illiterate.

You can't predict which way a coin will flip the next time. You can't predict the next 5 coin tosses.

But you CAN predict what the trend of coin tosses over thousands and tens of thousands of flip is.

Substitute for card draws or dice rolls if you want.

>Al Gore

Hasn't been relevant for a long time and the people who own stake in carbon credit scams now include fossil fuel parent companies.

Activates the almonds.

were you not a kid in america, because we were taught pluto was a planet and now its not. Same thing.

I believe in it I just dont give a fuck.

>I think that cutting down on consumerism, learning how to be self reliant, and installing a would stove would do a lot for our environment

Yes it would, it would make things 10 times worse.

The amount of pollutants put out by wood stove use is crazy. It's incredibly inefficient and even modern coal plants have really good (but not perfect) filters, something home stove users do not need.

The luddite path is so much worse for the environment. If you want to have some insight into this look at how communities in Africa are utterly destroying the environment because they use primitive heating and cooking.

Note: this isn't just a CO2 problem, this is a "air unbreathable, waterways poisoned" issue.

if global warming were as scary and disastrous to the planet as they say, we'd already be forced into depopulation and civilization regression schemes. notice how ZERO rich people adhere to 'saving the Earth'.

instead... they just tax... carbon...

carbon is a REQUIREMENT for life on Earth. more carbon = more plants = more prosperity.

global warming is a tax on life.
global warming is a death cult.

It's like the holocaust, in that it did happen, but experts don't fully agree on what, when, how, or why. It pisses people off when you tell them that ice core samples may not be accurate or that linear regression is better at predicting the rate of warming than the models produced using millions of dollars of supercomputer.

The cult plays on people's desperation for relevance.

The Earth will go on for several billion years after the last of us are gone. What kind of fucking profoundly mentally limited idiot thinks it matters one whit if they put a banana peel in the trash versus the compost bin?

Hint: your own "evidence based" scientists will confirm for you that the planet has gone through countless warming phases in its existence. Many if not most of them lasted longer than the entirety of what we deem to be "civilization."

Any message in that for you? Hello? Bueller?

It's 72% faggot.

spoken like a true undergraduate social "science" student who gets email alerts from r/ifuckinglovescience

Cool who cares
There's actual problems in the world

How many failed doomsday prediction do they have to make before you realized they are utterly full of fucking shit?

youtube.com/watch?v=5c4XPVPJwBY&t

>How do you differentiate between fact and (((fact))) these days?

You learn the science.

An electorate is only ever as good as the lowest common denominator of its knowledge. This is the biggest failing of democracy.

Feel free to enlighten us all about all these horrible effects of climate change that we've quantified in the last 50 years.

The opposite side's talking points are just as retarded.
>muh ice
>muh polar bears
>muh extreme weather
>muh 20ft rise in sea level
>muh desertification
>muh ISIS

I believe it, I just think that the elites that tell people what kind of cars they can and can't drive and how many children they are allowed to have, all the while flying to meetings and summits in their private jets deserve to be necked. Has China's pollution problems disappeared with the introduction of population control? No, it hasn't, our consumerism of cheap shit has increased it, our reliance and subsidizing of corn has similarly polluted our country's water supply and depleted our aquifers. Corporations, communists, and globalists are the leading environmental danger we face.

>Man made climate change is real. That is not even open to debate.
you can stop pretending to believe in science now

there was once a time that almost 100% of scientists believed that earth was flat, and now most of them dont.
that means absolutely nothing
scientists are not smart user if they where , they would be hollywood stars or bankers instead.

>if i can't think of it like a basic movie plot it can't be happening

fucking children i swear to god

Ever notice how the people who feel this way elect the worst possible people to do a better job?

Yes. Scientist love funding and nothing receives more funding than 'research to avoid our eminent doom!'
Also politicians love taxes and nothing gives them an excuse to tax you more than 'funding research to avoid our eminent doom!'
Also many scientist disagree with man's influence on climate change, they are just silenced and unable to publish their work
Scientist who deny climate change or try to point of flaws in current calculations are black-balled and and excluded from the community.
Many peer reviews will drop any papers that point out problems with man causing climate change.

>it is important to acknowledge that the climate DOES change, the debate is more about whether or not man is the cause.

Who gives a shit! Arabia gets hotter and more miserable, Florida coast is underwater, I have to shovel less fucking snow. What's the downside?

>hurr durr the earth has always gone through cycles of global cooling/global warming so this is not a result of us at all

Yea I came to that same conclusion when I was 15 and broscienced my way to that answer without looking at a single shred of data. Just knowing that oh historically the earth does this absolves us. Guess what young me was wrong and so are you. It's real, and it's bad, and most likely it's only going to get worse.

