I researched global warming for an idiotic environmental elective class I took years back (university level)

I researched global warming for an idiotic environmental elective class I took years back (university level).

In my thesis, I argued that there is no proof that global warming exists as alleged by the prominent voices in the media. I further argued that there are heating and cooling trends. 1934 data was erroneously or intentionally used to fudge data for 1998. The alleged hottest year. I also argued that they were falsifying data to fit the narrative of global warming. My conclusion was that the narrative was an attempt to overtake the economy with socialism, the Paris accords are just a useless expenditure of money and have no impact on the environment, the neural network of intelligence would solve issues relating to pollution (other events) and that propagating EME skillfully by heating up the ionesphere in key locations would combat any worthwhile future worries. Finally, I said discovering a new energy source (creative) and combating poverty would help the environment.

I was shunned, ridiculed and got D- in that class.

Discuss the false narrative of global warming.

Other urls found in this thread:

lewrockwell.com/2015/03/walter-e-williams/global-warming-lies/
youtube.com/watch?v=D-m09lKtYT4
archive.is/dBehg
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogdanov_affair
myredditnudes.com/
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

All you got to do is look who's pushing it, and what they do.

Al Gore, flies around preaching about global warming, in his private jet. The irony.

If global warming doesn't exist then why is it hotter in July

...

If I'm not mistaken, global warming is a stone-throw away from photosynthesis, which is not a theory, or even remotely difficult to comprehend.

Which do you think is more likely:

All climate scientists being bought out to push a hoax and all the countries in the world falling for it

or

Global warming exists

>hey the global warming can possibly be fake
>let's start heavy polluting again until it will be a real thing and not reversible

In the mediaeval age, England was so hot that there were some fifty vineyards in the south of England.

In the Victorian age, it was so cold that people used to go ice skating on the River Thames.

The temperature today does not come close to either of these two extremes, and, if CO2 emissions were responsible for global warming, one would expect the mediaeval period to be the cold one, and the Victorian one, the hot one; whereas the truth is directly the opposite of this.

Donald Trump does not care about science people.

"Climate change predictions have been wrong for decades. Let’s look at some. At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1969, environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind.” C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said, “The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed.” In 1968, Professor Paul Ehrlich predicted that there would be a major food shortage in the U.S. and that “in the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people (would) starve to death.” Ehrlich forecasted that 65 million Americans would die of starvation between 1980 and 1989 and that by 1999, the U.S. population would have declined to 22.6 million. Ehrlich’s predictions about England were gloomier. He said, “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.

In 1970, Harvard University biologist George Wald predicted, “Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” Sen. Gaylord Nelson, in Look magazine in April 1970, said that by 1995, “somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals (would) be extinct.”

lewrockwell.com/2015/03/walter-e-williams/global-warming-lies/

or

uneducated morons on the internet being wrong*

Fixed that post.

Facts are facts

The "99% of scientists" statistic is completely fabricated. They bring it up at the very start of the excellent film "The Great Global Warming Swindle": youtube.com/watch?v=D-m09lKtYT4

oh god please not that movie

Why don't my prayers just fix global warming?

also WTF are you really trying to discuss anything that requires scientifical analysis to be cleared with Sup Forums edgelords?
KYS

Kindly provide me with a global list of names, of the alleged 97% of scientists who found consensus on the topic.

Just so you know, heating trends exist but the global warming theorem touted by the Left is junk science.

I am arguing the apocalyptic scenarios are just fearmongering tactics by the Left/Green parties to set up a global socialist economy. The money the US invested in the Paris was a complete waste.

>30 mins of google research means im smarter than the scientific consensus on climate change!
>actually submitting it and expecting an A
>being this retarded
the only uni you qualify for is Trump Uni

Scientific concensus. Lol dumb fuck

By all you mean 75

...

>77 climate scientists
>75 climate scientists answering Yes

what's that in percent?

hahahaha you have no place in the field of science, fucking retard
Literally conspiracy fed dumbfuck going on thinking he has the brainpower to be unbiased and "debunk" global warming
You are deluded and you deserve that D, fag

Truth is, if you made your thesis about the questions and many paradoxes regarding global warming and not about how you're right and everyone else is wrong because you read something online, you'd have passed easily

I hope you're trolling cunt

Here's why the Paris accord is total bullshit

Consensus isn't science you retarded faggot

There were 10,000 plus scientists polled. 77 out of 10,000

Now you know it's a religion, and that they consider you an heretic.

