What are your reasons for being absolutely positive that mans CO2 emissions is a leading driver in the course of the...

What are your reasons for being absolutely positive that mans CO2 emissions is a leading driver in the course of the changing climate?

Other urls found in this thread:

science.time.com/2013/06/06/sorry-a-time-magazine-cover-did-not-predict-a-coming-ice-age/
youtube.com/watch?v=1kGB5MMIAVA
youtube.com/watch?v=yTTaXqVEGkU
youtube.com/watch?v=j5M1qtN62yk
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

>a fucking magazine is science now

Damn... all those peer reviewed studies when we could just have a magazine

Bill Nye said so. Muh 97% science by consensus.

what?

You faggots in the lower 48 don't notice it as much, but it's happening.

Summers are two weeks longer up near the Churchill area, and this is already killing off the polar bears. Permafrost is melting, new plants and animals that have never been seen in the far north have shown up, etc.

The further you are north, the more you'll notice climate change. We haven't had a "normal" winter in probably a decade(near Ottawa). Last winter it was too warm, but we ended up getting snow all the way into early April.

We're also getting droughts here that haven't happened in a very long time. 5 years ago we didn't have rain for over eight weeks straight.

because scientifics are smarter than this racist shithole

Nobody gives a fuck about where you live faggot.

I said Churchill, I didn't want anyone to think I lived way up there.

Sunspots have more to do with climate change than human activity shill

science.time.com/2013/06/06/sorry-a-time-magazine-cover-did-not-predict-a-coming-ice-age/

>Sorry, a TIME Magazine Cover Did Not Predict a Coming Ice Age

so your personal anecdotes are the reason you believe that mans CO2 output is steering the course of the climate on a planetary scale


ok thats one person


next

because in 1977 the time was fearmongering, nowadays the science is in.thus we know, that there is an overwhelming amount of evidence backing the relation between co2 emissions, methane emissions and the climate heating up. obviously you could argue there wasnt, but just allow me to suggest the following: 1:there has never been an increase in heat on earth as quick as today in earths history. 2: there never has been an increase in co2 in earths atmosphere as fast as within the last year.

It's all a hoax
Why, I don't know
But it is

>5 years ago we didn't have rain for over eight weeks straight.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Last australian drought, we had some of our biggest dams run dry. Only 8 weeks? Pathetic. And Australia isn't even a proper desert in most places, this was in the temperate rainy parts.
You faggots are like pretend Americans.
But with global warming, it's the Jews. Can't trust a word they say.

People think the scientific community believed that global cooling was going to happen based on fucking magazines when virtually no scientists advanced that theory and the vast majority supported global warming even in the fucking 70s.

"DON'T BELIEVE THE MEDIA THEY'RE SHIFTY JEWS except for when they tell me things I want to hear!"

Also
>global warming is a hoax
Then why are you the ones making up evidence?

There are none.
Humans barely produce any CO2. It's something like 2%. Nature itself produces the rest, and then it gets absorbed by plants.
There's literally nothing wrong with adding a tiny bit of CO2 into the air.

The (((argument))) (((they))) use to avoid this fact is that they claim nature is in a perfect balance, if you disturb nature and go even slightly above the normal CO2 levels, everything is fucked.
They say that the tiny increase in CO2 makes oceans warmer, and that makes water evaporate, and that water now acts as a greenhouse gas trapping in even more heat, which makes the planet even warmer, and now more water is evaporating, which makes the planet warmer with makes more water evaporate etc.
Here is why it's bullshit. Our current CO2 levels are very low compared to the past. There used to be WAY more CO2 in the atmosphere, yet the temperatures didn't raise to insane levels and there was no snowball effect that made the planet uninhabitable.

It's pure bullshit.
Anyone who falls for climate change propaganda doesn't deserve to live.

youtube.com/watch?v=1kGB5MMIAVA

ok that magazine cover is stupid

provide your reasons for believing 100% in the idea that mans CO2 output is steering the climate and it is going to be catastrophic and that massive legislation and regulation needs to take place to stave off disaster

>Humans barely produce any CO2. It's something like 2%
If humans produce 2% per year, how many years until the atmospheric CO2 concentration has doubled?

(The answer is 50).

Because the greenhouse effect can be confirmed to exist in a fucking schoolroom, and we're pumping huge, significant amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

To all the gullible retards on Sup Forums the left cover is unironically fake news. It's not real.

