Climate Change

Any sincere climate change deniers out here, curios to hear the arguments behind it.

Other urls found in this thread:

archive.is/igJd5
climatechangereconsidered.org/
twitter.com/hockeyschtick1
www-ramanathan.ucsd.edu/files/pr72.pdf
youtube.com/watch?v=ovKw6YjqSfM
arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

It's real but as long as the solution is "more taxes" then nothing is going to be done about it.

Don't be a robot. Think for yourself.
archive.is/igJd5
climatechangereconsidered.org/
twitter.com/hockeyschtick1

When one side tries to criminalize the debate whether or not (((climate change))) is man-made, then you know who is falsifying data.

your science is from 1880, global greening exists, and we can't predict the weather for 7 days, let alone 7 years.

Oh, weren't we suppose to freeze in 1970?

KYS retard.

The earth has been coming out of an ice age for tens of thousands of years and is therefore warming. We will eventually go back into a stage of glaciation and th temperature will drop. There is no demonstrable and verifiable evidence that humans are affecting this cycle

Its a leftist powergrab, one among many. Its probably occurring, but the solutions aren't clear.

it's gay and i don't care because i want third world countries wiped out anyways.

Horry sheet!
Look how green the south pole is becoming!

The political momentum of climate change action is so great that it probably doesn't matter if it's real, the governments will never admit it isn't. I think it's real but not clearly more dangerous than meteors so we should spend equal effort on both problems.

It still fucking snows and any animal retarded enough to die because it's literally 3 or so degrees hotter is clearly too retarded to live.

Seriously, how people believe evolution exists when most animals are still fucktarded enough to walk in the middle of a highway and get run over is beyond me, aren't they supposed to eventually learn not to do that shit?

Did I just saw redneck impersonation by euphoric fedora? If so, nice job.

I'd like to hear your arguments proving it

Google "How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?" and click the first link
I can't post the link here for some reason

What is there to deny? Climate science is nothing but faulty predictions from people that have long been unmasked as charlatans cooking up data.

...

global warming/climate change is in large part a scam. it is an industry unto itself and they want worldwide "carbon taxes" on top of that. it is an insidious thing far beyond that even.

you won't understand wtf i'm talking about unless you look into these things for yourself. so, you can do that (takes effort)... or (more likely) you'll just write me/trump off as anti-science hillbillies or whatever. that's the easier option as you're being told to do that by those that follow that agenda.

did you know having ice cap is an anomaly? did you know that the earth has been ice cap free for ~90% of its existence? did you know by definition ice caps only exist during ice ages? did you know we are at the tail end of a CURRENT ice age now? did you know the caps extended as far down as missouri/kentucky just 20,000 years ago and have been receding ever since that peak? did you know the caps are going bye-bye even if every person on the planet disappeared 20,000 years ago?

THE OCEAN'S RELEASE *ALL ON ITS OWN* IS FAR LARGER AND MORE IMPORTANTLY *OUT ACCELERATING* MANS CONTRIBUTION

THE OCEAN IS RELEASING MORE DUE TO WARMER TEMPS (WARMER WATER = IT'S A FAR LESS EFFECTIVE C02 SINK)

IF HUMANS NEVER AROSE CO2 WOULD BE INCREASING AT ALMOST THE EXACT SAME RATE AS IT IS RIGHT NOW

THIS HAPPENS AT THE END OF EVERY ICE AGE

STOP BEING SO FUCKING GULLIBLE AND LAZY

LOOK INTO THINGS FOR YOURSELF AND STOP TAKING WHAT THE MSM, EPA.GOV AND NASA.GOV ETC. TELL YOU AT FACE VALUE, YOU LAZY SHITS. IT IS ABOUT POWER AND CONTROL.