Its funny the few people I know that shill for global warming made fun of some old Republican for saying it still snowed and then turned around and said the proof is that it was a hot winter for a few weeks.

It's a stone's throw away from phrenology.

Scientists shilling for global climate change bux is the obvious and simplest answer.

Uh oh. Triggered Liberal French Fag. The religion of global warming where belief trumps empirical data.

You dumb fuck.

and only 77 of those were actual experts
what expertise would a structural geologist, mineralogist or groundwater hydrologist have on the climate any more than your barber does?

You're exactly right. We need to notate and keep track of all the common arguments against it. My bet is something that is feelings based will attempt to be used against you by people that just listen to others.

Scientific consensus is a cursed term, anti-science. It establishes scientists as a priest class and stifles the main driver of scientific progress, skepticism. Appeals to authority have no place in science.

There are no expert climatologists. None.

>act like an edgy retard
>get a d-

aahahah get fucked you edgelord

Proud heretic.

I guess all those climatology papers just materialize out of thin air then

You are a joke
And you're delusional, you got a D because you're shit, not because there's a global warming conspiracy
Whatever you're trying to prove or disprove, the scientific method is what it is, ignoring huge chunks of it to fit your dreamland view is bullshit

I don't know, you tell me. The vast vast majority of all psychologists and biologists claim there is no fundamental difference between men and women. And yet, they are blatantly wrong and refuse to admit it.
archive.is/dBehg
Pic and essay related. And I can come up with even dumber experiments. I can also prove the fundamental difference between human races if you want.

There is no place for scientific concensus. It is either you have proof or you don't.

Global warming activists and their claims are baseless.

Explain the huge chunks hes ignoring or the proof you're right. Or do you just repeat what you've heard and want that sweet US gibs?

Spoken like a true nonbiologist. Photosynthesis is incredibly complicated and we don't really understand how the electrons are transported at the speeds they are through the pathway to excite the dyes. We have theories, but because we can't effectively track all of the moving parts it is hard to nail down the exact mechanism.

What it is, is that carbon-dioxide (co2) is a so-called 'greenhouse gas'. It holds heat. You can demonstrate this under lab conditions. It's irrefutable. So, it makes sense that, if we continually pump ever increasing amounts of co2 into the atmosphere, the atmosphere is gonna hold ever increasing amounts of heat. This is what is meant by the term 'global warming'.

All you got to do is look who's against it, and what they do.

Well, it is not that simple. So it gets a bit more warm. Now there starts to grow plants in Siberia, which absorbs co2, causing it to cool down a bit more. It's incredibly complicated.

I go by empirical data. In the last 100 years, the early 30's were hotter than it was today. Then it was during the Roman era. The thing is, because you're a mindless French croissant eating faggot who elected Macron, you don't realize the simplest of things:

Check out image

>The earth is an extremely simple closed system and no organisms utilize co2 and I can prove that the heat retention of co2 means the earth will be destroyed

However, it is irrefutable that increasing amounts of atmospheric co2 causes warming.

>the early 30's were hotter than it was today
what the hell are you talking about?

1/3 of carbon emissions comes from growing crops.

Should we starve to death?

Genius

Data was fudged.

It actually doesn't necessarily so you should maybe think a bit harder. In theory in your simple minded closed basic system, yes. It doesn't work like that though and i thought you types were supposed to be all about science.

Who gains from pushing a false climate change narrative?

name 5 movies where this happens

>LOL you have no evidence
>LOL this is false evidence
>lalalalalaalala cant hear you lalalaal the joos lalaaal

top kek

No. It is irrefutable that doing it in a lab does it. I just explained with a simple example. Yes sure, at first it might get a bit more warm, but you can't predict the long term effects. The fact is, both the polars can melt and nothing serious will happen. The co2 can rise and rise, and there will still be a rich plant and animal life on earth. The co2 has been way higher in the past, and life did just fine.
If the co2 causes a slight increase in tempature, it means that areas that were desolate because full of plants. It means places that used to have x amounts of plants will have x+y amounts of plants. This can in turn cause the tempature to drop. So in what timeline are we talking when you say it is irrefutable?

that's very convenient for you
you don't have to think about your position at all. All you have to do is sit in your arm chair and dismiss everything that contradicts you with reference to an ever expanding conspiracy of scientists

you can call that what you want, but it sure is neither science nor rational discourse

Globalists who want to set a socialist economy. Basically

As opposed to gas and oil companies who want a monopoly?