If we are pumping so much gas into the air, why don't we kill the blackies and other unless people, and go from there? Guaranteed massive drop in CO2 emissions!

Dude - you're arguing science on Sup Forums. I mean...c'mon - that's like trying to discuss morality with muslims.

*useless people

The answer is never.
That's not how it works, you stupid faggot.

The insane retarded assumption you are making is that 100% of the carbon gets absorbed by trees and the 2% magically just stay there in reserve, and then next year plants absorb the same amount of CO2, so now you have 4% of extra CO2.
That's not how it works, you fucking retard.

so you think the planets atmosphere is directly analogous to a greenhouse the size of a room and that the amounts of CO2 that go into that small greenhouse is directly proportional or at least significantly fractional of what humans put into the planetary atmosphere

interesting

>CO2 and methane emissions
>Breath and farts

Can we all just stop breathing and farting for awhile so the liberals can feel like they can control the weather?

Cow farts are quiet literally pouring more co2 into the atmosphere than factories are.
It's true.
Trust me goy.

Oh muh polar bears. Too bad there are more polar bears alive today than 40 years ago. About double. Spewing anecdotal bullshit on a tiny sample size. Also fuck polar bears

I am not opposed to that.

>so you think the planets atmosphere is directly analogous to a greenhouse the size of a room
Yes, because it observably empirically fucking is.

This isn't even about global warming at this point. You are fucking saying there is a magical wormhole that teleports things in our atmosphere into the fucking void, or something equally retarded, and I can assure you that isn't the case.

What we put in the system stays in the system, because it is a closed system. The greenhouse gases that we're emitting don't come from the fucking ether, they come from fossil fuels. Unless you are taking equivalent amounts of our emissions and storing them in a similar reserve then it's going to stay in the fucking atmosphere. What it does there, who cares. It's still going to fucking be there, whether it's causing global warming or not.

>the amounts of CO2 that go into that small greenhouse is directly proportional or at least significantly fractional of what humans put into the planetary atmosphere
We can measure the amount of emissions humans make, and the measurements show that the amount is significant.

Do you even know what the amount of greenhouse gas we emit per year is, in either absolute or relative terms?

Of course not. You're just fucking assuming it's not significant, because your entire dumb worldview requires on you not checking objectively measurable facts.

>The insane retarded assumption you are making is that 100% of the carbon gets absorbed by trees and the 2% magically just stay there in reserve, and then next year plants absorb the same amount of CO2, so now you have 4% of extra CO2.
>That's not how it works
Then why is PPM of CO2 going up?

You say the CO2 is going somewhere when we can fucking measure the objective fact that it is not.

Who the fuck is ''we''?

The big Jewish scientific conspiracy.

YOU can measure it if you want. Go buy an IR sensor and take a few measurements every month for 50 years.

>i dont wanna
Then I guess you'll have to either shut the fuck up, or find somebody who has done it for you.

Everyone you find will tell you same the thing: it's going up.

You wish, you stupid liberal faggot.

...

You know!
(((We))) !

>science say it so it is true
dude left science is the new religion that just require faith and no actual hard facts

What about the carbon cycle? We pump carbon into the atmosphere from the lithosphere. From the atmosphere, it can be absorbed by plants and made into carbohydrates, or it can be absorbed by the ocean and create carbonic acid.

Here is my question for you, prove this and I will by into climate change science once and for all. Going back to the industrial revolution, you can find records of how many gigatons of carbon based fossil fuels have been burnt. The atmosphere naturally holds 720 gigatons of carbon, the oceans holds about 38,000 gigatons, and living organisms in the biosphere sequester about 2,000 gigatons.

Based on the amount of fossil fuels we have burnt, show me the direct causation of the rise in atmospheric CO2 as measured by ppm. The numbers are all there. If the solution proved what (((they))) wanted, it would be blasted at us. But it's not. Instead, they pussyfoot around the subject, distracting us with figureheads like Bill Nye.

I'm not entirely sure what you expected to see.

And another one.

This one shows that the amount of carbon in the atmosphere has increased at pace with the amount we emit.

Show me the math. Show me how much CO2 you get per unit of fossil fuel. Extrapolate that out for the units of fossil fuel used to determine how much CO2 we have pumped into the atmosphere. And show me those two numbers match up. Otherwise, it these numbers become a modern day (((6 million))).

