Global warming my ass

Global warming my ass...

Other urls found in this thread:

climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/02/05/in-their-own-words-climate-alarmists-debunk-their-science/#1a566c5076fb
jahorina.live/
webcams.travel/webcam/1233330495-Weather-Grad-Kupres,-Hotel-Adria-Ski-Čajuša
vlasic-bih.info/
worldwildlife.org/threats/deforestation
trunity.net/files/108501_108600/108531/arrhenius1896_greenhouse-effect.pdf
youtu.be/3E0a_60PMR8?t=13
youtube.com/watch?v=OpBnCY7wwaw
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

The correct term is "climate change" and no, it doesn't mean that there won't be cold days on Earth.

They have to call it climate change because global warming was disproven. If you call it climate change, you can claim you were right if we have abnormally hot or abnormally cold temperatures. The only way you can be wrong is if the temperature stays exactly the same.

Woke up to snow today...

> jeez we are going to freeze to death
> jeez muh global warming will boil us alive
> wait wait jeez climate change is real
> why you stop believeing us

not understanding science the thread
go on pls

BUT DUDE THE CO2 PRODUCED FROM COWS FARTING IS GOING TO OVERHEAT THE PLANET AND FRY US ALL ALIVE

THE OECD HAS CAUGHT US FALSYFYING DATA 3 TIMES BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER WE ARE RIGHT AND YOU ARE A BIGOT!

Climate change is mostly a ploy to increase green taxes, but posting a picture of the daily weather as "proof" it doesn't exist just makes you look like an idiot.

This. It was global cooling in the 70's. Anything to keep the grant money flowing.

>Global Cooling
>Global Warming
>Climate Change

What's the next phenomena we're going to start charging bullshit taxes for?

Source?

>Media=Science

this thread is gold

Atmospheric inconvenience.

I don't know, I'm already paying 1,900 euro a year for my road tax and that is based on engine size because of muhh emissions.

fyi. its 1900 because engine is over 3 litres and thats how it works here... it would be 514 for 1.6
Can't get any worse... right?

>Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.

>97%
>Peer reviewed

How would climate change hoax benefit the jew??
Ecological regulations means less profit for kikes
You all say you're against kikes,but you support Destroying our nature, polluting our air, cutting down our forests all things that are essential for our survival
All in the name of GDP and money, and that my friend is an extremely Jewish thing to do.

climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Kwiecien plecien costam costam troche zimy troche lata . user don't you know that april in polan is always like that ?

Consensus is a meme
It only matters weather(pun intended) there is evidence or not

1 paper would suffice

>Warszawa

>4
>Cold
Poland...I

>How would climate change hoax benefit the jew??

A remark from Maurice Strong, who organized the first U.N. Earth Climate Summit (1992) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil revealed the real goal: “We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrialized civilization to collapse.”

Former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO), addressing the same Rio Climate Summit audience, agreed: “We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” (Wirth now heads the U.N. Foundation which lobbies for hundreds of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to help underdeveloped countries fight climate change.)

Also speaking at the Rio conference, Deputy Assistant of State Richard Benedick said: “A global warming treaty [Kyoto] must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced] greenhouse effect.”

In 1988, a former Canadian Minister of the Environment told editors and reporters of the Calgary Herald: “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

In 1996, former Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev emphasized the importance of using climate alarmism to advance socialist Marxist objectives: “The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order.”

Speaking at the 2000 U.N. Conference on Climate Change in the Hague, former President Jacques Chirac of France said: “For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance, one that should find a place within the World Environmental Organization which France and the European Union would like to see established.”

forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/02/05/in-their-own-words-climate-alarmists-debunk-their-science/#1a566c5076fb

the entire global warming meme was just a way for Gore to make money from taxing carbon emissions on everyone

Funny thing is
When you're sick, you trust scientific consesus that medicine works
When you want to travel somewhere, you trust scientific consensus that airplanes works
But somehow when it's about climate change
Suddenly scientific consesus isn't valid anymore.
Wew.

there was half a meter of snow here in bosnia last week, and it's still there on mountains

jahorina.live/

webcams.travel/webcam/1233330495-Weather-Grad-Kupres,-Hotel-Adria-Ski-Čajuša

vlasic-bih.info/

How's Bolivia?

It's just hit 38 here in Bangkok. Thailand 20 years ago would rarely go beyond 34, now 37 and 38 are regular occurrances. Global warming is happening, the argument is are humans responsible? Stupid argument, we should instead just say 'is there anything we can do to slow or prevent global warming?' I don't give a shit if it's our fault or not, the only pressing matter is how can we stop it.

