Trying to figure out what the most recent arguments against this hoax are because I stopped thinking about this like 10 years ago and just started calling them all faggots. Only things I'm aware of right now are
>falsified NOAA data
>Al Gore's constantly shifting goal posts
What else is there?
Other urls found in this thread:
skepticalscience.com
thenewamerican.com
skepticalscience.com
skepticalscience.com
skepticalscience.com
youtube.com
skepticalscience.com
en.wikipedia.org
iflscience.com
youtube.com
theguardian.com
en.wikipedia.org
skepticalscience.com
en.wikipedia.org
smallthoughts.com
skepticalscience.com
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
www2.ucar.edu
skepticalscience.com
en.wikipedia.org
longrangeweather.com
twitter.com
They need more data to prove that the current trend ISNT normal.
I figured there was some graphical data showing the longer term data just being normal as opposed to "climbing dangerously upward". Saved. Thanks, user. Anyone got more?
skepticalscience.com
Every single argument made against climate science has been debunked, thoroughly, including the 2 points you mentioned.
I really like your use of ms paint there
that fucking headline
>"Al Gore got it wrong"
>AL GORE WAS MORE ACCURATE THAN THE PEOPLE ARGUING AGAINST HIM GODDAMNIT
Wow, you really got me, faggot.
how about this argument
it's observably not happening
Yeah you gotta admit that's really fucking clever
I don't understand how the government can impose a carbon tax based off of bunk science
Because idiot liberals gave them too much power to be prevented from doing so.
Because it's real science and you're an idiot. The deniers have been proven wrong too many times to count.
Why is /reddit/ here tonight? What exactly is going on, damage control from Le Pen making the runoff?
Kek imagine the butthurt
We aren't denying anything, climate change is a natural occurance. You're an alarmist who's been brainwashed by the establishment
you would apply that on the penis first i feel
Climate change is happening, but if the models are correct Florida should have been under water 25 years ago. The fact that it isn't proves the models are incorrect. But keep pushing the idea.
Australians ship post IRL
skepticalscience.com
What does Al Gore have to do with climate science?
Is he a scientist?
Has he published any papers?
You're fixated on the media and its personalities, debate the science and scientists if you want to get anywhere.
skepticalscience.com
skepticalscience.com
That article is full of bullshit and straight up lies.
>ship post
Is this slang for dick covered in shit.
That's basically been my argument whenever this comes up, that every prediction has been totally wrong so how can we possibly trust any of it? We clearly don't know the full range of causes and their impacts or we'd be able to predict the outcomes and that's obviously not happening. Thanks, user. Bookmarking.
>Because it's real science and you're an idiot. The deniers have been proven wrong too many times to count.
What are you on about? The facts are that 'climate scientists' have been proven wrong time and time again.
AGW is the greatest fraud the planet has ever seen.
Climate change was natural until humans started adding to the effect and changing it more. Now humans are a major contributor. Much as extinction was natural until humans also started causing extinction of species by over hunting.
the 'ol spicy butthole
just a prank bro
Literally never happened. You're being delusional.
>That article is full of bullshit and straight up lies.
That you have put no effort in to refuting. But by all means keep pushing the idea that has failed to live up to predictions more times than you can count. You know how the scientific model works right?
youtube.com
watch this
Al Gore created the wave of hysteria. Climate scientists are all liberal faggots who chose the degree and career to prove their own bias and get grant money. No evidence proves otherwise and none of the predictions are accurate, as previously stated. Debate the logic, cumguzzler.
Jesus Christ
skepticalscience.com
Everything mentioned is already debunked.
I scheduled a vacation day for tomorrow weeks ago so I'm going to listen to this while I hang out at home. Thanks.
...
thenewamerican.com
But this article debunks your debunking. It's like we are at an impasse.
Dropping some free red pills
Are you capable read one fucking article in your life you enormous faggot?
...
...
There's no verifiable data, the Antartica iceblocks are a meme that barely account for the climate near antartica, the CO2 levels there are influenced by the volcanic activity of that zone and can't be extrapolated.
It's ultimately a hunch.
...
You're acting like a journalist. Your "article" (aka "string of 'NO's") was shit. This thread is for the arguments against the hoax, not your faggot analysis of why we're all insane and you're not. Go start another blacked thread, you fucking faggot.