ICE AGES AND PERMANENT ICE *ARE AN ANOMALY*

BY DEFINITION AN "ICE AGE" IS WHEN THE EARTH HAS PERMANENT ICE SHELVES

WE HAD ICE A MILE THINK IN CINCINNATI JUST 20,000 YEARS AGO

THE PLANET IS WARMING AND THE CAPS ARE METLING

THAT MEANS = MORE CO2, SEA RISE AND WEATHER PATTERN CHANGES

WE CAN'T STOP OR ALTER IT, WE WILL ADAPT JUST FINE

STOP BEING SCARED INTO TAX SCHEMES AND GLOBALIST POWER PLAYS YOUR DUMBED DOWN ZOMBIES

Name a period in Earth's history where the temperature or climate was ever static

the first does not imply the second. it just means that after all the data and research done if you still believe its fake then you are not worth debating with! it will be like debating with someone who believe the earth is flat

I'm pretty sure it is happening and is primarily caused by humans, however
1. It's being used as an excuse for more taxes and government power that won't really fix the issue
2. The people constantly raving about climate change always fail to mention that nuclear power is the most available solution. In fact, we have lost more nuclear power generation in 10 years than we have gained from wind and solar. We are actually increasing the portion of power from fossil fuels because of the constant fear of nuclear power.

Look up data on nuclear power, it actually has a smaller environmental impact than solar or hydro and kills a fraction of the people that smog does per the same amount of power

>believes in globalist carbon tax conspiracy theory
>doesn't believe in the big oil jew
Who do you think funds climate change denial? And why are you so gullible that you fell for it?

Storing nuclear waste is not politically, economically, or technologically feasible.

>Any sincere climate change deniers out here, curios to hear the arguments behind it.

"Deniers"? As in "Holocaust deniers"? As in "you cannot question this"? FUCK OFF AND DIE YOU STUPID CHUNK OF EXCREMENT.

"Manmade climate change" leads to 'carbon credits' which is ANOTHER ECONOMIC BUBBLE, but this one is based on the non-delivery of an intangible?!?! FUCKING SPARE ME!!! I'd rather trade tulip bulbs again.

Total fucktardo control scheme. It's a fucking joke.

>global warming thread
guaranteed replies.

This is completley false, and it's not like the other methods don't produce waste. The ratio of waste/power for nuclear is orders of magnitude lower than any other source, and the waste is better controlled than any other source. Furthermore, there are many other possibilities for different fissionables that produce less waste, less harmful waste, or waste that can be put into another reactor.

Additionally, the only thing we can actually do with deactivated nuclear warheads is dilute the uranium and plutonium and put it into reactors. We could cut the world's nuclear stockpile by a huge amount and create a gigantic new source of energy with almost no carbon emissions.

Man-made climate change is unproven, has been disproven, and even if it it is real, it would be easy to ignore.

If the facts being provided to us are true, then we better get moving and and fix this issue. But the question is whether or not the studies provided to the general public have any value. Generally, a group paying scientists with grants (say, the Governent) is going to give those grants to scientists that will provide studies that coincide with the paying group's agenda. This is common place for the past century or so. In the 1970's, homosexuality was considered a mental condition, and there were studies to back it up. However, that changed when being anti-gay wasn't getting enough votes, and now studies exist that show the opposite. The samething occurred with slavery as well. For as long as the government controls the scientific sector, studies cannot be trusted.

>fire

Once we figure out how to use nuclear waste as fuel (and, as long as (((they))) don't impede it, it will happen soon), there will be no arguement against it.

Who do you suggest funds scientific research then?

I'd like to see a single climate denier actually going into climate science and attempting to disprove what is going on. The idea that scientists are making bank off of climate science is absurd compared to how much the opposite side makes if they continue to deny it. THAT is all you need to know.

You can literally go to NOAA's website and plot the data yourself. The ocean is getting warmer. The greenhouse effect is a real observed phenomena. I don't know what is controversial about this.

Honestly, I don't know. It is hard to find a non-corrupt group that has the power to fund it.

The data and the arguments are not convincing. After looking into it for a few hours, I I could reach no conclusion. Yes, it *may* be happening, but "maybe" is not enough for great alterations in anyone's way of life.

okay, Electric then

I'm not a denier, I just don't care. The liberal shits who keep screeching about global warming intend to punish everyone except the actual culprits with tax schemes and shameless redistribution - they're more interested with how much money they can make than dealing with the supposed problem. They can't prove their claims of imminent apocalypse, every one of their predictions falls short of the mark, and they profess a desire to maintain a permanent status quo with nature that has never and will never exist on this planet.

So long as the greenfags spurn nuclear power in favor of expensive energy sources that will never be reliable enough to depend exclusively upon they can go fuck themselves with rakes.