What's the difference?

I can't argue with Germans or respect them. You went from a proud nation to a cuckold-like state where bulldog dyke Merkel sucks on Erdogan cock and muslims rape your young women.

Then you have the gall to argue about rationality.

You aren't making any sense.

If I were really concerned about something I wouldn't indulge in the very things that I believed to be the cause..

Socialism doesn't work whereas monopolies are for profit.

Socialism ties into Communism. Communism lead to the biggest catastrophes of our age.

As Scott Adams says, climate models are just as accurate as economic models.

As everyone that has dealt with money knows, economic predictions are always bullshit. And yet people make a lot of money trying to predict the markets, because we are very vulnerable to them.

No climate scientist would admit that the models are all wrong.
Not because of a global conspiracy, but because they would be out of a job.

It would be like a pastor claiming "God isn't real and the bible is nonsense full of contradictions, but please keep donating to the church".

normally, controlled experiments don't exist in nature but here history was kind enough to set one up for us:
55 million years ago, an amount of carbon roughly equivalent to all the world's oil reserves gets injected into the atmosphere during the course of a few thousand years.

In response, temperatures rise by ~5°C, ocean sediments turn black due to ocean acidification, there is evidence for massively increased precipitation (and thus increased continental output of erosion products), mass extinction of forams, local extinction and turnover of plant genera, sharply increased and diversified insect herbivory damage on plants and terrestrial ecosystems getting kicked around with continent-scale migration of animals

Oy vey!! The carbon!!
Instead of planting trees and protecting wild places, just shut down your entire manufacturing sector and outsource it to China (who totally doesn't pollute!!) Import millions of third worlders into your countries so they can destroy your natural places and breed like rats (because "racial justice" is a form of environmentalism, goy.) Make unilateral concessions to the advantage of third world shitholes filled with military ambition! It's the Kosher thing to do. Remember - it's not real environmentalism unless it negatively impacts the white working class.

I honestly didn't expect anything more of a response from you

Sure thing leaf. Here's the deal: we are in a general warming trend due to Milkanovich cycles. This is natural. However there are smaller cycles within the larger one, due to small variances in how much solar energy earth receives. At this point the earth should be cooling because solar output is decreasing slightly. However, temperature is actually increasing, despite what the microcycles say should happen. This coincides with an increase in global co2 due to human emissions.

HOWEVER what matters more IMO are things like deforestation and ocean acidification, both which play a part in global warming. Ocean acidification is destroying biodiversity and damaging fishing economies around the world. Deforestation is causing less co2 to be absorbed and creating a host of local problems for ecosystems and human economies.

Honestly, it's a sad truth Sup Forums is mostly suburban teenagers who don't care about things like nature or the environment. If you want to live a sterile, urban existence that's fine, but there are those of us who value or nation's forests and land and want to protect it for generations to come.

It's almost like you guys have never been hunting or camping and can't appreciate the beauty of nature, and for that I pity you

Honestly it would have been nice if you went to class with a gun and murdered your professor and then raped her dead body. Then took a shit in her dead mouth

And noone serious talks about global warming as in "yes yes it will get 50 degrees in the antarctic lol"...The whole thing is called "climate change" because we cant really tell what is gonna happen if e.g. the gulf stream stops or the gas ice on the ocean ground starts melting. Why are you fuckers always puling the "look outside, its snowing" bullshit to "refute" climate change

Absolutely correct

Local weather predictions are more or less reliable up to 9 days in advance only (Source: Nate Silver, The Signal and the Noise).

So why should macro model forecasting climate in 2030 or 2100 be given any credibility?

So why didn't that blow up the earth like global warmingists complain

What does carbon have to do with carbondioxid? I'm no expert, so explain that please. Also, are we talking about the comet that hid the earth and killed the dinosaurs?