In regards to climate change, there's a theory of what's known as "runaway climate change". It's a theory that the more CO2 you put into the atmosphere, the more CO2 and other greenhouse gases are produced naturally. Humans have added quite a bit in a short amount of time, and this triggered runaway climate change. What we emit now is having little effect, but the rapid industrialization of the 19th/18th century set off the boom a century early. It doesn't help we're destroying forests, which act as carbon sinks.
>On the Earth, the IPCC states that "a 'runaway greenhouse effect'—analogous to [that of] Venus—appears to have virtually no chance of being induced by anthropogenic activities."[3]
en.wikipedia.org
tl;dr it's a natural process, but our rapid industrialization and deforestation set it off earlier than it would've happened naturally
We don't contribute jack shit to greenhouse gasses. 95% of GHG's are water vapour. Are you afraid of clouds ruining the environment?
>humans also started causing extinction of species by over hunting
More than 99 percent of all species that ever lived on Earth are estimated to be extinct. Mankind isn't responsible for even half a percent of the extinctions, you dumbass
Actually I've read that forests aren't great carbon sinks and we have more forests now than at any point in the last 200 years. Grasslands are the best carbon sinks because they continually grow at a rapid rate. In Siberia they're cutting down forrests to expand grasslands and they're importing grazing animals to eat the grass to keep the forests down and encourage grass growth to stop the rapid CO2 rise there.
Why are you arguing with IPCC? It's their job to know more than you.
>that one fag who shows off how much of a slut he is by dispensing lube right into his asshole
>only looks at data from 1979
>disregards data from before then because 1979 was the coldest point in the recent fluxuation
realclimatescience.com
>ignores CO2 levels
>only looks at temperature
>doesn't realize there is literally no correlation.
You know CO2 isn't toxic right? Like plant's breath it in and exhale oxygen? If there was no CO2 in the atmosphere we would all die
Okay this water vapor thing has me intrigued. I'm having trouble finding any info online now about the actual contribution to total CO2 by man as opposed to just our breakdown that blames industry. Is this the fucking lie? Are we a very small fraction of the actual effect and they just dodge that point with a sleight of hand?
What the current CO2 levels?
I found this at co2now.org
Atmospheric CO2
March 2017
407.05
parts per million (ppm)
Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii (Scripps)
Preliminary data released April 3, 2017
Not lets do some math.
407.05 parts per million:
407.05/1000000=.00040705
.00040705*100=.040705% concentration
Wow it's nothing.
youtube.com
>11 Craziest Discoveries from Wikileaks
Starts at 2:04
Wikileaks being the media publishing company that has been exposing governmental and corporate corruption for going on eleven years now with a perfect record. 10's of millions of documents publishing with 100% accuracy record.
NOT. A. SINGLE. MISTAKE.
10 YEARS
10's OF MILLIONS OF DOCUMENTS
NOT ONE FRAUDULENT DOCUMENT
They're legit but you should be skeptical too. Climate science is getting weirder and weirder.
en.wikipedia.org
No, it literally doesn't. Atleast put in some effort.
>on global cooling
skepticalscience.com
>on UNEP
models are standardized to predict in atleast 30 year periods, not 5.
>The 2005 UNEP predictions claimed that, by 2010, some 50 million “climate refugees” would be frantically fleeing
this is literally a lie.
the rest of the shit is covered by skepticalscience.
waaah, the little bitch can't handle someone in their safe space. fuck off.
?????
did you even read the article? He was the one of the first to create a global climate model. The predictions it made, especially in scenario C, have all been accurate over 25 years.
>owned by Anthony Heller
>alias, fake name of Steven Goddard
>paid shill for oil companies
kek
Based on the data I've seen so far, it is my opinion that human activity has definitely had an impact on our environment, but to what extant is up for question. Scientists don't even fully understand Earth's climate. Anyone who says anthropogenic climate change is settled science should be lined up and executed by firing squad. It's not and these crazy leftists that scream doom and gloom over deniers destroying our future have never offered a real solution.
No one is talking about toxicity and yes it is toxic. We're talking about its greenhouse gas effect.
>carbon dioxide can be toxic to animal life
en.wikipedia.org
>the article
Formulate an argument and argue it. "It's in the article" is not an argument. If it is, then I will simply tell you how you've been disproven via this link, and call it a day. smallthoughts.com
pic related
>muh trace gas
skepticalscience.com
>nigger liberal is hijacking a thread
Wew just like ANTIFA! So brave!