This amount of stupidity should be punishable by castration

It is far more dangerous when it's left up to private corporations. The tobacco industry funded scientists during the 80's to disprove a link between lung cancer and smoking, whereas government funded researchers were very transparent about the obvious correlation there. The same thing is happening today re: climate change. In fact, the oil industry has hired the same firms as the tobacco to push climate change denial into MSM. Who would you rather trust?

even IF the studies were false or all made up. can you tell me the negatives?

Assume for a minute we all buy into the global warming rhetoric and start a massive push to renewables, what are the downsides?

The only obvious one is early industries getting their feet in too deep and becoming the comcast/verizon of energy, but look at the positives.

-More jobs (literally arby's employs more people than coal)
-More jobs for researchers (as they will get more funding)
-Growth of scientific knowledge (see above)
-Cleaner air/water
-Technological innovation

Like seriously, name me one downside.

kek, no, scientists themselves make money from the climate change thing. I don't have to disprove anything, YOU have to convince me that climate change is real.

>the first does not imply the second. it just means that after all the data and research done if you still believe its fake then you are not worth debating with!

This whole train of thought is doing just that though, ignoring all the data and research

I'm interested to hear the facts behind the human-made climate change, including the points of factory animal farming and the amount of trees

The downsides are mass profit of companies selling an unnecessary product

You mean to tell me that people get paid for providing services?!?

just look at those giant fans (((they))) install to cool down the air, pretty obvious they don't do shit but take tax money and piss people off. not in my backyard ass holes.

it's called a hypothesis you dogmatic cunt.

You're an idiot. We already have generation 4 reactors that only run on spent nuclear fuel. The shit that comes out of the gen 4 reactors are virtually harmless.

We fixed the nuclear problem years ago, just no one wants to admit it's the best solution. You can thank the soviets and Japan for that.

More renewables means less nuclear for these people. Nuclear energy is the future. If we werent wasting our money on solar panels and all that garbage we could put it into research for nuclear energy. That would solve the waste problem btw

www-ramanathan.ucsd.edu/files/pr72.pdf
this is an excellent paper that explains the physics of the greenhouse effect. you won't read it though

>NOAA's website

That's all the proof I need. You know I doubted the "6 million Jews" thing too, but if you go on Wikipedia it's right there in black and white. Checkmate racist climate deniers.

If I sold Magic Beans and told you a beanstalk will grow from them and a giant will live at the top of it, would it make me a conman when you planted them and you ended up with a row of cabbages? Fucking retard.

there's a huge economic cost to all that in the form of taxation to fund subsidies, gas taxes on regular consumers, loss of value and jobs when these companies go under despite government assistance because the demand isn't there for them
and in the end either the companies do go under and no progress is made or consumers are forced into buying more expensive renewable technologies to replace their old cars/etc

China and India don't give a fuck about what you do and the overall emissions situation won't change much as more development happens overseas and businesses look there for alternatives
And our nations will still be burning a minimum amount of oil and coal so long as you stubbornly reject nuclear

Yes. I think that the temperature changes that we're observing are caused more by the solar cycle and less by humans. I live in the middle of Poland and it was snowing not a full week ago, however when the sun's cycle was in its peak a few years ago we barely had any snow in the winter. I've also read about the ice sheets slowly regenerating, which would further support my claims, though I haven't checked up on that and cannot be sure.

So long the pro-man-made global """warming""" people didn't provide sufficient evidence to deny many well-argued counterclaims. Since it also costs us money and some freedoms I keep a very skeptic opinion about it until there's gonna be concrete evidence for it.

haha shill. you can't even shill without using stupid propaganda techniques like labeling your opponents "deniers."

If you had real arguments you wound't need the bullshit cunt

The global warming is real, but we do not know if it is human made and the real cause of the issue.

Companies are making bank with the issue, while other companies were destroying more than 80% of the forests on earth and we get stupid attempts to solve the problem instead of real rational discussions, like with every other existing problem right now.

IF the human-made global warming is real, why am I supposed to trust the idiots to fix it, who caused it in the first place?

You have likely never read a scientific paper in your life.