And this shows the percentage of a specific isotope of carbon produced almost exclusively by burning fossil fuels as a percentage of all carbon isotopes in the atmosphere and it also shows the amount of carbon we are burning.

So it shows that the carbon we are burning is, in fact, ending up in the atmosphere.

good goy

The polar bear population is higher than environmentalists claim and it's rising.
Here's my question. Why are they so sure it's co2 and not say the increase in radiowave/microwave transmissions, which excite water molecules and cause them to heat up. Every time I've even suggested that I've been shouted down with no, that's not how it works, muh greenhouse effect! But here's the thing: that IS how it works, that's how that guy discovered microwaves in the first place with the chocolate bar melting in his pocket. The greenhouse analogy is easy to understand because you can see what happens in a greenhouse. but a greenhouse only works because it keeps the atmosphere stable inside the greenhouse. The actual atmosphere isn't stable and never has been. If you open all the windows on a greenhouse and let all the wind in, it stops working.

>California drought worst ever clearly climate change omg
>California dams about to burst from heavy rains clearly increased extreme weather from climate change
>Least hurricanes on record sorry not that type of extreme weather

Don't try to argue with these retards they think Bill Nye the Science Goy saying something makes it automatically false.

Think hard for a moment about why. Deep down you know the answer.

lmao and Sup Forumstards wonder why nobody who continued their education past highschool shares their views

95% is scientifically illiterate. This is an echo chamber of retards shooting at each other during serious discussion.

>Show me how much CO2 you get per unit of fossil fuel
If I burn a lump of coal in a sealed empty room and measure how much carbon I get out of it immediately after, that number will be different to if I burn a lump of coal in the same room full of plants and measure it 4 weeks later.

We don't know where a quarter of all our emissions go. We know how much we burn, and we know how much is in the atmosphere, and we know how much is in the ocean, and a few other places, but the numbers DON'T match.

25% of all the carbon we emit just disappears.

None of this is relevant.

We emit some carbon into the atmosphere, and that amount is significant.

Your question is a cleverly constructed get out of jail free card that literally does not matter, yet is impossible to answer. You can sit there screaming ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS ANSWER MY QUESTION all you like. I can't answer it. Furthermore, I don't need to answer it to prove objectively that climate change is real.

All I need to show is that
>the greenhouse effect is real
>we emit significant amounts of carbon

Global Warming is a hoax just like the Holocaust. Trump told me so!

How do we know that 25% of the carbon we emit just disappears? Are you saying that based on the 6 gigatons a year that human contribute, that one 1.5 gigatons can't be found? Are you suggesting it is fluxed to another reservoir?

The fact that you think a greenhouse that people use to grow plants is the same as the scope of the planets atmosphere and that direct comparison can be used to legislate on is more than enough to dismiss you as clinically retarded but anyways, what to you have to say about 400ppm being one of the lowest levels of atmospheric CO2?

That photosynthesis stops around 180ppm
That historically when there was much more life on earth CO2 levels were 2500ppm-8000ppm

What do you have to say about the rise over run in temp rise that occurred 1900-1940 was extremely similar to what scientists is saying happening 1970-to present?

What do you say about the cooling trend 1940-1970 when CO2 emissions were much higher than 1900-1940?

>What are your reasons for being absolutely positive that mans CO2 emissions is a leading driver in the course of the changing climate?
The funny thing is that global warming would eventually lead to a cooling of the climate too.

how so?

Some good questions here. Anyone got any answers?

The greenhouse analogy is fucking retarded anyways because of how simplistic it is.

Imagine the size of a greenhouse that would be analogous to the planets surface and the size of the atmosphere.

Even if you had a football stadium sized greenhouse, and the plants representing vegetation on earth was putting green tall grass, you still wouldn't have anything close to analogous with how incredibly huge the planets atmosphere is compared to vegetation on earth.

>How do we know that 25% of the carbon we emit just disappears? Are you saying that based on the 6 gigatons a year that human contribute, that one 1.5 gigatons can't be found? Are you suggesting it is fluxed to another reservoir?
Yes.

>The fact that you think a greenhouse that people use to grow plants is the same as the scope of the planets atmosphere and that direct comparison can be used to legislate on is more than enough to dismiss you as clinically retarded
So the greenhouse effect just magically stops existing once your warehouse reaches a certain size?

What size, exactly, professor?