>windows vista weather widget

as far as evidence goes this doesnt seem too convincing
just the fact that the (((GOP))) denies and the (((DNC))) is not fully on board is more evidence to the contrary

Let's say you're right and NASA is wrong
97% of scientists with peer reviewed work is wrong.
Still the pollution of air
The cut down of forests
The pollution of water with chemicals from factories
Are very very real, and is affecting us directly
Should we allow kikes do to whatever they want with precious finite resources that are essential for your survival?

>consensus

The work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that bears shit in the woods. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. There is no need.

> When you're sick, you trust scientific consesus that medicine works

Probably explains why the 3rd leading cause of death in American hospitals is medical mistakes. 365,000 a year, btw.

Can you read english?
How many scientist ''agree'' on climate change does not matter
It doesnt matter if 50% of published papers say one thing and 50% other
It matters if the model is supported by evidence and has predictive capabilities

One paper would suffice means that if its happening you dont need a scientist opinion poll
and it is so bust some of the ignorant balls

there are papers that speak of CO2 atmospheric effects dated more than 100years ago

shit like this really activates my almonds...
here in good ol germany basically nobody denies climate change.
but if the weather is especially cold in winter or hot in summer the media is like: oh there you go, climate change, the weather is more extreme in both directions.
and if the weather is unexpectatly mild the media goes: oh there you have it, climate change, normal weather patterns are no longer in effect.
shit like this almost makes me a denier.

but in the end. over 90% of the people studying this shit agree. and loads of rich people have a very real interest in disproving it, plus a good study that disproves manmade climate change (its solar patterns or just a normal cycle or whatever) would basically catapult a no-name scientist to world fame.
so i think if they could disprove it, they would.

Its cold for this time of a year you dumb burger.

We have spring holyday here around middle of month all about sprinkling people with water for luck and good mariage. It was always warm enough to do so. Now you gonna end up in hospital if you get wet cuz its fukin cold as fuck.
Glowal warming my ass.

Since when I can remember I was always able to run around in shorts on lany poniedzialek.
It might have been chilly at times but you never needed a fucking winter coat.

>Science consensus is irrelevant
M8, If you make a breakthrough discovery on something
Do you think other scientists will say
>Well If he says so then it must be true!
What will happen is
Several scientists will reproduce the results, and reach consensus on it
One scientist makes the discovery
Then several other scientists verify if it's
true
That's what consensus is about.
Consensus is essential for science
Because you can't claim any bullshit you want and get away with it.

Forest cut down is not going on
Water and air pollution are real but mostly isolated for now
Irrelevant for the conversation at hand pachamama

kikes shouldnt be allowed to do anything

Read this

^this

If this was true just one slick of evidence to the contrary discredits the whole thing
Is not like you have proof of almost any scientific theory

>Consensus is essential for science

No it's not, you fucking mong.
99.9999999% of scientists could agree that water boils at 175C and they'd be fucking wrong.

>Because you can't claim any bullshit you want and get away with it.

Unless it's Global Cooling, err, um, I mean Global Warming, uhhh, I mean Climate Change™.

The climate "scientists" predictions were wrong so often that they've had to change the name of their hypothesis three times now.

>Deforestation not happening

>Deforestation is a particular concern in tropical rainforests because these forests are home to much of the world’s biodiversity. For example, in the Amazon around 17% of the forest has been lost in the last 50 years, mostly due to forest conversion for cattle ranching. Deforestation in this region is particularly rampant near more populated areas, roads and rivers, but even remote areas have been encroached upon when valuable mahogany, gold and oil are discovered.

>17% in the last 50 years

worldwildlife.org/threats/deforestation

The consensus of Global warming isn't a 3rd party verification by doing the same research.
It was a shitty internet survey asked to a limited number or cherry picked scientists.
That's not science.
And yes a single study is enough for a discovery.
If there are no perceived flaws in the method, results, or the conclusions drawn from the results, and no biases of the author and the financier, then the study is enough to stand on it's own.
But that's not really the case with man made climate change.

pls provide research paper from before 1900 dealing with co2 levels and such.
Ill wait.

>mad normie cuz he can't go full normie mode on 1st may

LIAR

50 years
its getting slower and slower nowadays

Consensus is what just happens. It's a state of human social interaction. Consensus != fact. Consensus is human perception. The facts are in the journal showing documentation of reproducible results and in the very end, the experiment itself. If we come to consensus about something false, that's usually a problem because it has social implications, i.e. social standings are now suddenly at play which muddles the science with pure human motivation i.e. non-science.