> antarctic threads - often deleted, archiving required to learn from
> lost history, secret history, ancient history threads - often deleted, archiving required to learn from
> flat earth threads - often deleted, archiving required to learn from
> ancient technology threads - often deleted, archiving required to learn from
> elite power structure threads - often deleted, archiving required to learn from
> esoteric knowledge threads - often deleted, archiving required to learn from
> black budget technology projects - often deleted, archiving required to learn from
> zero point energy technology, etc. threads - often deleted, archiving required to learn from
> etc., etc., etc.

so much science, technology, (& history) .. with an active agenda to hide it .. >> asking why the theories of scientists are suspect

LINKE ZECKEN UND ÖKOFOTZEN MÜSSEN WEG

>www-ramanathan.ucsd.edu/files/pr72.pdf
I 'll read it later, have already read others. I know the physics, it is the numbers that don't add up. Does it talk real practical numbers?

The sun is neither a ball of fire not a ball of electricity you fucking nigger.
>something about hypothesis??
please never reproduce.

If you know the physics then what don't you understand? Are you talking about climate models? Of course there will be uncertainty, jesus fucking christ

shitskins will migrate to th North to survive

kek, it's happening

Not on either side of this issue as of yet, but. I just wanted to say do we *really* have accurate temperature data going back 400 THOUSAND years?? I find that a little hard to believe.

You seem to be misunderstanding the situation.

The onus is on climate change advocates to prove that it exists, and how and when it will affect the Earth in the future.

Of course, they can't, so calling anyone who steps outside of the academic orthodoxy a 'denier' is their secondary recourse.

what product?

actually, nuclear fission is the future, but thats still years off. also what waste problem? with renewable energy there is no waste, with nuclear there is or are you saying more funding would solve that problem?

we wouldn't need subsidies if companies willingly did it instead of sucking the dick of big oil and taking millions to continue their shit practices.
> loss of value and jobs
and replaced by MORe jobs and more value, this makes no sense, do you know how many people are employed in the coal industry? no one wants those jobs, but give them the same job same pay working to build a solar plant? I'm sure they'll take the latter
> consumers are forced into buying more expensive renewable technologies to replace their old cars/etc
I wasn't even arguing about green cars but this is still a shit arguement because the cost/juel of energy of most renewable is below that of all but natural gas.

>China and India don't give a fuck about what you do and the overall emissions situation

you know when they would? when we show that it is more economically feasable to do so because it creates jobs, increases travel and overall increases quality of life. you'll see people fleeing india and chine because they are being poisoned by the air there.

Well, we'll already have the entire South locked up since your pale asses will combust upon entrance.

youtube.com/watch?v=ovKw6YjqSfM
>t. climate change denier

Hey shill cunt: you haven't read shit and are just repeating dumb talking points.

The actual scientific papers all say that the people writing them have no certainty as to long term climate predictions.

None of their models can make high confidence predictions.

It is all "best guess" type of shit.

Find me a single scientific reference where someone makes a high confidence prediction for global temperature a decade from now.

Keep posting after that cunt.

Not human caused. Leftists think everything revolves around humans - it doesn't.

I'm not a leftie, but able to think on my own.

The destruction of the forests is a legitimate reason for the global warming, unlike the faggotry our governments keep repeating.
Apparently it would be quite easy to fix this within decades, too.

Are you mad?
I have a degree in atmospheric science you fucking dipshit, if you understand the BASICS OF PHYSICS AND CHEMISTRY it is not fucking hard to understand how the greenhouse effect works. Or do they not teach you science in the jungle you fucking monkey nigger?

Rekt

...

There is very strong correlation between CO2/Methane levels and a warming planet and we know that we have been increasing them in the atmosphere. It's a pretty simple idea. It's more complex NOT to believe it. If you don't, where do you think those gases go?

Scientists are the ones who are proposing ways to fix it. Fossil fuel companies are proposing ways to not have to do anything. These are pretty clear distinctions and not all the same people.

really makes me think. maybe if we lower our methane production rate the temperature will go with it

Verstehe dich voll und ganz. Bin der gleichen Meinung
>lol u mad???
>my dad works for nintendo

>calling people AGAINST big oil, which pumps billions into political lobbying and buying of political per year the shills

brainwashed desu

I am curious now. How does me buying a prius reduce methane??

