Who else thinks Global Warming is a bunch of bull shit?

...

Other urls found in this thread:

mrctv.org/blog/no-mr-president-claim-climate-change-consensus-bunk
twitter.com/AnonBabble

its a good thing

>using tomorrow theme
>can't see that graphic
fuck off.

It's no bullshit, but it's no human responsability whatsoever, and we can't change anything to it, go and learn some geologic periods

>protip : the anthropocene is a lie and isn't even given credit by most scientists

STOP BELIEVING IN GLOBAL WARMING.

It's real but a pretty big meme seeing as how no one has a solution for population, the real wild ride. That's a 5 billion increase in a single modern human lifetime.

We'll probably lose some neat animals which sucks but I'm sure Sup Forums will enjoy the inevitable war and disease Mother Nature will provide in order to balance the scales again.

I mean Jesus Christ Ebola-chan?

The book Honest Reality proves that man made climate change is the biggest anti-science fraud in history. For example, most people have no idea that they exhale over 40,000 ppm of carbon dioxide with every breath. (The Valentine's Day Surprise - PR Newswire).

>Burger gets negatively affected
>China gets a benefit
Overall though it seems like a good thing indeed, at lease agriculturally (flooding and hurricanes are still a big issue though)

massive crop failures in the global south will lead to famine and food riots, destabilizing those countries and flooding europe/usa/etc with even more refugees

Climate change is real

Human caused climate change is bullshit

yeah yeah

and smart countries will tell them to fuck off

.

Trips of truth.

>last few data points haven't even happened yet
>apply smoothing to an annual mean of a global mean of made up data points
>call it Science

ITS REEEEEEAAAAALLLLLL

However carbon taxes are a pile of horseshit corporatism that would do nothing to solve the problem, except let the news profit off it

The earth will not die off, more efficient CO2 processing in certain plants' chloroplasts will allow them to proliferate, causing a huge upheaval in ecosystems. Humans will be impacted heavily but mother nature will eventually balance things out and will ultimately profit from these changes. Venice is fucked. Micronesia is fucked. New York City and San Francisco are fucked. Arizona will probably have a beach in Yuma, so that's cool.

All kinds of land will open up in Antarctica. I'm going homesteading in Mary Byrd land.

I don't believe in global warming desu

I don't doubt global warming, I just doubt our ability to fix it. It's already way too late.

If it's any consolation, there's always the chance that life will adapt and another intelligent species may emerge in millions of years..

News = Jews

Phoneposting so I don't have to worry about getting that ransomware before I can back up my rare pepes

>whitest countries have higher yield
>subhuman degenerates have less yield
looks good.

bretty good explanation of Sup Forums's stance on anything

According to my economics classes pop growth will cap at 15ish billion

rare i guess

This

Global warming is an observable fact, belief is no longer required. Thermometers don't lie people.

>4-8 inches over the last 100 years
They'll be fine.

Who gives a shit? Our grandkids will figure it out with their year 2100 technology.

and how will they do that? massacre people at the border? spend trillions building tens of thousands of miles of walls? it's just not practical.

Fucking leafs. There is plenty of space and resources for everyone. You could fit the entire human race in New Zeland alone. More people live in SW Asia than in all the rest of the world combined.

How exactly is population a problem?

HOLY SHIT ARE YOU TELLING ME THE WEATHER IS CHANGING?

>Between 2003 and the 2080s

None of those countries will be white user. It's a sad fact.

>spend trillions building tens of thousands of miles of walls? it's just not practical.

It absolutely is practical and will be a necessity.

It isn't, but the leftist answer to it is.

God I need a torpedo.

It's real. And it's caused by humans. Just because it's a liberal-held idea doesn't mean it's automatically wrong. Start thinking for yourself and do the research for or against it.

Literally just pull out of Africa and close your borders and the population will fix itself.

People pretend like the longevity of modern humanity is a universal constant and that war, famine and disease aren't a factor.

You two are completely delusional. There will NEVER be a "shortage of food". Food is the primary consumption item, the one we work the hardest to be sure we have at all times.

You two think we will run out of space? Run out of currency? Why would there ever be a shortage of food?

I never recieved the public school brainwashing, so I've always thought it was a left wing marxist scam.

global warming is code word for global marxism.

People don't realize why entire governments are so spooked by global warming as of late.

For that you'd have to understand that we are melting the ice caps and that those glacial ice as well as the ice caps. That ice doesn't just contain water, it also holds magnitudes more CO2 gas than humans have ever produced.