I didn't say anything about plants. I simply stated the fact pumping co2 into the atmosphere causes it to warm.

>Global Average Temperature

does this include ocean surface temperatures?

is this "adjusted" for rural ambient temperatures?

Go back to being a dumb muslim apologist when they rape your women, environmental fags that believe anything that repulsive incompetent lesbian troglodyte merkel says and best of all, being so PC about migrants.

If you don't have common sense in any of this, how can you be expected to have some with the topic of alleged global warming?

>I simply stated the fact pumping co2 into the atmosphere causes it to warm.
IN WHAT TIMELINE FUCKFACE?

Which is what? I mean I dont like communism but what is by your standard the biggest catastrophe of out age?

Besides, one thing that puzzles me is how we assume that White people (who wouldn't be affected at all if the sea level rose a bit) should sacrifice their living standards and jobs so that some shit-ridden islands full of poo-in-the-loos don't disappear? Temperatures were hotter in the Medieval Warm Period, yet nobody at the time mentioned "the climate" as a big concern.

I am aware of some of he problems but the solutions put forth to us are stated here do you not see that? You can't make fun of edgy teenagers living in cities while completely ignoring the non solution that is essentially wealth redistribution and shipping jobs to countries that pollute even more.

Are you talking about ones that are credible or ones that aren't?
It doesn't really matter.
Even if we ignore the rising atmosphereic and ocean temperatures, increasing ocean acidity, the changes in maps worldwide over the last couple of years regarding the poles, the fact that the governments can't afford to wast their time and money on a conspearisy this massive without fucking up eventualy in such a way that Sup Forums would end up being more fittingly home to those who support climate change than deny it, and the lack of any solids to make up a North Pole land mass.

Ignoring all of this, we cannot deny that the calculations and theory's hold ground.
None but the arrogant can deny that in principle, this is 100% possible even if limited to only what is present on our planet.
We even have physical proof that the consept of extreme climate change is fully possible; Venus Likely lacked an atmospheric balancer, and the volcanic activity of the planet did the rest.

I say it would be wise to address these things before they take hold, rather than after.

"carbon" is just short for carbon-based GHGs, (ostensibly CO2 and CH4).

>are we talking about the comet that hid the earth and killed the dinosaurs?
no, that happened 65 million years ago. What I'm talking about is a prominent event 55 million years ago. It's called the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) if you want to look it up.

>look who's against it
trump
>and what they do.
first president with no lobbyists in the cabinet

It sounds like you made your conclusion before you even started researching. I can bet that all you did was look at climate data (or most likely conservative blog posts butchering the interpretation of said data) and then just said it was all made up, because muh socialism.

Wow, you're a real live fucking retard larper

>Are you talking about ones that are credible or ones that aren't?
We are talking about the credible ones, the vast vast vast majority that teaches in public schools, highschools and universities that there is no difference.>It doesn't really matter
It matters when people keep refering to authorities in this case. So fuck of.

>I can bet that all you did
but you cant apply this process to someone who wont get any grant money if they dont claim warming

Idiots.

>does this include ocean surface temperatures?
yes, it's the globally averaged annual temperature anomaly over land and ocean

>is this "adjusted" for rural ambient temperatures?
I'm afraid I don't know what you mean with that

lol...
We cant predict where an electron will go...why does my oven even work

they're all clearly paid off

>Peer reviewed

Do you still believe in Santa?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogdanov_affair

No...nobody did mention it...keep living in your little dream wonderland and ignore all the sources stating how people had fucking harsh winters and shit...

>What does carbon have to do with carbondioxid?

>Carbon
>Dioxide

Seriously crazy thing we all take for granted. How the fuck did plants end up with the ability to use sunlight to get energy out of raw materials? Blows my mind when I think about it.

When carbon dioxide dissolves in water, it makes that water acidic. And as CO2levels rise in the atmosphere they rise in the oceans too. This could be a problem for creatures like oysters that have shells made of calcium carbonate, a chemical which tends to dissolve in acid.

Acidification of oceans on marine life aftereffects are as of yet unknown.

keked.

You assume my professor was worth the effort. They weren't.

I did however mock their defend the whales campaign he was part of and laughed at him more than once when it was obvious my grades would be impacted by going against his religious belief of global warming.