Despite this I don't really see it as a problem unless it also has political implications. It solves itself when "old" scientists die and we get new people who are willing to accept what is glaringly obvious at that point.

Sure, there has been some mistakes
Science isn't a clear road of perfection.
But still, it's your personal opinion
Against 97% of scientists in peer reviewed scientific papers
If you think so many scientists are all in a grand conspiracy you should take your meds schizo.
Why don't you get your PHD, prove climate change is a hoax
And then collect your Nobel prize?

>17% in the last 50 years

Yet in 1975, Paul Ehrlich predicted that “since more than nine-tenths of the original tropical rainforests will be removed in most areas within the next 30 years or so, it is expected that half of the organisms in these areas will vanish with it.”

17% sucks, I agree.But that's a far cry from the 90% predicted by a well known climate alarmist.

trunity.net/files/108501_108600/108531/arrhenius1896_greenhouse-effect.pdf

It is undoubtedly a globalist conspiracy.

It's a few evil men, who control a group of stupid men, who control a large population of good people. It's an evil hierarchy of elite globalist power

Also what is google
I will wait for your newfound belief and understanding of science and stop conflating it with consensus or media frenzy
Grave misunderstandings

>Against 97% of scientists in peer reviewed scientific papers

NO.
Against 97% of climate scientists.
Whose funding depends on having a crisis to study.
This bullshit is no different than when Camel cigarettes advertised that "More doctors smoke Camel than any other type of cigarette!"

Climate Change hasn’t been around as long as Christianity, but it’s had as many failed prophecies.

Climate Change Missionaries already use words like Believer and Denier.

Science is a process, not a belief.

Anyone who claims otherwise is trying to sell you something.

>99.9999999% of scientists could agree that water boils at 175C and they'd be fucking wrong.

Depends on the pressure

Well maybe you retarded mulatto monkey spics should take a note from American logging practices. In America we designate forest for logging, clear cut it then replant that section so it can be logged again in another 50 years.

Oh wait that would be too difficult for you retards to understand.

>It is undoubtedly a globalist conspiracy

Vaccines causes autism too right?
What about flat Earth, it's obvious!
Reptilians? They're out there can't you see it? Info wars told me it must be true!!!!

this so fucking much, based thai
The whole goddamn thing is a statistical error, the real problem is how much data we should analyze.
Sure, the climate is changing allright but it most likely is not manmade. We can still try and prevent it tho

Logging best practices exist in south america, burger
And all around the world i think, deforestation is not going on for the use of the wood but for use of the land

>In America we designate forest for logging, clear cut it then replant that section so it can be logged again in another 50 years

It's what we do here .Even in forestry commission land they do it. Cut and replant and so on

I bet your cock is so hard right now. I bet you have a full on justice boner

>We should take notes from country that uses fracking
>We should take notes from country that uses the biggests SUVS that burns fuel and smoke like crazy, polluting air
>We should take notes from country that exposed 100.000 people to poisonous water in flint and won't be able to fix it by 2020

Top kek amerinigger.

> im wrong but there are stupid conservatives too
calm down pachamama you are not that far from the truth
keep educating yourself

I'm 1500km north from warsaw and my weather forecast looks like this. How the hell do we have the same weather?

How do you get a texas flag?

It's Chile. Not sure if joking

Do you actually believe anti vaxxers
Flat earthers
And reptilians?
The earthquakes really made you retarded.

>Sure, the climate is changing allright but it most likely is not manmade.

Bingo.
We're still in an ice age.

The peak of the last glacial stage was 23-24,000 years ago. The climate has mostly been warming since.

The last dip into glacial temperatures ended roughly 11,500 years ago with the Younger Dryas. There have been peaks and valleys since, but none that drastic.

We exist in what's called an interstadial; a warm period in between glaciations during an ice age.

For fun, go read about the following.

Bolling oscillation interstadial
Older Dryas stadial
Allerod oscillation
Younger Dryas
8.2 kiloyear event
Holocene climatic optimum
Older Peron transgression
Piora Oscillation
5.9 kiloyear event
4.2 kiloyear event
Roman warm period
Medieval warm period
Little Ice Age

By living in texas
>???

Heh, a few days ago it was snowing here and it was about 1-2 degrees for most of the time, and it even went below zero. It's a bit warmer today though, it's currently about 11 degrees.

Still not understanding english i see
My point was that ignorant people believing stupid shit does not make your claims more true

No I mean, why does Texas get it's own flag on Sup Forums?

This disproves the effect of co2 on the climate how?