What does that mean? If enough ice melts than we'll not be able to reverse the damage we've done, the green house effect will become self sustaining as more gas is released which traps in more heat which gets absorbed in the oceans which in turn melts more ice and so on. It only takes a global average temperature rise of 3 degrees for this to occur which might sound huge considering the average has only gone up 1.5 degrees in a hundred years except for one fact, 1 degrees of that rise in temperature happened within the past 20 years.

Its no wonder so many countries are genuinely spooked by climate change, its not a myth and its not something which should be ignored.

You can't tell from area alone. Most of the green China area is the Tibetan plateau and the Gobi desert. A lot of the dark red US area is desert

That is bunk science.

I have always had a problem with the reasons given for it, rather than whether it is happening.

The population of the earth is simply reaching unsustainable levels. Want to solve climate change? Cull off large parts of third world countries, and stop them from breeding en masse.

If you guys want to talk about a serious solution as opposed to the currently suggest "pissing in the ocean" sanctions and industeial stoppages, let's have it.

How about we get some pol tards to make seeming accurate and impressive temperature charts for you to compare

This user is correct. It's insane that someone would think humans have no effect in Earth's environment. Everywhere you look there are human constructions. It's very very hard to find a place where you're not affected by other humans in some way.

But it's mainly developed countries only. Industrialized countries. People in Africa contribute almost nothing to global warming.

In fact, developed countries are so much bigger of an issue that I personally believed they should be forbidden to have more than 2 children. That is the only way we can save the planet.

Ever hear the expression 'carrying capacity'?

Cows need a fuck ton of land to graze, their food isn't pulled from the either and they eat more than we do, crops need fertile land to grow, water is needed, and so on. You might not think food is a problem because we live in countries of plenty, but say the west lost its billions of gallons of water being used in irrigation its crops, you'd feel it right quick because agriculture in the eastern united states would nolonger be tenable.

GLOBAL WARMING IS A BULLSHIT
/thread

Oh, FFS. Global Waming occurs at the tips of the planet. It's not a uniform increase everywhere. Warming would be great news for your ice ball country, leaf, as well as places like Russia because it would mean that people might be able to grow shit there.

>When you make an absolutely leaf post

...

Iron Fertilization would solve global warming.

Of course, you never hear about. Because Jews and globohomos can't rent seek and mind control faggot liberals with the climate scam if the problem is actually solved.

There is no debate among scientists. The only reason you feel the need to deny basic science (i.e. the fact that pollutants in the air trap in solar radiation, which is objective and undeniable) is that Al Gore made global warming a political issue and typically Democrats are the ones talking about it.

I am a strong Conservative, and honestly climate change is 7th grade science, it is actually pathetic that so many Conservatives get upset about it. You don't need to oppose scientific facts just because a Democrat also talks about it.

I also believe in gravity, electromagnetics, wind resistance, and thermodynamics. I am not a Liberal, I am a very sane, rational, educated Conservative. These issues really make us look stupid when we're emotionally arguing about basic scientific facts. You can debate how much influence humans have, but you truly cannot pretend that pollution doesn't increase global temperatures by trapping solar radiation in the atmosphere.

Always has been bullshit

It's amazing how old the Earth is, it goes all the way back to the 1800's! Great post OP. Maybe some day you can figure out why they've found millions of years old crocodile fossils up by the Arctic Circle. Probably my F450 caused it.

Not true, it actually is felt most at the equator and works it way towards the poles, this because one of the major factors driving climate change is the ocean which acts like the planets heat sink, the excess heat absorbed by the ocean is then carried by the currents resulting in a gradual global rise in temperature.

Turn up your contrast, if you can't see black on top of the tomorrow colour there's something wrong.

We are on the verge of fabricating meat in laboratories with cell colonies. You sound like people in the XVII century who said that the population would outgrow the farming, failing to foresee the technological improvements.

Science always find a way. Capitalism always finds a way. Throughout all of history you will see people calling for the shortage of natural resources. But we always find a way. Either more oil, or refine our efficiency, or learn to synthesize stuff, or find a substitute... Or a myriad of other things.

that's fucking awkward, considering the earth can only support 9-13 billion

Rising temperatures will cause increased rainfall because there will be more moisture in the atmosphere. The planet was hot as fuck a long time ago and it was a fucking rainforest.

You are all simply delusional.