Unless someone creates some sort of breakthrough pollution vacuum for the environment there is no point in talking about it for all intents and purposes because the average person does not want to degrade their living conditions and comfort.

At what point is it a moral imperative to cull the population? Is a question i'd rather see.

The irony of carbon taxes is that they're flat rates which can be avoided with more expensive capital that smaller competitors can't afford.
In all, it's actually competitively beneficial to many industries to blow climate change out of proportion

Global Warming BTFOed.

97% of the 34% of climate scientists who voiced an opinion on ~global warming~ claimed it was real, with obfuscated numbers to back it up. This is not 97% of ALL THE WORLD'S SCIENTISTS, but of course the same people who believe if you don't earn a billion dollars a year means you aren't a billionaire are going to believe that 97% of the 34% = 97% of 100%

That pic is hillarious

The fact that Sup Forums is still arguing it's a hoax. Sad.

Every year wild fires occur naturally in many parts of the world. The co2 and nitrogen put off by the fumes were captured from the air at one point in time. Wood is carbon neutral, natural gas and oil is not. You don't need to truck wood from Saudi Arabia, you don't need to build elaborate drills and risk polluting the soil in order to harvest wood, and in the end, a managed forest is sustained.

The 97% number is bullshit. It comes from a study of science papers where, if global warming was just mentioned, the writers assumed that a) the scientist endorsed the idea and b) that those agreed that humans were responsible.

populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html

But believe your (((watermelon))) propaganda, sheeple.

I am aware that large particles trap heat, and that humans put large particles into the atmosphere on an immense basis.

I just don't care.

hashtag antartic greenland gold rush

>When the Strayan doesn't post a quality shit post.

What are you even doing mate?

>global warming is real
>we could solve it if only the minority of people who disagreed with it would change their mind
>they are preventing us from taking action on an individual or group level

What a generation of cucks. Never taking any action beyond posting on social virtual signalling networks and blaming everyone who disagrees with them as the reason no action is being taken.

I dont believe in global warming but run a business that makes more positive impact towards reducing waste than those cucks ever will.

I mean when you spend 40 years predicting we're all going to die in the next 15-50 and then it doesn't happen I think people start to grow skeptical. The green energy industry is just more jewry. Banks like Goldman Sachs make money trading carbon credits.

You can volunteer yourself for the cull before putting others on the chopping block.

There is no debate about (((climate change))), the question is what percent of the change can clearly be correlated with human activity?
There are a lot of factors that affect the earths average temperature, including natural environmental cycles and gamma radiation from proximity to other stars as our solar system traverses the galaxy.

Just because someone in a lab coat says that humans are changing the temperature, doesn't mean you should believe it. The narrative of (((science))) changes all the time and there is no definitive agreement among "scientists."

You want to know the kicker?
The earth releases more particles than humans.
Ever.

Yes, I am more intelligent and know more about atmospheric physics than 99.9% of "climate scientists" (most of whom are not even really scientists btw).

>Gravity is a theory ya fucking donkey.
Any time someone uses this argument---and that's pretty often---I know I can safely ignore them. Gravity is not a theory; the theory of gravity is a theory. Less tautologically, that which the common person refers to as gravity is not a theory, it's just what they're referring to. What is a theory is our current understanding of how gravity works. There's a difference between a phenomenon and an explanation for a phenomenon. The former is not a theory, the latter can be a theory.

Liberal epistemology is that truth is arrived at by this sort of gradual democratic process.

>their denial that climate changes constantly

>97%
97% of the 40% that responded you mean.
So 39%.

>Every year wild fires occur naturally in many parts of the world.

Oh god it's the same fucking problem again and again.

If you have a balanced system that works with regenerative parts and destructive parts, you can't cite that as evidence that adding a shit ton of destruction won't affect the balance. This part requires zero belief from you, it's a fundamental fact. If you've taken any science classes, physics, geology, ecology, biology, this should be fucking obvious to you.

> Wood is carbon neutral

No, it's literally sequestered carbon. It's neutral only if in a balanced system where it's part of the give and take and that equation balances out.

You're so fundamentally wrong, it's like you think because there are trees on an island, you can cut them all down and they'll still regrow, because there are trees on the island. As if there isn't a balance needed to sustain their existence.

You might take a few out without disrupting the system, but eventually you'll do serious and lasting harm.

Again, this should be fucking base level understanding even you can grasp.

Fucking go outside and smell the air, what an absurd statement. I can literally smell cars, which produce carcinogenic fumes that everyone in the US breathes. Like Fukushima, the naysayers are the true mindslaves

not really. climate change is real and humans are definitely contributing.