>you'd die eventually, so you can't tell if it's really this bullet that shredded your guts that killed you or it's just the natural process
We release fossil CO2. Atmospheric CO2 is at a record level.

after the secession we got one

Damn son

CO2 comprises a tiny 0.4% of all the gases above our heads. Global warming from CO2 is a farce. The heat increase felt over the last 70 years was due to the sun. Since the solar cycles are ramping down we can expect the climate to become colder.

look at the global average you mongol

weir extremes only prove that something is going on

Read it yourself dumb fuck.....this paper is:
1. Incomplete
2. Dose not state climate change is man made
3. Its scientific reasearch on how green house gasses are influencing temp.
READ BEFORE YOU POST, and than jump off the fukin copter you dumb twat.

youtu.be/3E0a_60PMR8?t=13

really makes you think

>CO2 comprises a tiny 0.4% of all the gases above our heads.
so what? it causes increase in temperature because of the green house effect

stop embarrassing the flag you dumb fuck

>This disproves the effect of co2 on the climate how?

I'll wait on you to prove that manmade co2 is causing the current "climate change" before trying to disprove it, thanks.

You might want to also prove how humans were responsible for any of the large climate change events I listed while you're at it.

Climate warming m8.

>provide pre 1900 article on co2 levels affecting climate
provided
> it does not talk about man made climate change even though it speaks of co2 influence on temp
when did we discuss the claim of man influence you discussion manipulating idiot

>The climate is always changing, but right now it would be absolutely stable if it weren't for those pesky humans

Why don't you go ahead and tell me exactly what the climate would be like right now without any effects caused by humans.

All I wanted is nice and warm spring but it's cold as shit and I can't even open my windows because then me and my chili's are going to freeze to death aaarrrggghhhh

Since stupid people like you belive shit Al Gore say. I bet you havent faintest clue how much co2 vulcanos produce or how much shit chinks made.
Your link is great read so far but dose not make your point more valid. We as people have very little impact on global temp.

>doesnt know how science works

There is only evidence and model predictive capabilities there is no ''proof''
You can however disprove and i was checking if that is what you were trying to do by providing that graf

No one claims man was responsible for any of those events

Are you growing chilies indoors with you, or is that a euphemism for your nuts?

The scientific claims are
Stronger hurracains
Acidic ocean
Rise in air temp and ocean temp
Rise in sea levels

I think thats it

Said guy in winter coat in middle of spring, shouting global warming!

haha very funny. I live in apartment complex and I can't put them outside. Even if I didn't, it would be too cold. They would die instantly

>There is only evidence and model predictive capabilities there is no ''proof''

And those predictions have been wildly inaccurate.

January 2000 Dr. Michael Oppenheimer of the Environmental Defense Fund (in a NY Times interview) on mild winters in New York: “But it does not take a scientist to size up the effects of snowless winters on children too young to remember the record-setting blizzards of 1996. For them, the pleasures of sledding and snowball fights are as out-of-date as hoop-rolling, and the delight of a snow day off from school is unknown.”

1969, Lubos Moti, Czech physicist: “It is now pretty clearly agreed that CO2 content [in the atmosphere] will rise 25% by 2000. This could increase the average temperature near the earth’s surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit. This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter.”

Michael Oppenheimer, 1990, The Environmental Defense Fund: “By 1995, the greenhouse effect will be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots…”(By 1996) The Platte River of Nebraska will be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers…The Mexican police will round up illegal American migrants surging into Mexico.”

June 30, 1989, AP: U.N. OFFICIAL PREDICTS DISASTER–entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ‘eco-refugees,’ threatening political chaos,” said Brown, director of the U.N. Environment Program. He added that governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect.

“Within a few years winter snowfall will become a very rare and exciting event. …”
David Viner, 20 March 2000

I was serious. Everything in Australia can and is regularly used as a euphemism for ones nuts.

>Alarmist verbal claims = science
Still figuring out how it works?

fucking squirel people :^

In here its 10:36 and temperature is at 17C.

Deal with it kurczak

>Still figuring out how it works?

Still figuring out how to make a prediction that actually happens?

You've said stronger hurricanes.
Maybe you should add weaker hurricanes, less hurricanes, and more hurricanes.

Gotta cover all the bases with your new religion.

> i-it is i-ice age guise
Fuck you and your retarded mongoloid genes. Where the fuck do you see ice age?

Global Warming is like throwing nuke on little children. Every day!
Belief him, he is a scientist!

youtube.com/watch?v=OpBnCY7wwaw

Still dont follow what this has to do with CO2 levels