That is the problem with the current model of capitalism, it assumes infinite resources on a finite planet with finite room for growth.

>You sound like people in the XVII century who said that the population would outgrow the farming, failing to foresee the technological improvements.

Jesus Christ cunt it's like you don't even know the continent of Africa even exists. Population HAS outgrown farming. They can't feed themselves NOW how the fuck will they feed an extra 2 billion by 2100?

mrctv.org/blog/no-mr-president-claim-climate-change-consensus-bunk

The consensus is bunk. It was as rigged as a Pro-Hillary pre-election poll.

>start thinking for yourself
and accept what your told by Al fucking Gore

We should be letting them die. Foreign aid is the problem.

Can someone post some graphs and redpills on global temperature throughout the ages?

Too lazy to bother, cause I'm on my phone.

Happens every summer

>considering the earth can only support 9-13 billion

Yeah? And how well is everybody fairing with 7 billion people as last I checked there are countries out there with whole populations starving because their land is too arid to support agriculture without shipping it in or have access to safe drinking water which won't make them literally shit out their colon

So you can fit the whole human race in New Zealand ok thats fine what about:
- crop land to feed them all and the livestock
- livestock to graze
- houses, properties for each person / family
- buildings to work in
- power stations, coal mines solar farms
All these things add up and pretty soon a single human doesnt just take up 1m2 but 100m2 (estimate not actual number)

>Who else thinks Global Warming is a bunch of bull shit?

NASA

I do. A lot of it is a money grab and these "scientists" love getting their global warming grants. Plus all these over reaching regulations just end up making our utility prices skyrocket hurting the average Joe. The Washington Politicians and Hollywood and Silicon Valley Liberals who make a lot of money don't give a shit because they have more money than they know what to do with.

Improving technology. The population density in Africa is 42 per Km2, while in China it's 146. The reason for famine in Africa is not lack of space, it's lack of efficiency. And that IS something we can stretch infinitely.

It does not assume infinite resources. It assumes infinite human capacity for improvement. When resources become rare, they become expensive and we find a substitute for it. Or a smarter way to spend the resources. Or a way to fabricate the resources using other stuff.

We adapt. It's always been like this.

>massacre people at the border?

don't have to massacre that many before they stop coming

says the moron so thinks ppm is a quantity not a proportion

again conservatives have no concept of carrying capacity.

>It does not assume infinite resources. It assumes infinite human capacity for improvement. When resources become rare, they become expensive and we find a substitute for it. Or a smarter way to spend the resources. Or a way to fabricate the resources using other stuff.
>We adapt. It's always been like this.

It all falls apart with one simple question: "What happens when the resource runs out and there isn't anything to replace it with?"

Human resourcefulness is not infinite either, it has its limits

What is space for $200.

ooops

if we are more organised we could feed everyone. the is simply not enough energy coming from the sun to grow enough food and heat and everything to support more then 9-13 billion people. like trying to drive a car with an empty tank

Global warming is not bullshit. But I have recently been redpilled and have discovered it wont be as bad as I feared.

Venus was fucked by its greenhouse gasses. It may have had water, but now it's the hottest planet in the solar system. But Earth cannot have the same runaway greenhouse gas effect that Venus had.

Climate scientist John Houghton has written that "[there] is no possibility of [Venus's] runaway greenhouse conditions occurring on the Earth".[14] However, climatologist James Hansen disagrees. In his Storms of My Grandchildren he says that burning coal and mining shale oil will result in runaway greenhouse on Earth.[15] A re-evaluation in 2013 of the effect of water vapor in the climate models showed that James Hansen's outcome might be possible, but requires ten times the amount of CO2 we could release from burning all the oil, coal, and natural gas in Earth's crust.

So worse thing that will happen is all of the Middle East becomes refugees.

Lmfao.

Nature isn't alive retard.

Considering we haven't sent people beyond high earth orbit since 1972 and funding for any such missions is no existent save for Elon Musks crazy idea to send people on a suicide mission to Mars, I find it doubtful we'll perfect space mining technology any time soon plus it still wouldn't solve all your problems.

Say the resource you need is drinking water safe to drink. You can't really use the water in moon craters since there is next to none of it, the vast majority of Mars water is completely basic, as in so basic it destroys DNA basic so you don't want to be drinking that stuff.

In the end we will improve our technology to kill each other much easier, as we always have in the end. You assume that there will be some fairy tale solution. There will be a solution but it will not be pleasant.