You don't have shit cunt. Provide the journal citation or kys

I see the methane concentration stabilizing and yet I'm told the temp is going UP UP UP!!!

It's almost like there's some sort of maximum saturation level

I have not been convinced that what we humans do actually makes a practical difference. It's a quantitative matter, not a qualitative one.

You'll be recycling your own farts nasally.

I don't claim climate change doesn't exist, it's just that it'd happen regardless of humans existing

It exists, but lefties blow it way out of proportion, even then most of the shit smog comes from third world countries like china and then the hippy retards think they need to "spread awareness" in america. If these people really cared about global warming and felt it was gonna destroy the earth every other decade they would go to school and try to do something about developing nation's fuel sources and technology, not smoke weed and carry around picket signs in some park "educating people".

Anybody who says that "the Earth has warmed before, so that means that humans have had no impact" and "humans are the sole cause of global warming" are idiots.

When billionairs ask me to give them money to support their cause, I reach for my browning.

>1 post by this ID

At this point the actual Jews running this climate science racket have so overplayed their hands that the cryptojews in the oil cartels don't even need to fund opposition research. They just wait for all the lies to be revealed.

See Quantitatively, humans have accelerated the input of CO2 into the atmosphere significantly since the industrial revolution. If you understand the physics underlying the greenhouse effect, what is your argument against the fact that more CO2 in the atmosphere will lead to higher radiative forcing?

>if leftists really cared they'd actually do something instead of complain
for what isn't this true?

But they do fund opposition research, and it has been documented extensively. Whereas the climate science racket is purely speculation by tinfoil hat faggots.

There are plenty of scientists, but we only hear about the ones matching the current mainstream and increasing the cash flow.

We are supposed to pay a shitload of money to support renewable energies. Infact these are private companies and they can demand any price for the energy.


So, how are the forests and mass animal factory related to the warming?

Both industries were fucking our planet for decades, yet we are enriching some new, fancy companies and keep ignore the ones that caused it.

Stop dodging cunt. Provide those journal citations of real scientists who actually predict the temp a decade+ in the future with HIGH confidence and stop wasting time repeating stupid talking points.

Fake, phony ass shill.

You would be throwing away money on a non-existant problem. Thats resources that could have been diverted, instead, to useful purposes, like cleaning oceans of plastic, countering deforestation etc. Your argument essentially boils down to the end justify the means which is never acceptable.

And here is a paper refuting climate change within a physics framework.
arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161

Your perspective is so simplistic you are hopeless.

The left used to call it global warming while the right called it climate change

When global warming was debunked the left then went WHY ARE YOU AGAINST CLIMATE CHANGE? ARE YOU STUPID?"

Do yourself a favor and sell bullshit to those who lack long-term memory.

How are supposed to stop co2 emission then? Am I supposed to stop breathing?

Another thought. Let's say climate changes this way (?) without it being caused by our co2 output, which definitely is going to happen one day, what then?

tl;dr: The ones "saving the planet" are cancerous fools that fell for propaganda

It's a jewish lie to increase the power of government. Climate change is happening, but it isn't man-made, or threatening to life on earth. Alarmists are using the media and hollywood to brainwash young people.

temperatures stabilized over the last 10 years while no reduction in CO2 has been observed to my knowledge.

It appears as though while there is a correlation between anthropological effects and temperature, there's either a point of over-saturation where any additional CO2 we pump into the air is immediately recycled, or our impact is almost insignificant.

I don't see run away chain reaction warming happening.

Personally I'm just for clean air and water.

You have to convince me e.g. that what we do changes the temperature by a significant number of degrees and not by 0.000001 degrees. Using a model with 50 underlying assumptions that are up in the air is not convincing.

hard to deny climate change. trillions of years ago it was real hot and huge lizards ran around eating each other. hundreds of thousands of years ago there were hairy elephants walking on ice over a mile thick, and saber toothed cats played in the snow. there were years in the late 1700s without a summer. so, yeah, I'm on board with climate change, because it has changed, will change, and is changing. I don't think my car is the thing changing it though, and charging me extra for gasoline sure as hell isn't going to stop the climate from changing.

>Am I supposed to stop breathing?

That's the plan