Climate Change is a hoax.
Suck Bill Nye's vagina, faggot.
...
ding ding ding it's parabolic
So tell me how doubling c02 in 50 years, from .02% to .04% is reason to freak out. It's literally nothing.
Ok.
>On global cooling
pic related
Most scientists predicted warming, not cooling. It's not the scientists' fault that dumbasses are fixated on media and media personalities.
Honestly, don't listen to people on Sup Forums about science. There are some knowledgeable people on here but 95% of posters think they know a lot but really have no idea what they are talking about, and are spreading complete misinformation.
At least that's my experience whenever I've talked to people on here about chemistry
if i recall correctly even the legit predictions are not even that bad. sea level rises would probably create millions of refugees and some agricultural disruption, but its not an existential threat like they usual say
Chemical reactions are complex. Methane levels are rising too.
first of all you are thinking about it all wrong, you are operating in the frame that "global warming" is some binary outcome that is either "real" or a "hoax"
what does climate change even mean? the climate has never not been "changing" what liberals mean by climate change is some kind of vague apocalypse scenario where the earth suddenly heats up dramatically and kills us all
this is not even possible, the hottest the planet can realistically get is about 8 K hotter before radiate heat loss balances any feedback we can create, the earth has been oscillating between a stable cold and a stable hot state since the cambrian epoch, we are in the cold state right now (aka an ice age). The worst case scenario is that we move up to the hot state (22C average), dinosaurs existed for hundreds of millions of years in this """nightmare global warming scenario"""
so the right question is, if the water vapor feedback is strong enough (not clear that it is), how much disruption to our civilization would the transition to the hot state entail?
>the real redpill is that 5-8 of rapid global warming would exterminate Africa, India, and the middle east while norther whites in Canada and Russia thrived
>global warming is good for whites globally
>Chemical reactions are complex
Weak. You can't explain it at all. All you can do is recycle talking points you know nothing about.
I have realized 2 things
you need to be a climate scientist to see who is lying
It doesn't matter, once we get into problems the (((elites))) will fix it, after all they still live in this planet
Sea level rise was never the existential threat. The existential threat is that if temperatures continue to rise that there will be massive extinction of species. The sea level rise is just one of the many bad effects that happen between now and the end.
all else being equal, more CO2 is fantastic
Only 32%~ stays in the atmosphere, the majority goes into the ocean which acidifies it and warms it.
Saw some report that CO2 is at 440ppm or something, the first time in millions of years.
I'm skeptical of that as Earth is only 6,000 years old.
Weather modification is possible and has been done, would the government manipulate the weather to impose a carbon tax?
en.wikipedia.org
I don't know, it seems a bit excessive. They could just pay off researchers to flub the results for money but then again there's more of a chance of the whistle being blown.
en.wikipedia.org
This kills marine life. The ocean's are already fucked.
Is a prime example of what I'm talking about
How much has the global temperature risen since 1880?
Averaged over all land and ocean surfaces, temperatures warmed roughly 1.53 degrees Fahrenheit (0.85 degrees Celsius) from 1880 to 2012, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
www2.ucar.edu
>1.5F
>.85C
Huge threat dude.
>The existential threat is that if temperatures continue to rise that there will be massive extinction of species.
there have been many natural mass extinctions, intelligent and advanced races will adapt and survive, niggers probably won't. This is a good thing in the long run
for some plants, probably
skepticalscience.com
Not all plants utilize CO2 at the same rate, so you have increased likelihood of some species outcompeted out of existence. Additionally, you don't magically get more rainfall and minerals needed to sustain growth, even with more CO2.
On May 10th, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) announced that:
"[T]he daily mean concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of Mauna Loa, Hawaii, surpassed 400 parts per million (ppm) for the first time since measurements began in 1958. ... It marks an important milestone because Mauna Loa, as the oldest continuous carbon dioxide (CO2) measurement station in the world, is the primary global benchmark site for monitoring the increase of this potent heat-trapping gas."