What does the concept of borders imply? But sure, not only conservatives want enforced borders.

What is in vitro meat.

Muh 100 years of data

Yes, libshits really are this retarded

efficiency is limited at 100%. if we have people using more energy then we get from the sun at 100% efficiency, than we can't have any more people then that, it's pretty basic conservation of energy

>the is simply not enough energy coming from the sun to grow enough food and heat and everything to support more then 9-13 billion people.

Nonsense, you just need to improve your efficiency.

My country is tiny, yet we are the world's #2 food exporter.
Why? - efficiency.
Imagine in a large country like Russia had our efficiency - the amount of food they would generate would be staggering, easily enough to feed the world several times over.

see
there is absolutely a cap and population, and its 17000 terawatts*. 7 divided by how much energy a person needs to live running at 100% efficiency

should be good much power people need to live

>1 post by this ID
>people too busy taking the bait to notice it's a shitpost

Good goys. The programming is working flawlessly.

1 degree over 100+ years

I wonder if they have solar energy output charts that go this far back

As much as they are chemtrailing it's bound to effect the pressure systems and climate. They are causing weird weather so they can propose the solution which is more taxes and control.

Thank you for demonstrating my point.

Carrying Capacity refers to the maximum population you can have in a given space with the resources available to that population. It has nothing to do with borders unless say you were calculating the maximum carrying capacity of the US, but we were talking globally here.

Humanity would experience a great deal of problems supporting a world population of 9-11 billion as with that many we probably would have surpassed the carrying capacity of the planet quite a bit in terms of food and water.

Again look at the western United States and how many billions of gallons of water need to be diverted to irrigate crops or give citizens something to drink. They are having problems keeping that going now especially during arid seasons where they are forced to bans on water wastage in pools or sprinklers. Now add a few more million people to that area, those problems would become critical.

Listen to some Randall Carlson. He's got a YouTube channel and explains shit pretty well on joe rogans podcast.

...

The sun delivers more energy to Earth in one hour than humanity consumes over the course of a year. Having a cap in energy is a non-issue.

Does the carrying capacity stay constant throughout time? Is the carrying capacity of Earth today the same it was in 1700?

If no, then why do you believe it will remain the same in the next years?

Will you at least admit that the Netherlands, being a food exporter, gets enough sunlight to feed its own population?

Now out population density is 412.3/km2
Total land area of Earth is 148940000 km2
So that would allow 61.3 billion people.

Excluding Antarctica and other extreme regions, you can still support tens of billions easily.

The incalculable amount of variables which factor into climate are impossible for us to comprehend much less measure, disseminate and discern each influence with every other corresponding variable affected. It is closer to chaos than picking out a handful of environmental flags and stating such a blanket explanation as fact.

Even the simplest of processes become near chaotic when examined in ever increasingly smaller scale much less planetary. Improvements in data collection with disregard to localized environmental and topographic variables (changed or underreported), coupled with the sheer amount of data collected for comparison antiquates previous data in scope and methodology.

Climatology is political party, which explains the wildly unreasonable reaction to qualified dissension in peer review, refusal of data sharing and dismissal of the need for reproduction when errors and falsifications are present. If it had remained in the scientific realm, it would still be called Meteorology. That every climatologist concurs, what they were taught and are now teaching is fact, means nothing. Experimenter bias can be attributed to much more than a salary in the prestige of fronting humanity saving research in our dire final hour, receiving awards and accolades and earning a prominent place in the regulatory behemoth established to counter the contrived results before they show no fruition. It might just focus data gathering at predetermined locations of concentrated production of the conformational data required.

The embedded politics are on display when all importance is placed on halting progress and limiting freedoms instead of countering the perceived effects through their own means of collection, disposal, or production of whatever they imagine will balance things out.

If man's influence on climate change was correctly represented as a hypothesis, it would not currently be the basis for the regulatory systems being devised, causing apoplectic opposition to the devastating economic ramifications and repression of civil liberties. Then research with the removal of politics being of foremost prominence in the exclusion of experimental bias would ensure the integrity of the studies and true consensus can be found.

Leaves do though.

>using 1880 to 2020 as a reference.
see pic related.
We are below the Roman Warming.
And civilization always advances during a warming, and crashes during a cooling like the Maunder or Dalton Minimum's.
Beware, the is a Solar Minimum incoming.
Honestly, you global warmers are going to get us all killed.