>what to you have to say about 400ppm being one of the lowest levels of atmospheric CO2?
What do you have to say about the fact that atmospheric carbon dropping below 3000ppm is what caused the Ordovician glaciation? Surely this proves that carbon concentration DOES affect climate. Yes, 3000 is a lot higher than 400, but the sun was also 4% less energetic.

Aha! you say. I have just admitted that solar activity affects climate. Yes, obviously. And we can measure solar activity. And we have. And there has been no change. Solar output has not dropped by any significant amount. Solar output CAN affect climate. In this instance, it isn't.

Carbon CAN affect climate (as we have just proven with the Ordovician glacial period). In this instance, it is.

>What do you have to say about the rise over run in temp rise that occurred 1900-1940 was extremely similar to what scientists is saying happening 1970-to present?
Nothing. It was global warming. Global warming has been ongoing for over a century.

>What do you say about the cooling trend 1940-1970 when CO2 emissions were much higher than 1900-1940?
A rise in sulphate aerosols caused by volcanic eruoptions and also the more pollutive post-war industries overwhelmed the warming trend. Pollution controls clamped down on sulphate aerosols, and there haven't been any big eruptions, so warming resumed the 70s.

IT'S NOT A FUCKING ANALOGY.

THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT IS A SCIENTIFIC LAW.

IT IS HOW THE FUCKING WORLD WORKS.

IT DOESN'T STOP HAPPENING PAST A CERTAIN SCALE.

It may require certain conditions, yes. Those conditions demonstrably exist in the atmosphere.

There may be other factors at play, yes. Just here I mention sulphate aerosols () and solar activity. Those factors are not sufficient to explain current warming and the greenhouse effect is.

God you're retarded

...

I love the breakdown of those papers and why that claim is bullshit.
youtube.com/watch?v=yTTaXqVEGkU

If you had ONE (1) clover inside a greenhouse the size of Rhode Island, it would STILL cause the thing to heat up if you left it long enough?

Because the greenhouse effect works at all scales?

That's what you're implying?

Read the thread, this has already been discussed.

What you are implying is that human emissions are insignificantly small.

The reality is that they are not, as you can see in this graph: .

To answer your direct question:
>If you had ONE (1) clover inside a greenhouse the size of Rhode Island, it would STILL cause the thing to heat up if you left it long enough?
No, because plants breathe in CO2 and breathe out oxygen and so act as carbon sinks and counteract the greenhouse effect instead of enhancing it you fucking idiot.

But if you had a tiny, tiny coal power plant and that was all you had in there, then yes. Yes it fucking would. If you are putting CO2 into the atmosphere and it is staying there then you will - you MUST - encounter the greenhouse effect. Or, have a detailed explanation for a repeatable mechanism for why you did not.

That's a shit graph. Do you understand that you look like a troll when your evidence is shit?

The Earth is constantly changing, trying to quantify the change and comparing it to history which we have no data for is analogous to trying to compare facts to opinions, which is exactly what you are doing. You can give me numbers all day, that doesn't change the fact that we don't have the pH balance around coral reefs from 15k years ago. (You should really base your argument for climate change on coral reefs since they are actually getting quite fucked and not atmospheric data)

At least I have evidence, friend.

>trying to quantify the change and comparing it to history which we have no data for is analogous to trying to compare facts to opinions
We do have the data. That's what the ice core samples are. Little pockets of ancient air trapped in the ice.

>coral reefs
I'm a marine aquarist. I could go on for days about coral reefs, and I have in other threads, but 99% of Sup Forums just goes "WHO CARES ABOUT FISH LMAO" or "but new reefs will just grow somewhere else" and it's pointless.

Although this too has been pointless.

Besides, it's already too late to save our coral reefs. We are literally going to lose all of them. The entire Great Barrier Reef will die.

I'm going to bed.

You can't put two lines that look similar next to each other and say their is a trend. It's also extremely hard to get an accurate trend line when you ignore certain confounders of data. (atmospheric height, moving clouds of gas that accumulates in the upper atmosphere, high altitude weather patterns, gas being blown into space by the sun, the magnetic field, and the list goes on and on) . Study statistics, it's really useful and also proves that a lot of rates, percentages made up, and graphs are completely null without certain considerations. This is why when I see graphs made by people that aren't statisticians I immediately am very skeptical about them.

Just out of curiosity, if the antropogenic component of climate change doesn't actually exist, then why is the planet warming?

Solar activity is slightly cooling (and I just read recently is going to cool further), and our orbital phase should be sending us into another cooling phase, but yet we continue to warm.