So what does this mean? Well, it depends upon whom you ask. As reported at Climate Depot:
"Former Vice President Al Gore declared the 400 ppm level 'A sad milestone. A call to action.' New York times reporter Justin Gillis compared trace amounts of CO2 to 'a tiny bit of arsenic or cobra venom' and warned that rising CO2 means 'the fate of the earth hangs in the balance.' The New Yorker Magazine declared 'Everything we use that emits carbon dioxide needs to be replaced with something that doesn't.' And a UK Guardian editorial declared 'Swift political action can avert a carbon dioxide crisis.'"
Yet, despite all the doomsayers, as reported by Plant Fossils of West Virginia, and illustrated in the following chart, throughout the earth's history, atmospheric CO2 has most typically ranged between 2,000 and 8,000 ppm (black line), with only one other significant drop to todays range of 400 ppm or less during the Carboniferous period.
Funny thing is, a carbon tax would lead to less emissions, which would lead to global dimming.
en.wikipedia.org
Reducing emissions would actually increase the earth's temperature.
So model the changing levels of H2O being evaporated off the oceans as a result of rising temperatures. Oh that's right, no model can do that.
Geophysicist reporting
First off is to realise the difference between climate change and global warming. Global warming is a meme, and anyone claiming to be a 'climate change scientist', or have taken some sort of 'global warming degree' needs to be ignored completely.
Climate change on the other hand is a real thing. It occur naturally over time. The issue here is we have fucked with it in a big way, no doubt. It's my job to figure out what will happen as a result, and the scary as shit bit is that we dont know. No one fucking knows. Nor can we properly explain some of the shit we're seeing.
All we can really recommend is to stop fucking with it spectacularly. Any shit like this cant be healthy long term. Best case scenario, we adapt and it sorts itself out, worst, we ded
It's been politicized to all hell. Liberal babs wanting another way to bleed money out of companies, and then not spending it on research into prediction/mitigation, and making shit up. The right thinking the whole thing is a meme and removing it altogether. Surprise, neither addresses the problem
tl;dr stop quoting meme politicians and reading political articles. Find a physicist, or be one. I dont fucking care. Just dont take the easy way out of this lib shit and deny it outright
Here's a good one: We're still alive. They haven't changed the model, but we're still alive. London was meant to be underwater 5 years ago, but it isn't. There were meant to be weather MEGAEVENTS that'd cause untold damage and take countless lives, but there aren't. New Zealand was meant to be full of malaria-infected mosquitos because the temperature was going to raise that much, but we're fine. All of this was predicted under the current model they're STILL using. They're predicted multiple apocalyptic/last chance scenarios under the current model and, you can probably guess this but I'll tell you anyway, we've outlived them all. Their model remains unchanged and they just ignore all the times they've been wrong because the money's too good. Just look up their predictions they've made under the current model and make note of the years by which these things were supposed to take place cause last time I checked, Fiji's still above water.
What I want you and other people to know is that biggest argument against man-made climate change is the argument for man-made climate change.
Way to not add anything to the discussion other than your condemnation. You are useless. Find a thread you can contribute something of value to please.
Strawman: The Image
Dumbed down answer, Water vapor is a more potent greenhouse gas, but CO2 lasts far longer in the atmosphere. Its at this point you realize that their solutions to climate change would involving reducing emissions (crippling economies) in the wrong places at he wrong time.
for plant growth lol, co2 also captures and re-emits long wave radiation, preventing it from leaving our atmosphere.
>he has a conclusion which he wants to find support for
>he doesn't look at all of the evidence before making up his mind
You're a retarded subhuman.
>Blease Reed
The ozone layer Hoax, the holes in the ozone layer have always been there, the holes appear at the poles in the winter in each hemisphere
Could it be ice and tectonic subduction zones releasing CO2?
It was from that FBI user post a few months ago. I know great source but apparently it was legit.
GOT MY ANSWER FRIENDS (and faggot commie cumguzzling whore cunt):
>CO2 has been all over the fucking place for all periods of time we can measure
>CO2 can only be measured as a gross number, not truly dividable by sources besides estimates
>CO2 is rising WHICH IT HAS DONE SO MANY GODDAMN TIMES IN THE PAST
>all previous occurrences were despite no or little human impact
>somehow we are to blame this time
>give us $$$$$$$$$
I'm fucking rock hard right now. Thanks for the help, Ameribros and Leaf friend.
What shit is it that you're seeing?
You didn't really elaborate on much, please explain the science more.
Ahh so you can't smell the fumes of the city? Sad. This world is fucked