I just don't think it really matters. it's literally w/e if we make a few already barely livable deserts completely unlivable while we make greenland livable.sure people will die and stuff might suck, but that's already the reality we live in.

I don't give a single fuck about climate change. I am simply too educated to think it's not happening and that humans aren't contributing to it. venus is an observable example of what large particles in an atmosphere do, and we are literally watching ourselves pump large particles into the atmosphere at an unprecedented rate. it's not rocket science.

You just need to lock yourself in your garage, turn the car on and huff as much fume as possible... you build a sort of immunity to it and it no longer becomes a problem.

>so 39%
no you jew

STOP TRYING TO DESTROY THE ENVIRONMENT

This

How dare you both assume my age and use my presumed age as part of an ageist attack. You need to take a long hard look in the mirror and ask yourself if you're assimilating fascist beliefs (it's insidious and we must all be guarded against this severe threat) As for the rest of your post (I'm being charitable and assuming that you made a minor lapse and are still a genuine comrade). These people deserve no tolerance. They are, at heart, intolerant and therefore, if not totally fascist already, so close to fascist that it does not warrant distinction. We should NEVER fear the loss of support because, ultimately, we are on the right side of history. If you deviate and moderate yourself towards making the proles happy you are just giving in to fascists and are therefore essentially in league with them. I'll let you off with a warning in this instance but please be more mindful before you comment in future and thoroughly educate yourself in the doctrine areas you have clearly missed out on.

The thing with something like, say, gravity, is that assuming the instruments are properly calibrated measuring the effects of it is universal and verifiable.

When laymen hear that climate research numbers need to be "adjusted", they automatically assume that some kind of manipulation to extrapolate the desired results is under way. Now, nothing of the sort could be going on, it could be adjusting a limited number of data points for any number of reasons that renders no statistically significant deviation of the whole.

But the damage is done. Reasonable skeptics and manipulative opportunists utilize things like this to attack the science as a whole. Climate scientists themselves don't help the matter by going on the attack and not explaining what they are doing. And treating their data as secret witchcraft, something that seems to run against the scientific method of open sharing of facts.

Yeah really funny I'm sure Jesus will protect his little European cast aways who found Oil and can't quit sucking Jew dick through that, gold, diamonds etc

Yeah Venus and Earth actually have large differences outside of the composition of their atmospheres. But whatever you're too intelligent anyway.

Further you don't seem to grasp that soot is polluting in more ways than CO2. If you ever got a nice inhale of a camp fire maybe you'd understand there's more going on that some clean emission.

There is no mystery or unknown here, third world nations have visible plumes of soot from wood stove use, and it's full of pollutants that will then settle down into the ground again, in heavy concentrations, leaking into waterways. It's not "like a wildfire", because it's a systematic and ongoing use that the natural system doesn't recover from because it never ends.

It also requires immense amounts more wood to get the equivalent heating, because wood is not very efficient. Getting all this wood from close by

> You don't need to truck wood from Saudi Arabia, you don't need to build elaborate drills and risk polluting the soil

As you suggest, also means HEAVY deforestation. Most areas don't have enough forest to support the use that would be required.

There are so many levels of stupidity to your idea one would think you stumbled onto one by accident. But you don't need to take my word for it. Google any fact related to this for yourself. Actually investigate this brilliant fucking brainfart more than regurgitating it for other people.

See if it's viable first.

The best way to understand this issue is to use first principles.

Is Co2s a green house gas yes.
Is it a strong greenhouse gas no.
How much is the direct effect of Co2
1.2 C per doubling of Co2

Why do so many people claim it's a problem if it is such a weak green house gas.

They claim feedback caused by a small amount of warming will cause allot of warming.

FULL STOP.

Which is more likely. A complex system will have positive feedback when stressed or negative feed back. I.E. work to counter act the stress.

Probably the later.

CONTINUE

Have the IPCCs projections ever matched their data no.

Is their any other branch of theist that continue to push the same theorist in spite of it's predictions never coming true. Only in social sciences. er commie sciences.

How much has the temperature increased.

DRUM-ROLL

.8 degrees C since 1900.

Was the temperature already increasing before 1900 Yes.

Use your head the largest contributor to the planets greenhouse effect is water vapor.
after that methane, the sun, changes in underwater currents. Co2 is barely even a factor in the climate.

global warming might be real and man made. Maybe it isn't. But let's assume it is.

The "solution" is laughable. You will never ever ever ever get billions of humans to agree to cut their consumption of fossil fuels. Nothing substantial will be done.
What will happen is either the warming is mild and humans will adapt (whatever this will mean), or is catastrophic and in that case they will try some geoengineering scheme.