Which variable in the natural cycle is causing our planet to warm, if not greenhouse gases? The deniers HAVE to explain this.

Additionally, why the hell is the troposphere warming and the stratosphere cooling if not for our CO2 emissions?

Same in Denmark last 15 years i remember

The Great Barrier Reef is already dead user, have you been there? I'm sure you have, but that's another point I'd like to make. Our earth is constantly changing and will continue to do so, things must adapt just like we have. I'm not saying its right to continue on the path we are on, no I'm agreeing with you. Carbon emissions are a serious problem, but more for the health issues they are causing and not because our ice caps are melting (something that has been occurring constantly). And our reefs will survive user, if you ever get a chance go diving off of Belize (off topic soz), life will always find a way, just like it has for millions of years. Also back to your ice core samples, you can see that our carbon ratios are nowhere close to the highest they've been in our history. ( I think the core samples record the end of the Pleistocene but I'm not entirely sure) The end of the Permian Period saw a HUGE increase in carbon levels which was caused by volcanoes and marine microbes emitting huge levels of methane, and this ridiculously dangerous combination of effects caused the largest mass-extinction in earth's history (sorry to lecture you this is for the people that aren't marine aquarists), but we are not even close to being at these levels of methane and carbon emissions, and it would be practically impossible for us as humans to create this same effect. Anoxia is another cause of this, but as we can see, there are many marine environments that are flourishing and surviving and not being killed by dangerous microbes. There are flares of these sure, but this is normal and is something that recurs throughout history.

We've been warming for the last 20,000 years.

The evidence is in several published papers you don't care to understand, lol.

underrated fpbp

Sure humans are contributing to climate change, but at what rate you can't quantify. There is no data to compare it against. Climate change occurs naturally, and humans are simply one of the catalysts that are increasing the rate of climate change (but by how much you cannot say). Saying that one variable is causing climate change is downright cynical as there are multiple causes. Like I said before though, the Earth is constantly changing, and will continue to do so. Trying to stop the earth from changing is like trying to reverse gravity, it's simply impossible. We can control for our contribution by limiting emissions sure, and I agree with this (I'm a huge proponent of nuclear power) but it still won't change the fact that the Earth will continue to warm and cool at different interludes throughout history. There are so many things that influence our weather and I could list a few of them if you really want me to but it may take me a while so just say yay or nay to that one.

>get under a blanket
>get comfy, no air gets in
>breathe
>suffocate
rising pee levels in the meantime

It's a cycle user, a constantly changing cycle influenced by hundreds of thousands of variables

not no data sorry, -very little data- , I didn't mean to be absolute

Not only is that an awful figure that doesn't even support your argument, why can't you people understand that even if it did, it doesn't explain anything.

We know there was warming in the past, and the variables that were present then are not present now. We should be in a cooling phase. Explain why we're not.

Man why does everyone stop arguing as soon as I get in a thread ;/

How do you know we should be in a cooling phase user? We can't say that there is an exact cycle, no one can say what we "should" be in right now except mother earth herself. Fluctuations in the planets orbit cause by our galaxy's rotation, our proximity to other stars, our proximity to other planets, near earth objects passing can all cause tiny fluctuations in our gravitational field, and that's just a few of the things in space that can change our climate. Earth is in an elliptical orbit that fluctuates (imagine an oval vibrating back and forth whilst rotating in a 3d field in all directions) a lot. There are also the other stimuli such as volcanic activity, plate tectonics, the balance of our planet (our planet is oblate and not symmetrical), upper atmosphere being constantly bombarded by the suns rays, the constantly fluctuating magnetic sphere depending on the magnitude and direction of the suns emissions, there are times when the sun is more active than at other times, there are solar flares and solar periods of inactivity, and these are just some of the things off the top of my head. Trying to predict what our weather should be like is like trying to predict the winning power ball numbers on an alien planet in a different language and a different societal environment.

>Sure humans are contributing to climate change, but at what rate you can't quantify.

Pic related
Isn't it interesting how there were steady cycles between 300 ppm and 180 ppm for the previous 400,000 years, but after human industrialization CO2 concentration jumped from 320 ppm in the 1950s to 410 ppm today, within a span of just 50 years? Isn't it interesting how the deep oceans warm almost linearly to the rate of CO2 emissions?

Al Gore needs 15 trillion to fight climate change. All the reason to not worry about it. If anything the Earth will unleash volcanoes and extreme weather killing most anyhow.

> Although this too has been pointless.

Well I've certainly found your contributions interesting, so thanks.

Like I said before you can't take two unrelated things and then see that the lines look similar and say there is a direct positive correlation, that's not how statistics work. Also I'd like to know where this data was measured and the climate of the area for the past 450k years and any and every national disaster, weather pattern, and also how it was measured (not really I'm just showing you how that these things can skew your data and confounds it).

sadfrog.jpg

I like you aussiefriendo.

btw imma grill

The problem isn't the observed variables - CO2 and ice extent we can measure almost directly and to great accuracy.

It's how the massively complex system known as "the atmosphere" responds to a single forcing variable (namely CO2) in a system where all processes are effectively chaotic and have multiple interdependent feedbacks.

Proponents of AGW immediately point to MORE CO2=WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE AND SO ARE THE POLAR BEARS but skeptics point to the wildly inaccurate and contradictory models of the EFFECTS of forcing as an invalid basis for action.

In any event, changes in climate are so gradual and slight that there would be zero point in worrying about it - the scarcity of fossil fuels in the coming decades plus the fact that Africa looks to "leapfrog" the industrial-revolution phase of development (no existing infrastructure means decentralised power/heating and solar work best) means that it's in all likelihood we switch away from CO2 at a rate faster than the supposed climate catastrophe unfolds - a literal storm in a teacup.

Also man, look at your graph, look at the spacing. Your scale is 50k years in the +x direction and then suddenly 2017 years of data goes all the way to the middle of that scale (what should be 25k). This is why graphs shouldn't be trusted. Be skeptical man please, don't believe everything you see. Our carbon emissions are high yes, and they are having adverse effects yes, but are they the sole cause of climate change? No, like I have listed previously you simply cannot take the statistical analysis of every single variable that could cause a rise in our temperature. Also there can be many stimuli for our carbon emissions, most notably animal life and volcanic activity as well as the rate at which is is diffused into space.

tl;dr your graph is inaccurate and therefore useless

CO2 holds heat from the sun in
This can be confirmed at home
Just experiment.

CO2 can be broken down into carbon and oxygen, in fact Canadians are doing this and making carbon fuel pellets

If scientists cared enough, they could separate the Co2 and put the carbon into storage tanks, releasing the oxygen.

We have the technology, but it makes more money to tax people on their Co2 finger print, so we will do that instead.

It's never about what's right, it's about what brings money to the Jews

Thanks friend, sometimes I find it hard to articulate what you just said.

Non-renewable energy will run out someday however, and when the trend continues people will simply find another scapegoat to blame climate change on.

This is why we should just switch to nuclear and solve a lot of our problems in a period of 10-50 years.

This comment made me cringe in the last line, come on man, don't make this about some shit excuse for victimizing the Jews. We're trying to have a logical objective conversation, not promoting emotionally driven hateful rhetoric.

>where you live
so, the Earth?

I think you are in the wrong place kiddo

I mean if the new ice age does come idk how they're gonna beat collision course, that shit was mad dank yo

on the holocaust day no less..

What a prick.

Remember the 8 million.

Do you even know what the greenhouse effect does? Do you know what you mean when you say a phrase that causes Pavlov's Dogs to salivate?

Here:

youtube.com/watch?v=j5M1qtN62yk

I think your head is in the wrong place kiddo, sick of people making my Sup Forums about stupid ass illogical hate.

>hurr his skin color is different than mine so lets gas him
>hurr he was born into a different religious sect than me lets gas him
>hurr humans that are the same species are different based on how they look
>hurr im a proud natSoc

Pick up a science book, then tell me how one group of people is systematically destroying the world because they were born into any religion.
(Judaism,Jesuit,Islam,Christianity,Sikh,Buddhist,Hindu,Atheist)

People are all the same user, and they can chose to be fucking dicks, or they can chose to be sensible people.

Turn your hate to SPECIFIC people not entire sects of people based on racial profiling.

If you said damn I hate this one Jew because he controls banks I'd understand, but labeling all Jews/insert religion here as being the same as that fucker is just stupid. It's simply a logical fallacy, now please think about this and don't reply.

Wether or not man is the cause of climate change I can assure you Carbon taxes are not just a kike attempt to steal a % of your power bill.

>links a 40 minute video

footnotes/highlights pl0x ; I'm studying for finals and don't have time to watch this shit.